Accepted Manuscript Who Will Educate Our Nurses? A Strategy to Address the Nurse Faculty Shortage in New Jersey Angela M. Gerolamo, PhD, APRN, BC Amy Overcash, MSW Jennifer McGovern, BA Grace Roemer, MS Susan Bakewell-Sachs, PhD, RN, PNP-BC PII:
S0029-6554(14)00088-8
DOI:
10.1016/j.outlook.2014.04.005
Reference:
YMNO 931
To appear in:
Nursing Outlook
Received Date: 10 November 2013 Revised Date:
21 March 2014
Accepted Date: 8 April 2014
Please cite this article as: Gerolamo AM, Overcash A, McGovern J, Roemer G, Bakewell-Sachs S, Who Will Educate Our Nurses? A Strategy to Address the Nurse Faculty Shortage in New Jersey, Nursing Outlook (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.04.005. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
Who Will Educate Our Nurses? A Strategy to Address the Nurse Faculty Shortage in New Jersey
Angela M. Gerolamo PhD, APRN, BC
RI PT
Senior Researcher Mathematica Policy Research P.O. Box 2393 Princeton, NJ 08543-2393
SC
(P) 610-316-1100
[email protected]
Amy Overcash, MSW Research Analyst
Jennifer McGovern, BA Survey Specialist
AC C
Grace Roemer, MS
EP
Mathematica Policy Research
TE D
Mathematica Policy Research
M AN U
(F) 609-799-0005
Associate Director and Senior Survey Researcher Mathematica Policy Research
Susan Bakewell-Sachs PhD, RN, PNP-BC Dean and Vice President of Nursing Affairs Oregon Health & Science University
Acknowledgement: This evaluation was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2
Abstract Background: The nurse faculty shortage hampers the capacity of the nursing workforce to
RI PT
respond to the demands of the evolving healthcare system. As a strategy to address the shortage in New Jersey, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation implemented the New Jersey Nursing Initiative Faculty Preparation Program to prepare nurses for the faculty role.
SC
Purpose: This paper highlights program implementation successes and challenges, scholar and faculty perceptions of the program, and provides recommendations for others interested in
M AN U
preparing nurse faculty.
Method: This evaluation uses data from scholar surveys and focus groups, interviews with grantees, and grantee reports.
TE D
Discussion: Findings suggest that a program that includes generous monetary support, socialization to the nurse faculty role, and formal education courses produces graduates who readily assume a faculty position and are committed to at least a part-time career in nursing
EP
education.
Conclusions: This evaluation emphasizes the need to carefully design programs that integrate
AC C
faculty preparation and advanced clinical training.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3
Background The nationwide nurse faculty shortage points to the critical need to educate and socialize
RI PT
nurses for the faculty role. This shortage has been identified as the major reason that nursing schools turn away qualified student applicants (American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2005; 2012; LaRocco, 2006; Institute of Medicine, 2011). If not addressed
immediately, the nurse faculty shortage will result in an inadequate nursing workforce which
SC
could have a devastating impact on the health care system and its consumers. Innovative and
M AN U
sustainable strategies to address the nurse faculty shortage warrant serious attention and must be a top priority on the public health agenda (Gerolamo & Roemer, 2011). As a strategy to address the nurse faculty shortage in New Jersey, in fall 2007, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) developed the New Jersey Nursing Initiative (NJNI), a multiyear, now $30 million program that includes (1) statewide strategic stakeholder
TE D
engagement, (2) support for a state Program Office at the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce Foundation, and (3) the Faculty Preparation Program (FPP).1 The focus of this paper is the FPP, which seeks to increase the number of nurse faculty in New Jersey by providing grants to nursing
EP
schools to enhance graduate curriculum, provide mentoring and acculturation activities, and
AC C
distribute scholarships and stipends to nursing students. Despite the need for such programs that prepare nurses to become nurse faculty, little is known about their implementation, outcomes, and sustainability. This study fills this gap by highlighting implementation successes and
1
A summary of each component of the NJNI has been reported elsewhere (Bakewell-Sachs, Mertz, Ladden, & Egretzky, 2011). NJNI was initially funded for $22 million.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4
challenges, scholar and faculty perceptions of the program, and provides recommendations for others interested in supporting nurse faculty preparation.
RI PT
FPP Description The overarching goal of the FPP was to address the state’s faculty shortage by developing, implementing, and evaluating an innovative model for the recruitment, training, and retention of nurse faculty. The program also sought to diversify the nurse faculty population, produce
SC
graduates who were well prepared to teach and commit to a career in nursing education, and
M AN U
foster collaboration among New Jersey nursing schools. Upon initial authorization of the NJNI, RWJF determined that $13.5 million (61 percent) of the total authorization would be used for the FPP. The FPP included the following components: •
Scholarship and stipends: scholars received full tuition, an annual $50,000 stipend, and a computer.
Curriculum enhancement: preparing new faculty to meet five areas of competency as
TE D
•
educators2 and developing a sustainability plan for integrating enhancements into the graduate curriculum.
Mentoring and acculturation: providing scholars with activities to socialize them to
EP
•
AC C
the faculty role.
2
The five education competencies are to (1) demonstrate knowledge of curriculum development; (2) develop and evaluate curriculum; (3) create a learning environment that facilitates learner self-reflection, goal setting, and socialization to the nursing profession; (4) develop creative teaching/learning strategies; and (5) use evidence-based tools and measures to evaluate the learner’s cognitive, psychomotor, and affective learning.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 5
•
Collaborative Learning Community: forum to enhance scholar and school networks and encourage a deeper commitment to the faculty role, operationalized through in-
RI PT
person workshops and web seminars. Initially, the program required the scholars to commit to teach in New Jersey for three years after graduation and if they did not satisfy this commitment, they would have to pay back the stipend. However, this obligation was lifted soon after implementation, due in part to potential
SC
income tax implications for the scholars, and replaced with a monetary incentive to teach in New
M AN U
Jersey or pursue advanced education. Grantees
Nine of New Jersey’s 16 eligible baccalaureate or higher degree schools participated in the FPP3: $6 million was awarded to two schools that offer the doctor of philosophy in nursing degree, and $7.5 million to three schools/collaboratives4 with master’s programs.5 The five
TE D
grantee sites included both public and private schools; they varied by size, region of the state, and whether they were a collaborative of multiple universities or basically single programs. Grantees were expected to recruit, select, enroll, and support full-time graduate students as
EP
RWJF nurse scholars. They also had to facilitate scholars’ progress through the curriculum and
3
AC C
provide mentoring and acculturation activities to help prepare them for nurse faculty roles.
