How Challenged and Overwhelmed Faculty Become Supported and Empowered in Curriculum Development, Evaluation and Revision

Purpose:

To discover the perceptions of faculty related to their preparedness and confidence in developing, evaluating, and revising nursing curriculum and to use faculty’s constructions to develop a theory (challenged and overwhelmed) and model of understanding (Supported and Empowered)  to support faculty’s growth and competence in curriculum development, evaluation and revision

Methods: Constructivist Grounded Theory explored and compared the perceptions and processes of nursing faculty regarding their preparedness and confidence in developing, evaluating, and revising curriculum and the processes used for preparation. The Excellence in Nursing Education Model (NLN, 2006) assisted in providing a framework to characterize well-prepared faculty that included competence in curriculum design, implementation and evaluation. Using the model did not disrupt theoretical sensitivity, as it was used to clarify the constituents of the excellent educator, and the need for expertise in curriculum evaluation, revision and development; hence, the NLN Excellence in Nursing Education Model did not cloud the emerging concepts, and their relationships, but instead facilitated emergence by clarifying what characteristics of excellence were lacking.  

Results:

Experiences with curriculum and outcome development were categorized, compared, and interpreted. Data analysis was done using the technique developed by Charmaz (2014) using phase one, and phase two coding, focused coding, and theoretical coding.  Initially, repeated review of the recorded semi-structured interviews was needed. Participants were provided their transcribed data to verify accurate transcription occurred. A word frequency analysis provided a broad picture of the data. Then in focused coding the researcher choose the most significant codes to characterize the participant’s voice.  Theoretical coding was then needed to conceptualize how codes related to one another, and to tell a coherent analytic story by theorizing relationships between codes, postulating connections between categories formed from the focused coding as a hypothesis to be integrated into theory.

Original constructivist grounded theory research conducted on 15 faculty members in Vermont from four colleges resulted in seven themes. The first theme was low confidence. The second was poor support and communication. The third theme was knowledge related to curriculum alignment and outcomes, or the “big picture.”  The fourth theme was the need for mentorship. The fifth theme was faculty development and education. The sixth was overloaded and inadequate time. The last was suggested strategies shared by educators for other educators and administrators.

These themes were used to develop a middle range descriptive theory Challenged and Overwhelmed: A Theory of Understanding How Faculty Challenges Lead to Becoming Overwhelmed with Curriculum Development, Evaluation and Revision.  The concepts: lack of confidence, overload and inadequate time, lack of knowledge and development, poor support and communication, and the need for mentorship experienced by the educator who becomes challenged and overwhelmed are examined and understanding is clarified regarding what educators are facing in academia and the resulting sense of an onslaught of challenges that can become overwhelming. 

It is apparent that each of these five areas where critical needs are lacking, separately are difficult and can cause distress, but the combination of all five factors leads to an educator becoming more likely to be overwhelmed by the multitude of challenges. Together the understanding gained from faculty descriptors and the recommended strategies of faculty were used to develop a model of understanding: Supported and Empowered: A Model of Understanding to Support Faculty’s Growth and Competence in Curriculum Development, Evaluation and Revision. The model depicts how the five strategy areas: education, mentoring, practice, time, and collaboration and feedback act to fortify the challenges affecting the educator.  The experienced educators shared strategies that enabled them to learn their role, and provided tips for other educators and nurse leaders. Overload and inadequate time, low confidence, the need for mentoring, and lack of knowledge related to curriculum, and poor support and communication can become collaborative support and communication, knowledge related to curriculum, paired mentoring, designated time, and increasing confidence when recommended strategies are applied.

United States national nursing accreditation organizations mandate that nurse faculty must, in addition to teaching and scholarship duties, contribute to, develop, and evaluate nursing curriculum (ACEN, 2015; CCNE 2013); however, faculty may be unprepared to develop or evaluate curriculum, as this is not a part of usual nurse clinical practice (Anderson, 2009).  Many faculty are recruited from higher paying hospital roles, where they may have excellent clinical skills, but little or no experience developing nurse curriculum or new courses.  Education regarding curriculum received by nurse faculty is inconsistent. Guttman, Parietti, Reineke, and Mahoney (2011) recognized the need to enhance traditional Masters curriculum that lacked preparation in curriculum development, evaluation and learning outcomes measurement, with enhanced coursework that included these features to better prepare faculty for education roles. The DNP focuses on clinical practice, rather than curriculum development (UNMC, 2013).

Faculty are often hired for clinical expertise, rather than their educational preparation (Anderson, 2009; Hewitt, & Lewallen, 2010).  Gilbert and Womack (2012) confirm that most faculty entering academia were clinical practice experts, but only novices at education.  It is difficult to learn the role of curriculum evaluator without guidance, and new instructors often must learn the new skill in addition to new teaching roles, scholarship and other college service obligations.  This can lead to stress (Weidman, 2013). Faculty may be unprepared to evaluate, develop or revise curriculum, as this is not usual nurse clinical practice, and educational preparation is inconsistent.

Conclusion: The findings of the study have important implications for nurse education, administrators, and educators. It is concerning that experienced faculty are struggling and lack confidence in an area that is critically important for being an excellent educator and academic leader. The majority of educators were unaware that developing, evaluating, or revising curriculum would be part of their role when hired. Nearly seventy-five percent of faculty did not believe they saw the big picture or understood how their course fit with the curriculum when they first developed courses, and most felt inadequately prepared.  Strategies to support educators in curriculum development, evaluation, and revision, a theory, and a model of understanding to support faculty’s growth and competence in curriculum development, evaluation and revision will help fashion excellent academic educators and academic leaders.