Salt Lake City, Utah
June 20, 2004
June 20, 2004
June 23, 2004
9.1014.1 - 9.1014.7
Professional Development for ET Faculty: Using Consulting as Scholarship
Jerry W. Samples University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
This paper discusses the relationship between consulting and professional development, and the need to maximize the effect of consulting as it relates to the classroom environment, student learning, and the professional development of faculty. Examples of successful and unsuccessful consulting/professional development situations will be presented.
The Engineering Technology Faculty at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown received two simultaneous directives: first, each faculty member must have a professional development record to be eligible for promotion and/or receive tenure; and second, consulting is not to be considered as professional development1. Since Pennsylvania does not have a professional development requirement for registered professional engineers, consulting was the entrée to academic professional development. For many faculty, the removal of consulting as a professional development opportunity was a direct blow to their professional development program. To many, it was a concern, in that currency in the technical areas can only be achieved through either cutting edge research or consulting in technically advanced industries. Cutting edge research is not possible at undergraduate teaching schools where the teaching load limits the time available to complete complex research, and the lack graduate students places the research load on the faculty. The natural consequence of the problem was to determine what others were doing to foster professional development at other institutions.
The question of professional development for Engineering Technology Faculty was addressed in some depth by Brizendine and Brizendine3, and Samples, et al4. Both reported that the answer was plainly described by Boyer5 in his book, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate. Specifically, faculty should analyze their current professional development interests and determine which of the four scholarship categories proposed by Dr. Boyer provided the best fit. This would allow individual faculty to mold their professional development agenda in such a manner that scholarship and practice would be unified. Lozano-Nieto6 presented a similar but different set of definitions of scholarship directed specifically at engineering technology faculty. In each case, the papers fell short of answering the salient question, What about consulting?
Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition Copyright 2004, American Society for Engineering Education
Samples, J. (2004, June), Professional Development For Et Faculty: Using Consulting As Scholarship Paper presented at 2004 Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah. https://peer.asee.org/13038
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2004 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015