The NJNI program office reported that 16 schools were eligible to participate at the time of the request for proposals. New Jersey currently has a total of 47 nursing schools including diploma and associate degree granting schools. 4 5
Collaboratives included up to four nursing schools.
In 2011, the two Ph.D. programs, Seton Hall and Rutgers, received additional funds to support five doctoral students at each school. The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey’s master’s program used remaining funds to support two additional master’s-level scholars.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6
Grantees had latitude in developing the education curriculum and mentoring activities and incorporating these components into their existing graduate nursing programs.
RI PT
Scholar Cohorts The FPP included 61 scholars, with three master’s cohorts and two Ph.D. cohorts. Figure 1 illustrates the timing of each cohort’s tenure in the program and the number of scholars in each
American, and 1 as Asian6.
M AN U
INSERT FIGURE 1
SC
cohort. Of the 21 Ph.D. scholars, 14 scholars self-identified as white, 6 as black or African
Data Sources
This evaluation draws from multiple data sources: (1) scholar surveys, (2) semi-structured interviews with faculty and project directors, (3) focus groups with scholars, and (4) grantee
TE D
reports. Scholar surveys were administered to each cohort of scholars upon entrance to and exit from the program. Entrance surveys gathered information about scholars’ reasons for applying to the program and their anticipated facilitators and barriers to program completion. Exit surveys
EP
assessed scholars’ satisfaction with program components, challenges encountered while in the program, and career plans upon graduation. A two-person team also conducted semi-structured,
AC C
one-hour telephone interviews each year with representative project directors and/or nurse faculty involved with each FPP grant during 2010–2012. The interviews collected information about experiences with managing the grant, implementing curriculum enhancements and mentoring activities, perceived facilitators and challenges to program implementation,
6
Demographic data were not collected from the Master’s cohorts.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 7
collaboration and communication with other FPP grantees, and plans for sustaining the program. In addition, a two-person team conducted three 45-minute focus groups; each group included a
RI PT
random sample of six to eight scholars from master’s cohort one, cohort two, or Ph.D. cohort one during the second year of their participation in the program. Focus groups gathered scholars’ perceptions of their programs’ education curricula, mentoring and acculturation activities, and the financial incentive to teach after graduation. Finally, the evaluation team reviewed reports
SC
that were completed by grantees annually and submitted to the NJNI program office beginning in
M AN U
spring 2009 through the end of the five-year grant period. These reports documented implementation of FPP components, facilitators and challenges to implementation, and shortterm scholar outcomes.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics in the form of frequencies, distributions, percentages, means, and
TE D
ranges were used to summarize data from scholar surveys and grantee reports. Qualitative data from faculty interviews, scholar focus groups, and grantee reports were reviewed, categorized, and described. After each interview or focus group, one team member finalized the notes,
EP
consulting the audio recording to verify information as needed, and a second team member
AC C
reviewed the notes. The team used content analysis to identify key themes from the interviews, focus groups, and grantee reporting templates. To ensure confirmability of the data, we used triangulation of sources and analysts. For example, we synthesized interview and focus group data, scholar surveys, and grantee reports to develop a deep and comprehensive understanding of the program. We also used multiple analysts during data collection and analyses to ensure that multiple perspectives were included in the interpretation. Confirmability of data is defined as the degree of neutrality or the extent to which findings are shaped by the respondents and not by reviewer bias or interest (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 8
Findings Program Implementation
RI PT
The pool of interested candidates exceeded the number of scholarship opportunities available. Although the grantees did not publicize or advertise the FPP beyond their respective institutions, they received a sufficient number of applications for the FPP to identify qualified scholars for the program. Some grantees even reported concern about having too few openings
SC
for scholars, given the number of applications. For example, one grantee received 30 applications
M AN U
for seven or eight awards.
Scholar recruitment activities built on the grantees’ existing resources and networks of contacts. Schools encouraged existing instructors/faculty to apply, with the understanding that they received no preference in the selection process and would have to resign their faculty positions if accepted. The two doctoral grantees recruited half their cohort 1 scholars in this way.
