New Faculty Orientation for Nurse Educators: Offerings and Needs

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
pp. 273-276
Author(s):  
Catherine Wilson Cox ◽  
Elizabeth T. Jordan ◽  
Theresa M. Valiga ◽  
Qiuping Zhou
2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e395-e404
Author(s):  
John J. Cuaron ◽  
Erin F. Gillespie ◽  
Daniel R. Gomez ◽  
Atif J. Khan ◽  
Borys Mychalczak ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: To evaluate physician-reported assessments of an established faculty orientation program for new radiation oncology physicians at a large academic center and to prospectively analyze the effects of an onboarding improvement program based on those assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey was designed and distributed to physicians new to the department who received onboarding orientation between 2013 and 2017. Survey questions addressed the comprehensiveness, effectiveness, and utility of various orientation activities. On the basis of the survey results, an improved onboarding program was designed and implemented for nine new faculty members between May 2018 and November 2018. A post-intervention survey querying topics similar to those in the pre-intervention survey was distributed to the new faculty members. Descriptive statistics were generated to compare the pre-intervention and post-intervention groups. RESULTS: The overall rate of survey completion was 85% (17 of 20). The intervention program markedly improved physician assessment of comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the onboarding process. Physicians strongly and consistently identified mentor shadowing, on-the-job training, and other faculty mentorship activities as the most important components of an effective onboarding experience. CONCLUSION: An enhanced, tailored, person-oriented, formal onboarding improvement program significantly increased physician assessment scores of comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the faculty onboarding process. This model can serve as a framework for increasing physician preparedness, encouraging early physician mentorship, and ensuring a universal standard of quality across large practices.


Author(s):  
T. Michael Gallagher ◽  
Mei-Yan Lu ◽  
J. Francisco Hidalgo

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa McDowell ◽  
Laurie Bedford ◽  
Lyda DiTommaso Downs

<p>Coaching in higher education is a relatively new field; although, it has been taking place in educational institutions for some time, even if it was not labeled as such. This paper describes the faculty development filosophies of a US-based higher education institution with a strong culture of supporting faculty and promoting social change. A coaching model was implemented as a means for professional development. It was designed to be facilitated through a peer relationship and it offers problem-focused, contextualized opportunities for faculty to collaborate, thus making the experience and outcome more meaningful. The coaching model is individualized, confidential, non-evaluative, and incorporates three pathways to support the professional development needs of faculty: self-assigned, a request from college leadership as a means to support faculty in an identified area of need, or the New Faculty Orientation (NFO) instructor may recommend a faculty member for coaching as a way to further engage in topics not discussed in-depth in NFO.</p>


2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 228-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Nelson ◽  
Musheera Anis-Abdellatif ◽  
June Larson ◽  
Cindy Mulder ◽  
Becky Wolff

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
William W. Predebon ◽  
Peck Cho ◽  
Diana George ◽  
Linda M. Ott ◽  
Philip Sweany

Author(s):  
Amy Aldridge Sanford ◽  
Kellie W. Smith

Professional development in U.S. higher education was operationalized with sabbatical leaves for 150 years but has rapidly evolved through five ages since then – from conference attendance during the Age of the Scholar (1950s-60s) to the centrality of centers of teaching and learning in today's Age of the Networker (2000s-2010s). It continues to be influenced by everchanging professoriate and student populations, beginning with the introduction of the GI Bill and in the mid-20th century to the modern dependence of contingent faculty. Over the years, tenure lines have decreased, more students work full time, lawmakers and other stakeholders are more critical of colleges and universities, and students are less prepared academically but are more savvy with social justice. Faculty developers must carefully consider all of these matters when planning for the old standbys (e.g., new faculty orientation, navigating course management systems) and looking to what is needed for the future (e.g., accessible design, self-care, legislative mandates).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document