Critical element | Indicators of success | Indicators of challenge |
---|---|---|
Activities | ||
Define scope of faculty roles | ● Responsibilities of faculty positions were commensurate with FTE allotted to each position | ● Responsibilities of new positions were not feasible within the allotted FTEs |
● Candidates were selected based on clinical expertise and previous teaching experience | ● New faculty had little or no prior clinical or didactic teaching experience | |
● New hires were willingly assigned to teach in some didactic courses, in addition to clinical instruction, in some cases, despite lack of previous experience | ● No clear reporting structure delineated for VANA faculty | |
● VANA faculty were generally well known to VA nursing staff before VANA launch | ||
● Protected time from teaching was offered to new hires to engage in other activities (e.g., faculty meetings, committee work) | ||
Initiate training for faculty role/faculty development | ● Ongoing mentoring was offered to new faculty, who appreciated its benefits | ● No mentoring was offered to new faculty, particularly for those with little to no previous teaching experience |
● Learning opportunities with pedagogical focus provided that met different levels of skills and experiences of new hires | ||
● Brief or no faculty orientation was offered | ||
● [Indicator of partial success] One-time faculty orientation session provided that did or did not include content on teaching methods | ● New faculty were required to use teaching software (e.g., Blackboard) without sufficient training or support | |
● VA-based faculty were not provided teaching materials (e.g., textbooks) in a timely manner | ||
Plan to integrate faculty into partnering environment | ● Each partnering organization welcomes involvement of VANA faculty in participating in department concerns | ● VANA faculty are not considered as resources in addressing problems or developing new programs in nursing departments |
Adjust faculty workloads as needed | ● New faculty coped with teaching assignments with ease and enthusiasm | ● Clinical groups had over 10 students |
● Clinical group size (i.e., typically 8–10 students or less) allowed for adequate student interactions with faculty | ● New faculty had no access to information on teaching tips (e.g., grading care plans efficiently) that would have prevented them from feeling overwhelmed with workload | |
● Faculty were paid for all hours worked or received “comp time” for grading at home | ||
● Support was provided for faculty who needed more assistance in coping with workload during Launch Year | ● VA-based faculty were re-assigned to old clinical, administrative, or educational responsibilities in VA when classes were not in session | |
● During breaks, VA-based faculty worked on ancillary programs such as curriculum development, both at the VA and nursing school | ● VA-based faculty, who held full-time VA positions, had no vacation breaks at the end of terms as did the school-based faculty | |
Integrate faculty into partnering environment | ● VANA faculty group was very cohesive and supportive of each other, regardless of where they were based (i.e., VA or school) | ● Among partnership members, there existed a lack of awareness of each other’s responsibilities and contributions |
● VA-based faculty become involved in nursing school committees where their clinical expertise is welcomed (e.g., in curriculum development) | ● Clinical Expertise of VA-based faculty is not recognized or utilized by the members of the partnering institution | |
● Nursing school-based faculty become involved in VA committees, particularly EBP | ● Faculty felt that they had two masters (i.e., were beholden to the demands of both the nursing school and the VAMC) | |
● VA-based faculty were engaged in university activities depending on interests and role requirements | ||
● VA-based faculty perceived that their contributions were highly valued by nursing school colleagues | ● Faculty felt like ‘outsiders’ when in partnering institution | |
● VANA faculty had a high sense of collegiality with VA and nursing school colleagues | ||
Give APRN faculty protected time for patient care | ● Partnership leaders were aware of the value of having VA APRNs as clinical faculty | ● APRN faculty worked as care providers outside of full time position, often outside the VA, to maintain licensure or certification |
● Release time provided for APRN faculty to provide direct care to meet licensure or certification requirements | ||
Outputs | ||
Faculty hiring quota met by end of Launch Year | ● Hiring quotas for VANA faculty positions met by at least the end of the first academic year, if not before | ● Full hiring quota was not met by end of the first year, often due to scarcity of qualified (e.g., masters-prepared) applicants in local area |
● [Partial success] Faculty hiring quotas were met but new hires retained some or all of old responsibilities related to their previous positions | ||
● Faculty assignments were made according to experience, expertise, interests, and programmatic needs | ||
Faculty satisfied with new roles | ● Minimal turnover of faculty | ● Some faculty left (or were asked to leave) positions by end of first year |
● If there was turnover in faculty, it was usually associated with personal circumstances | ||
● High levels of faculty satisfaction were measured in VNEP surveys (e.g., with mentorship, leadership support, availability of teaching resources) | ● Turnover often due to discontent resulting from unrealistic expectations about the role and its associated workload | |
● High levels of faculty dissatisfaction measured in VNEP surveys |