TE D
Similarly, one grantee asked its faculty members who coordinate each clinical track to identify students who were interested and seemed eligible, and another grantee asked faculty advisors to call students who they thought had an interest in nursing education. At least one grantee focused
EP
some recruitment on minority candidates, using an affiliated association of minority scholars to encourage students to apply. As a strategy to weed out applicants who were solely interested in
AC C
the monetary aspect of the program, one grantee required applicants to submit an essay about their desire to pursue a nurse faculty career. Implementation of curriculum enhancements drew upon schools’ existing programs and strengths. Prior to receiving the FPP grant, grantees offered a variety of graduate programs (for example, clinical versus functional tracks) and modes of delivery, these differences extended to the enhancements they made to their curricula. For example, in one multischool collaborative, each university had a clinical master’s program; however, the programs comprised different
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 9
clinical specialties, and only one school offered education courses. Among the two doctoral programs, one was fully online, which attracted students from all over the nation, and the other
RI PT
offered an in-person program that had mostly regional or local students. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the FPP grantees and the variety of curriculum enhancements they made. Grantees used various strategies to enhance curricula including modifying existing course content to include education modules, piloting new courses, using a faculty committee to analyze
SC
which nurse educator core competencies were reflected in existing courses, and hiring a
M AN U
consultant. One of the multischool collaboratives offered three online education courses to scholars through one of the schools; prior to the FPP, only one of the collaborative’s schools had offered online education. A common theme that emerged among grantees was ongoing modification of the mode, timing, and content of courses based on scholars’ feedback; for example, before the end of its first grant, the online doctoral program changed its coursework to
TE D
an in-person program because it recognized the importance of face-to-face interaction. These curricula changes highlight existing tensions about the feasibility of incorporating nursing education content into existing graduate programs. Although project directors and faculty
EP
uniformly agreed on the importance of integrating education competencies into traditional
AC C
master’s level and Ph.D. preparation, they recognized the paradigm shift required to integrate education content into clinical tracks and doctoral programs. Grantees had latitude in specifying mentoring and acculturation activities and defining the process for selecting mentors. Some sites assigned the FPP program director or another advisor paid for by the grant to meet with scholars or act as an advisor for the first semester of the FPP and then helped scholars select a mentor; others assigned master educators (faculty who had received university recognition as excellent teachers) as mentors. Master’s grantees utilized
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10
Table 1. Grantee Characteristics and Curriculum Enhancements Grantee Characteristics
Curriculum Enhancements
RI PT
Ph.D. Programs
Developed and piloted new education courses. These include Design of Curriculum and Instruction and Practicum for the Professoriate offered by the College of Nursing (CON), and Psychometric Theory offered by the Graduate School of Education (GSE). Other new courses include Advanced Qualitative Methods for Nursing Research and Advanced Quantitative Methods for Nursing Research. Offered two doctoral-level statistics courses in the CON replacing two masters level GSE courses. Required dissertation seminar which was previously optional. Offered a nonacademic credit continuing education course called Test Construction and Statistical Analysis of Test Results. Converted from an online program to an in-person program for the second cohort.
Seton Hall University Doctoral (in person) 10 scholarships awarded
Developed and piloted three new education courses: Curriculum Design and Instruction in Nursing, Measurement and Evaluation in Nursing Education, and a Practicum of the Faculty Role in Nursing Education. Completion of these three courses positions scholars in the Master’s, Ph.D. or DNP programs to take the national nurse educator exam for certification.
M AN U
SC
Rutgers University Doctoral (online) 11 scholarships awarded
Added Pharmacology for Advanced Nursing Practice, required the Advanced Clinical Nursing Practicum for all FPP scholars, and modified some existing courses to include education and learning theories and simulation.
AC C
Monmouth University Nursing Education 4 scholarships awarded
Offered one new in-person education course: Theory Development and Advanced Research. Also offered four sequential Advanced Educator Role seminars on current education issues and the faculty role. Modified some existing courses to include education and learning theories, research outcomes, principles of patient education, evaluation, and technology and simulation.
EP
Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) Collaborative Fairleigh Dickinson University Adult Nurse Practitioner 10 scholarships awarded
TE D
Masters Program Collaboratives
William Paterson University (WPU) Collaborativea William Paterson University Masters program with tracks in Advanced Clinical Practice (Adult Nurse Practitioner), Nursing Education, and Nurse Administration 3 scholarships awarded
Each partner school offered student teaching experiences in classroom and clinical settings; partner schools also implemented nursing education grand rounds with issues relevant to novice faculty members. WPU offered online education courses to partner schools in collaborative; courses include Curriculum Development, Classroom Teaching Strategies, and Clinical Teaching Strategies.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11
Curriculum Enhancements
Grantee Characteristics Kean University Community Health Masters Program 3 scholarships awarded
RI PT
Accessed online education courses offered by WPU; courses include Curriculum Development, Classroom Teaching Strategies, and Clinical Teaching Strategies.
Richard Stockton College Adult Nurse Practitioner 4 scholarships awarded
SC
Accessed online education courses offered by WPU; courses include Curriculum Development, Classroom Teaching Strategies, and Clinical Teaching Strategies.
The College of New Jersey Adult, Family, and Neonatal Nurse Practitioner 4 scholarships awarded
M AN U
Added a Health Care Delivery Systems/Health Policy course to the curriculum but this was not directly related to the FPP. Accessed online education courses offered by WPU; courses include Curriculum Development, Classroom Teaching Strategies, and Clinical Teaching Strategies. Masters Program
a
Modified education module in the Introduction to Advanced Practice Nurse Role course to address preceptorship, clinical teaching, and didactic teaching. FPP scholars took Teaching in Health Professions course in the education certification program offered in conjunction with the School of Health-Related Professions. Scholars in first and third cohorts also took a Curriculum Development course in the education certificate program.
TE D
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Nurse Practitioner Program with tracks in Adult, Family, Critical Care, Gerontology, and Women’s Health 12 scholarships awarded
Program types listed for schools in the WPU collaborative were obtained from the FPP grant application.
AC C
EP
Note: Seton Hall University and the William Paterson University Collaborative received grants during the first round of awards (fall 2008) and included a planning year. Rutgers University, the Fairleigh Dickinson University and Monmouth University master’s programs collaborative, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey master’s program received grants during the second round (spring 2009).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 12
the first cohort of scholars to assist with acculturation of the second cohort. Further, at the outset of the program, Rutgers and UMDNJ intended to incorporate the Institute for Nurse Educator
RI PT
Development7 into its mentoring activities; however, the Institute lost its funding in June 2010, causing the schools to revise their approach. The one prescriptive component of mentoring and acculturation activities was the requirement that all scholars attend Collaborative Learning Community seminars sponsored by NJNI, which included 10 sessions covering topics such as the
SC
role of nurse educator, seeking a job in academia, and succeeding as a nurse educator.
M AN U
The FPP increased collaboration and communication across grantees. One objective of the FPP was to encourage communication, collaboration, and resource sharing across New Jersey nursing schools. Schools within multisite collaboratives communicated with one another to varying degrees depending on their program design. For example, one multischool collaborative hosted education grand rounds quarterly, rotating the school at which the sessions were held. The
TE D
two Ph.D. program grantees communicated frequently and developed opportunities for scholars to be mentored by each school’s faculty and to take education courses required to meet
prior to the FPP.
