Reexamination of traditional emphases in faculty development

Clinically based direct interventions with individual colleagues were used to demonstrate ways of surmounting four traditional constraints in faculty development research: First, the usual problem of engaging the least needy faculty was countered by enlisting colleagues who evidenced distress, in classroom and writing performances, as research subjects. Second, faculty who would have refused feedback based on student ratings were trained to be reliable self-evaluators on seven specific teaching skills. Third, participants demonstrated an ability to improve their teaching skills while making measureable progress as regimented and productive writers. Fourth, a crossover design of involvement in teaching and writing programs, combined with subjects' self-ratings of related scholarly activities, suggests that teaching and scholarly productivity can be mutually facilitative.