Therefore, a suitable time frame for curriculum development would be three months across the slowest enrollment quarter for Meadowvale. Presuming this would be concurrent with the summer months, the fall semester thereafter would correspond with a pilot period. Refinement and full implementation would following the spring semester.
5.
Evaluation of acceptance and readiness should come in the form of close consultation. Because the positive working relationship between Dr. Lopez and the faculty will be so critical in effecting positive change, assessment should also be an open process of ongoing consultancy. Bi-weekly conferences with faculty can help to identify flaws or opportunities in curriculum going forward.
Case #2:
1.
As it is presented in the case history, the faculty development system at Rosemount is highly flawed. The structure is currently a loose and inconsistent array of workshops that faculty are expected to attend. The greatest strength of the current system is its general flexibility. Given the demands of the occupation, this flexibility may be valued by some members of faculty. That said, the weaknesses in the system at Rosemount are far more pressing. The case history points to several senior leaders at the institution who have been generally resistant to effective faculty development under the assertion that the current approach is acceptable.
In spite of the obstacle created by a few decidedly out-of-touch leaders, there is a clear need for any faculty to remain effective by staying abreast of changes in the broader industry. As the text by Iwasiw et al. notes, "continuing shifts in health and healthcare systems, technologies, population profiles, expectations, and demands have led to the realization that the education of nurses, and there- fore, nursing curricula, must be subjected to evaluation, revision, and maybe even dramatic change. The magnitude, intensity, and pace of societal and healthcare dynamics challenge nurse educators to develop relevant, evidence-based curricula to prepare nurses for new roles and responsibilities consistent with evolving health care and healthcare systems. A curriculum 'not only reflects but is a product of its time'" (Iwasiw et al., p. 17)
2.
Strategies of encouragement for participation should include professional recognition for meaningful...
Rosemount might consider developing its own internal certification program centering on participation, performance and completion in a faculty development program. This way, development activities can still remain voluntary, giving faculty members the discretion to retain flexibility or pursue professional advancement. Naturally, career opportunities and recognition will be more forthcoming for those who achieve internal certifications.
3.
The primary goal of undertaking this program would be to ensure that faculty are continually in possession of the knowledge, skills and understanding at the industry's cutting edge. Our shared knowledge of medical practices, the legal conditions surrounding them and the nursing environments in which the will actually be implemented are all constant shifting. Development activities such as participation in internal certification programs can ensure currency.
4.
Faculty members resisting change should be encouraged to take part in open discussion on what could or should be improved in an evolving curriculum development program. As Iwasiw et al. indicate, "first, challenges about the accuracy of information that illustrates the need for curriculum development, or the conclusions drawn, can be anticipated. This may reflect an honest, intellectual disagreement, a deeply held belief in the value of the current curriculum, a general response to change, or opposition to those proposing curriculum development." (Iwasiw et al., p. 23)
Open dialogue can help to determine which and to redress it through compromise. Indeed, this may be the only way to bring the objecting senior leaders into the process of change without allowing them to control its momentum.
5. At Rosemount, it would seem that a Transformative Leadership orientation is required. In particular, the need to designate implementation champions suggests that this transformative approach should lead to a distributed leadership model wherein all participating faculty are drivers of change.
Works Cited:
Iwasiw, C.; Goldenberg, D. & Andrusyszyn, M. (2009). Curriculum Development in Nursing Education. Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Keating S.B. (2011). Curriculum Development and Approval Processes in Changing Educational Environments. Curriculum Development and Evaluation in Nursing.