EP
educational competencies outside of their home schools. These relationships had not existed
AC C
A variety of facilitators and challenges shaped implementation of the FPP. Project directors and faculty cited a variety of facilitators to program implementation, including strong leadership and support for the program at the university level, commitment from those involved at RWJF, support from the program office, involvement of seasoned faculty, motivation and
7
The Institute, a collaboration between Rutgers and UMDNJ, was a demonstration project implemented to enhance the knowledge and skills of novice nurse educators teaching in schools of nursing throughout New Jersey.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 13
enthusiasm of faculty and scholars, and the setting of clear expectations for scholars. Respondents noted that full-time education is beneficial for the timely progression of scholars
RI PT
through their programs; however, some reported difficulty managing a full-time curriculum because their graduate programs were not designed for full-time students (for example, courses are typically offered during the evening and others are online). Respondents reported that
implementing curriculum enhancements was impeded by (1) differences in schools within
SC
collaboratives, (2) lack of interest in education courses and teaching on the part of some nurse
M AN U
practitioner students, and (3) resistance among faculty in some institutions to supporting the professional educator role.
Project directors and faculty emphasized the importance of socializing scholars to the nurse faculty role, with some noting that mentorship was the most important aspect of the FPP. Despite the recognition of mentorship, some project directors noted that the availability of only a few
TE D
faculty with formal education preparation to work with scholars and the lack of involvement of some faculty mentors were hindrances to mentoring. These findings support the literature documenting the lack of mentorship in academic nursing.
EP
Project directors and faculty consistently identified the following impediments to program
AC C
implementation: limited time on part of project directors and faculty, heavy workloads, distance between schools (in a multischool collaborative), and inexperience with grant management. Although project directors enjoyed having the opportunity to learn from each other about their experiences in implementing the program, communication and collaboration was not without strain or costs in terms of time and effort. The greater the number of partners, the more grantees reported spending additional time as well as budget and having administrative challenges. For example, one master’s collaborative involved schools that did not have a history of collaboration; this required the development of mechanisms for cross-registration of scholars. Also, many
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 14
grantees did not have experience managing similar grants and had to invest significant time and resources into ensuring timely distribution of funds and managing financial implications such as
RI PT
tax requirements for the stipend. Grantees’ plans to sustain components of the FPP varied widely. Grantees reported the following plans for sustaining curriculum enhancements: (1) offer and advertise a three-course nursing education track that will result in a certificate in nursing education and enable graduates
SC
to take the nurse educator certification exam; (2) incorporate some courses developed for the
M AN U
FPP into the existing curriculum; (3) implement the FPP model for all future nurse practitioner students (for example, these students will be required to take and pay for additional courses); and (4) implement a Professoriate Practicum that will be required for all Ph.D. students. The variation in plans to sustain curriculum enhancements may have been due, in part, to differences in the experience of faculty in managing grant-funded projects.
TE D
Grantees struggled to identify ways they would sustain mentoring and acculturation activities once the grant ended. The most frequent acculturation activity identified was attending faculty meetings. A few grantees noted the impracticality of graduate students
EP
continuing to attend faculty meetings due to schedule conflicts. For instance, if students are not
AC C
full time, they will not be able to attend faculty meetings held during usual business hours. On the other hand, one grantee noted that it will offer three teaching fellowships as a result of the FPP experience, and another planned to continue a formal mentorship program developed under the FPP grant. Findings suggest that faculty buy-in may have been a hindrance to sustainability planning among some grantee sites. For example, some faculty involved in the FPP expressed concern that sustaining the program would require replacing traditional courses (for example, research courses in the Ph.D. curriculum) with education courses. Incorporating education
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15
coursework into nurse practitioner and doctoral programs is a paradigm shift that has not been embraced by all nurse faculty.
RI PT
Scholar Experiences and Outcomes All 40 of the master’s scholars and 19 of 21 Ph.D. scholars completed the entrance survey. Thirty-five master’s scholars and nine of the Ph.D. scholars completed the exit survey.8
Scholars were very satisfied with the tuition and stipend package which was a key
SC
reason they applied for the program. Across Ph.D. and master’s programs, most scholars
M AN U
reported that the tuition and stipend were the features of the FPP that contributed most to their decision to apply to the program. Of the nine Ph.D. scholars who responded to the exit survey, six reported being very satisfied with the FPP scholarship tuition and stipend and seven reported being very satisfied with the post-graduate financial incentive to teach in New Jersey. Likewise, of the 35 master’s scholars who responded to the exit survey, 31 reported being very satisfied
TE D
with the FPP scholarship tuition and stipend and 28 reported being very satisfied with the postgraduate incentive to teach in New Jersey. Further, a majority of master’s scholars reported high levels of satisfaction with the postgraduate incentive for pursuing doctoral education.9
EP
These findings suggest that generous monetary incentives can effectively draw graduate nursing
8
AC C
students into a faculty preparation program.
Exit survey data from the second Ph.D. cohort (10 scholars), two Ph.D. cohort 1 scholars, and one scholar in the third master’s cohort are not included because these scholars had not graduated at the time this manuscript was written. 9
Only master’s cohorts 2 and 3 (N = 21) were asked about their satisfaction with the postgraduate incentive for pursuing doctoral education due to the timing of the implementation of the incentive program. Fifteen of those respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with the incentive. The incentive was a one-time award of $20,000 to scholar alumni who committed to teaching in New Jersey and enrolled in a doctoral program in nursing or other related field.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 16
Most scholars were very satisfied with the extent to which components of the FPP prepared them for the nurse faculty role, but a notable number of respondents were either not satisfied or
RI PT
only somewhat satisfied with the following (1) the format and content of some courses, (2) attendance at faculty meetings, (3) academic and career advisement, and (4) the online format of some Collaborative Learning Community sessions. Focus groups with scholars provided rich information about their experiences:
SC
Course content. Some scholars preferred more application of teaching concepts (for
M AN U
example, courses on clinical instruction or giving lectures). Some felt that the sequencing of their programs’ courses should be modified; in this case, at least one program offers education courses only toward the end of the degree program, whereas students reported they would be better served with education courses throughout the program.
Online courses and webinars. Scholars who took online courses did not find it useful to
TE D
review course content independently without discussion or application of the material. They felt that learning would be maximized if they had opportunities to apply the material and receive feedback from an instructor. Supporting survey respondents’ mixed satisfaction with online
EP
Community Learning Collaborative sessions, some scholars in the focus group did not find the
AC C
webinars effective and did not think a two-hour online forum was an ideal method for learning. Mentoring. Scholars questioned the variation across schools in mentoring and faculty socialization. For example, one school provided mentoring almost exclusively in the form of a course with homework, which seemed to dampen scholar interest in seeking additional mentoring. At another school, mentors were in clinical specialties that did not match the scholars’ own, which also limited mentoring. Scholars had mixed reviews on the extent to which they were satisfied with preparation to meet basic nurse educator competencies. Scholars were most satisfied with their preparation
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 17
to develop creative teaching strategies and learning environments but were less satisfied with preparation to develop and evaluate curricula and assess student learning using evidence-based
RI PT
tools. Focus groups revealed substantial variation in programs’ teaching requirements. Master’s scholars indicated that one program required 120 hours of teaching, whereas other programs did not require any. Scholars in programs that lacked teaching practicums noted that one more
semester for a teaching internship would be ideal. Finally, Ph.D. scholars reported that it is not
SC
feasible to achieve all of the competencies as a nurse educator in four years by taking three
M AN U
courses in education principles. These findings highlight the need to evaluate the formal education training provided to students pursuing a career as nurse faculty. Many scholars cited that the FPP scholarship tuition and stipend was the most important factor ensuring their completion of the program. Some scholars also indicated that their desire to become a nurse faculty member ensured program completion. Other factors such
TE D
as mentoring, academic advisement, career advisement, collaboration with other FPP scholars, and benefits of RWJF affiliation were identified as most significant by only a couple of scholars. These findings underscore the importance of providing financial incentives for nurse faculty
EP
development programs.
AC C
Challenges to scholars’ program completion varied by the graduate degree pursued. More than half of master’s scholars identified FPP academic workload as the biggest challenge to their program completion, whereas none of the Ph.D. scholars selected that response. Other challenges noted by a few master’s scholars and a couple of Ph.D. scholars were insufficient guidance from mentors/faculty, working while in the program, and personal/family reasons. Finally, a couple of Ph.D. scholars also cited completing the Ph.D. program in four years as a full-time student and financial concerns as challenges to program completion.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 18
Most scholars worked while in the program. Although the $50,000 stipend was intended to make working (not for course credit), unnecessary, most scholars reported doing so. When
RI PT
asked about the average number of hours worked per week, four of the Ph.D. scholars reported working less than 12 hours per week while four others worked at least 16 hours per week.
Similarly, 80 percent10 of master’s scholars worked while in the FPP. Although most scholars reported that they were very satisfied with the FPP scholarship tuition and stipend,
SC
supplementing the scholarship and stipend was reported as the most common reason scholars
M AN U
worked while in the program.
Most Ph.D. scholars relied on non-FPP sources of support to complete the program. Ph.D. scholars received support from employment and benefits, car loans to finance transportation to and from school, student loans and mortgages or other lines of credit, and child care assistance. Four scholars indicated two or more sources of support, with one of those
TE D
scholars specifying the need to use retirement savings. Another scholar indicated the “huge expense” of paying for parent and child care as well as to conduct research with “out of pocket” funds. Only two Ph.D. scholars reported receiving no such support. Thus, despite receiving a
AC C
program.
EP
generous stipend, the majority of Ph.D. scholars required additional support to complete the
The majority of scholars planned to work in nursing education at least part-time. Twenty-nine master’s scholars and seven of the nine Ph.D. scholars who responded to the exit survey identified an ideal professional workload mix that included at least a part-time nurse faculty position. That ideal aligns with the program office’s expectation that scholars work in a
10
Calculated based on a denominator of 35, the number of master’s scholars who completed the exit survey.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 19
nurse educator position at least part-time. Because master’s scholars would not qualify for a tenure-track faculty position in a baccalaureate nursing program, it is not surprising that 21 out of
RI PT
35 of those scholars reported that their ideal workload includes part-time or full-time clinical practice. Three of nine Ph.D. scholars indicated that their preferred professional workload is parttime nurse faculty and part-time clinical practice. This finding is noteworthy because the
mitigate the nurse faculty shortage in New Jersey.
SC
program office had hoped all Ph.D. scholars would pursue a full-time nurse faculty position to
M AN U
Upon graduation, most scholars reported that they had already obtained or planned to look for a position as a nurse educator in New Jersey over the next five years. Of the 35 master’s scholars, more than half indicated that they planned to look for a position as a nurse educator in New Jersey, 11 had already obtained such a position, and only one reported that he or she did not plan to work as a nurse educator in New Jersey. Further, a majority of master’s scholars planned
TE D
to engage in clinical practice or another non-faculty role at least part time over the next five years. Five of nine Ph.D. scholars reported plans to look for a nurse educator position, and the other Ph.D. scholars had already secured a faculty position. Four Ph.D. scholars also planned to
EP
engage in part-time clinical practice or a non-faculty position over the next five years, and three
AC C
scholars already had been practicing clinically on a part-time basis or had a part-time non-faculty position. One Ph.D. scholar reported no plans to engage in a clinical or non-faculty position over the next five years.
Many scholars noted that the education experience gained as an NJNI nurse scholar is what helped (or will help) the most in obtaining a nurse faculty position in New Jersey. A smaller number of scholars indicated that their professional network of nurse faculty is or will be most beneficial to obtaining a nurse faculty position in New Jersey, and almost all scholars (37 out of 44) reported that being an NJNI nurse scholar greatly expanded their professional networks as
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 20
nurse educators. These findings are consistent with the objective of the FPP to create a collegial and collaborative nursing community in New Jersey.
RI PT
Scholars anticipated several challenges to maintaining a nurse faculty position. Of the 32 master’s scholars providing responses,11 12 reported that nurse faculty compensation/benefits presented the biggest challenge, eight were concerned about competing career opportunities, and eight highlighted the limited availability of nurse faculty positions. Of the nine Ph.D. scholars,
SC
four anticipated that nurse faculty workload would be the biggest challenge, two scholars
M AN U
indicated competing career opportunities, and two others cited the limited availability of nurse faculty positions. These findings are not surprising as heavy nurse faculty workloads and inadequate nurse faculty compensation have been reported widely in the literature. Discussion
Findings from this evaluation suggest that a faculty preparation program that includes
TE D
generous monetary support, mentoring and socialization to the faculty role, and formal education courses produces graduates who readily assume a faculty position and are committed to at least a part-time career in nursing education. A limitation of this study is the small sample size of
EP
scholars from one state, which prevents generalizability of the findings to nursing students in
AC C
other states. Despite this limitation, this study highlights the “real-world” experiences of faculty and nurses participating in a nurse faculty preparation program that sought to alleviate the nurse faculty shortage in New Jersey. Several valuable lessons for program developers, funders,
11
This analysis excludes scholars who selected “other” open-ended responses, selected multiple responses, or indicated that they were not planning to work as a nurse educator in New Jersey.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 21
nursing schools, and others interested in supporting the development of nurse faculty can be drawn from this evaluation.
RI PT
Monetary support for advanced nursing education is invaluable but is not a panacea. Financial support in the form of full tuition and a stipend was necessary to attract applicants and ensure scholars’ completion of the program. However, despite the generous funding support, the majority of scholars worked while in the program, with half of those scholars reporting the need
SC
to supplement the stipend and scholarship as the main reason for working. Thus, having the
M AN U
flexibility to work while in graduate school may be necessary for many graduate nursing students so they can maintain their standard of living and financial obligations, such as caring for children and parents. Further, this finding has implications for funders interested in supporting the development of nurse faculty. Despite receiving a $50,000 stipend, the NJNI nurse scholars still worked. Thus, support provided to scholars should consider not only their educational and living
TE D
costs, but their need to maintain health insurance, licensure, and clinical and teaching tracks for those who want to work in their existing institutions after graduation. Workload and compensation must be addressed to ensure retention of nurse faculty.
EP
Consistent with the literature,12 the biggest anticipated challenge to maintaining a nurse faculty
AC C
career most commonly reported by Ph.D. nurse scholars is nurse faculty workload. Some scholars also cited competing career opportunities and limited availability of nurse faculty positions as potential challenges. In contrast, master’s scholars reported that nurse faculty
12
The factors noted in the literature that contribute to the nurse faculty shortage include (1) lack of resources to hire additional nurse faculty, (2) increased faculty workload, (3) dissatisfaction with nurse faculty career, (4) low academic salary, (5) lack of interest in nurse faculty career, (6) high costs associated with faculty training, and (7) shortage of qualified faculty candidates (Reinhard, Wright, & Cook, 2007; Yordy, 2006; Dickson & Flynn, 2006; AACN, 2005).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 22
compensation/benefits are the most anticipated challenge. Almost every scholar had secured at least a part-time nurse faculty position upon graduation from the program. However, we do not
RI PT
know whether these scholars will maintain faculty positions over the long term. Nursing schools experience substantial market competition from employers in the private health care sector and other industries that offer nurses with graduate degrees a much higher salary than could be attained as nurse faculty. An illustrative example of wage inversion is the associate degree nurse
SC
with 2 to 5 years of nursing experience who earns $92,197 as a head nurse compared to an
M AN U
associate professor with a Ph.D. who earns $74,556 (Dickson & Flynn, 2006). Financial incentives for nurses to maintain a nurse faculty position are lacking. These findings demonstrate the importance of incentives to ensure retention in academia because these scholars could be lured away from the academy to pursue a more financially lucrative position. Sustaining curricular enhancements focused on education requires creativity,
TE D
collaboration, and buy-in from nurse faculty and students. To implement curricular enhancements, some master’s program grantees increased course credits to include formal education courses—these increased course loads presented challenges to program completion for
EP
scholars. These grantees noted the inability to increase course credits over the long term because
AC C
of the additional cost that would be incurred by non-FPP scholars to take these courses. However, grantees reported that enhancing current course content to include education concepts is sustainable. Some grantees noted that faculty at their institutions did not support the professional educator role, thereby making sustainability of the education curriculum more difficult. These findings should be used to inform the ongoing debate about the most appropriate strategy for preparing future nurse educators. The majority of scholars were either not satisfied or only somewhat satisfied with online education courses suggesting that the mode of delivering education courses warrants further
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 23
research. Further, focus group participants expressed the desire for opportunities to apply the material and for feedback from the instructor. To fully address sustainability of faculty
RI PT
preparation programs, nursing schools and program developers need to understand the consumer’s preferences and what the market will bear. For example, although on-line instruction may be a convenient method for reaching a large number of students, it may not be the most effective method for preparing nurse educators. Research should be undertaken to understand
SC
consumers’ preferences. Finally, this evaluation assessed students’ perceptions of preparedness
M AN U
in meeting nurse educator competencies, future research should focus on developing objective measures of competency.
Establishing clear expectations and minimum requirements for mentoring and acculturation may be necessary for developers and funders of faculty preparation programs. The majority of faculty and students found equivalent value in mentoring and
TE D
acculturation activities; however, these activities varied widely across grantees, and some activities were perceived as more successful than others at socializing scholars to the faculty role. Scholars in the focus groups cited the importance of having mentorship activities that are
EP
individualized to scholars’ needs. Thus, it may also be beneficial to implement a formal process
AC C
for evaluating mentors and mentoring activities to ensure that mentors and acculturation activities are appropriately matched with scholars and are adequately addressing their needs. In addition, to foster the development of nurse educator competencies in new nurse faculty, nursing schools may need to invest in developing nurse faculty to function as educator mentors. The Collaborative Learning Community has the potential to be sustained over time and replicated by other nursing schools. The Collaborative Learning Community served as a valuable opportunity for grantees to communicate and collaborate with other FPP grantees and for scholars to network with faculty and scholars outside of their schools. Although both faculty
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 24
and students had favorable impressions of the Collaborative Learning Community in terms of topics, content, and speakers, scholars had a preference for in-person sessions. If a long-term
RI PT
funding or organizational mechanism is established, the Collaborative Learning Community could continue to be used as a forum for networking and collaboration across the scholars as they transition into junior faculty roles.
In summary, this study emphasizes the need for careful consideration of the design of
SC
programs that integrate faculty preparation and advanced clinical training. Programs need to
M AN U
include sufficient monetary compensation and be flexible in allowing scholars to work while enrolled in the program. Further, the context in which faculty preparation programs are set should also be considered because strong faculty support and dedicated mentors are critical to implementation. Long-term outcomes studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of faculty
AC C
EP
TE D
preparation programs to produce high quality nurse faculty that remain in nursing education.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 25
References American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2005, June). Faculty shortages in baccalaureate
supply. Washington, DC: AACN. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Publications/pdf/05FacShortage.pdf
RI PT
and graduate nursing programs: Scope of the problem and strategies for expanding the
SC
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2012, October) Nursing Faculty Shortage Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: AACN. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media-
M AN U
relations/FacultyShortageFS.pdf.
Bakewell-Sachs, S., Mertz, L., Ladden, M. J., & Egretzky, D. (2011). The New Jersey Nursing Initiative: Building sustainable collaboration. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27(6), 96– 102.
TE D
Dickson, G., & Flynn, L. (2006, November). New Jersey’s educational capacity: Impact on the nursing supply. Newark, NJ: New Jersey Nurse Collaborating Center. Gerolamo, A. M., & Roemer, G. F. (2011). Workload and the nurse faculty shortage:
EP
Implications for policy and research. Nursing Outlook, 59(5), 259–265e. Guttman, M., Parietti, E.S., Rieneke, P. R., & Mahoney, J. (2011). Preparing clinically expert
AC C
faculty educators: An academic partnership model. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27(6), 103–107.
Institute of Medicine. (2011). The future of nursing: Leading change, advancing health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Kem, L., Campbell, M., Donaghy, C. P., Rice, L., & Sabatini, M. (2011). A successful academic collaborative to increase nurse faculty in New Jersey. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27(6), 108–113.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 26
LaRocco, S. A. (2006). Who will teach the nurses? Academe Online, 92(3). Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2006
RI PT
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Reinhard, S., Wright, B., & Cook, M. E. (2007, January). New Jersey’s nursing faculty
workforce: A technical report for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Newark, NJ: Rutgers Center for State Health Policy.
M AN U
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved from
SC
Yordy, K. D. (2006). The nursing faculty shortage: a crisis for health care: A report to the
AC C
EP
TE D
http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/NursingFacultyShortage071006
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Master’s cohort 1
RI PT
Figure 1. Faculty Preparation Program Scholar Cohorts
N=18
Master’s cohort 2
M AN U
SC
N=20
Master’s cohort 3
Ph.D. cohort 1
N=11
N=10
2009 Fall
2010 Fall
AC C
EP
Ph.D. cohort 2
TE D
N=2
2011 Fall
2012 Fall
2013 Fall
2014 Fall
2015 Fall
2015 Spring
S0029-6554(14)00088-8
DOI:
10.1016/j.outlook.2014.04.005
Reference:
YMNO 931
To appear in:
Nursing Outlook
Received Date: 10 November 2013 Revised Date:
21 March 2014
Accepted Date: 8 April 2014
Please cite this article as: Gerolamo AM, Overcash A, McGovern J, Roemer G, Bakewell-Sachs S, Who Will Educate Our Nurses? A Strategy to Address the Nurse Faculty Shortage in New Jersey, Nursing Outlook (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.04.005. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
Who Will Educate Our Nurses? A Strategy to Address the Nurse Faculty Shortage in New Jersey
Angela M. Gerolamo PhD, APRN, BC
RI PT
Senior Researcher Mathematica Policy Research P.O. Box 2393 Princeton, NJ 08543-2393
SC
(P) 610-316-1100
[email protected]
Amy Overcash, MSW Research Analyst
Jennifer McGovern, BA Survey Specialist
AC C
Grace Roemer, MS
EP
Mathematica Policy Research
TE D
Mathematica Policy Research
M AN U
(F) 609-799-0005
Associate Director and Senior Survey Researcher Mathematica Policy Research
Susan Bakewell-Sachs PhD, RN, PNP-BC Dean and Vice President of Nursing Affairs Oregon Health & Science University
Acknowledgement: This evaluation was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2
Abstract Background: The nurse faculty shortage hampers the capacity of the nursing workforce to
RI PT
respond to the demands of the evolving healthcare system. As a strategy to address the shortage in New Jersey, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation implemented the New Jersey Nursing Initiative Faculty Preparation Program to prepare nurses for the faculty role.
SC
Purpose: This paper highlights program implementation successes and challenges, scholar and faculty perceptions of the program, and provides recommendations for others interested in
M AN U
preparing nurse faculty.
Method: This evaluation uses data from scholar surveys and focus groups, interviews with grantees, and grantee reports.
TE D
Discussion: Findings suggest that a program that includes generous monetary support, socialization to the nurse faculty role, and formal education courses produces graduates who readily assume a faculty position and are committed to at least a part-time career in nursing
EP
education.
Conclusions: This evaluation emphasizes the need to carefully design programs that integrate
AC C
faculty preparation and advanced clinical training.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3
Background The nationwide nurse faculty shortage points to the critical need to educate and socialize
RI PT
nurses for the faculty role. This shortage has been identified as the major reason that nursing schools turn away qualified student applicants (American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2005; 2012; LaRocco, 2006; Institute of Medicine, 2011). If not addressed
immediately, the nurse faculty shortage will result in an inadequate nursing workforce which
SC
could have a devastating impact on the health care system and its consumers. Innovative and
M AN U
sustainable strategies to address the nurse faculty shortage warrant serious attention and must be a top priority on the public health agenda (Gerolamo & Roemer, 2011). As a strategy to address the nurse faculty shortage in New Jersey, in fall 2007, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) developed the New Jersey Nursing Initiative (NJNI), a multiyear, now $30 million program that includes (1) statewide strategic stakeholder
TE D
engagement, (2) support for a state Program Office at the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce Foundation, and (3) the Faculty Preparation Program (FPP).1 The focus of this paper is the FPP, which seeks to increase the number of nurse faculty in New Jersey by providing grants to nursing
EP
schools to enhance graduate curriculum, provide mentoring and acculturation activities, and
AC C
distribute scholarships and stipends to nursing students. Despite the need for such programs that prepare nurses to become nurse faculty, little is known about their implementation, outcomes, and sustainability. This study fills this gap by highlighting implementation successes and
1
A summary of each component of the NJNI has been reported elsewhere (Bakewell-Sachs, Mertz, Ladden, & Egretzky, 2011). NJNI was initially funded for $22 million.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4
challenges, scholar and faculty perceptions of the program, and provides recommendations for others interested in supporting nurse faculty preparation.
RI PT
FPP Description The overarching goal of the FPP was to address the state’s faculty shortage by developing, implementing, and evaluating an innovative model for the recruitment, training, and retention of nurse faculty. The program also sought to diversify the nurse faculty population, produce
SC
graduates who were well prepared to teach and commit to a career in nursing education, and
M AN U
foster collaboration among New Jersey nursing schools. Upon initial authorization of the NJNI, RWJF determined that $13.5 million (61 percent) of the total authorization would be used for the FPP. The FPP included the following components: •
Scholarship and stipends: scholars received full tuition, an annual $50,000 stipend, and a computer.
Curriculum enhancement: preparing new faculty to meet five areas of competency as
TE D
•
educators2 and developing a sustainability plan for integrating enhancements into the graduate curriculum.
Mentoring and acculturation: providing scholars with activities to socialize them to
EP
•
AC C
the faculty role.
2
The five education competencies are to (1) demonstrate knowledge of curriculum development; (2) develop and evaluate curriculum; (3) create a learning environment that facilitates learner self-reflection, goal setting, and socialization to the nursing profession; (4) develop creative teaching/learning strategies; and (5) use evidence-based tools and measures to evaluate the learner’s cognitive, psychomotor, and affective learning.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 5
•
Collaborative Learning Community: forum to enhance scholar and school networks and encourage a deeper commitment to the faculty role, operationalized through in-
RI PT
person workshops and web seminars. Initially, the program required the scholars to commit to teach in New Jersey for three years after graduation and if they did not satisfy this commitment, they would have to pay back the stipend. However, this obligation was lifted soon after implementation, due in part to potential
SC
income tax implications for the scholars, and replaced with a monetary incentive to teach in New
M AN U
Jersey or pursue advanced education. Grantees
Nine of New Jersey’s 16 eligible baccalaureate or higher degree schools participated in the FPP3: $6 million was awarded to two schools that offer the doctor of philosophy in nursing degree, and $7.5 million to three schools/collaboratives4 with master’s programs.5 The five
TE D
grantee sites included both public and private schools; they varied by size, region of the state, and whether they were a collaborative of multiple universities or basically single programs. Grantees were expected to recruit, select, enroll, and support full-time graduate students as
EP
RWJF nurse scholars. They also had to facilitate scholars’ progress through the curriculum and
3
AC C
provide mentoring and acculturation activities to help prepare them for nurse faculty roles.
The NJNI program office reported that 16 schools were eligible to participate at the time of the request for proposals. New Jersey currently has a total of 47 nursing schools including diploma and associate degree granting schools. 4 5
Collaboratives included up to four nursing schools.
In 2011, the two Ph.D. programs, Seton Hall and Rutgers, received additional funds to support five doctoral students at each school. The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey’s master’s program used remaining funds to support two additional master’s-level scholars.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6
Grantees had latitude in developing the education curriculum and mentoring activities and incorporating these components into their existing graduate nursing programs.
RI PT
Scholar Cohorts The FPP included 61 scholars, with three master’s cohorts and two Ph.D. cohorts. Figure 1 illustrates the timing of each cohort’s tenure in the program and the number of scholars in each
American, and 1 as Asian6.
M AN U
INSERT FIGURE 1
SC
cohort. Of the 21 Ph.D. scholars, 14 scholars self-identified as white, 6 as black or African
Data Sources
This evaluation draws from multiple data sources: (1) scholar surveys, (2) semi-structured interviews with faculty and project directors, (3) focus groups with scholars, and (4) grantee
TE D
reports. Scholar surveys were administered to each cohort of scholars upon entrance to and exit from the program. Entrance surveys gathered information about scholars’ reasons for applying to the program and their anticipated facilitators and barriers to program completion. Exit surveys
EP
assessed scholars’ satisfaction with program components, challenges encountered while in the program, and career plans upon graduation. A two-person team also conducted semi-structured,
AC C
one-hour telephone interviews each year with representative project directors and/or nurse faculty involved with each FPP grant during 2010–2012. The interviews collected information about experiences with managing the grant, implementing curriculum enhancements and mentoring activities, perceived facilitators and challenges to program implementation,
6
Demographic data were not collected from the Master’s cohorts.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 7
collaboration and communication with other FPP grantees, and plans for sustaining the program. In addition, a two-person team conducted three 45-minute focus groups; each group included a
RI PT
random sample of six to eight scholars from master’s cohort one, cohort two, or Ph.D. cohort one during the second year of their participation in the program. Focus groups gathered scholars’ perceptions of their programs’ education curricula, mentoring and acculturation activities, and the financial incentive to teach after graduation. Finally, the evaluation team reviewed reports
SC
that were completed by grantees annually and submitted to the NJNI program office beginning in
M AN U
spring 2009 through the end of the five-year grant period. These reports documented implementation of FPP components, facilitators and challenges to implementation, and shortterm scholar outcomes.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics in the form of frequencies, distributions, percentages, means, and
TE D
ranges were used to summarize data from scholar surveys and grantee reports. Qualitative data from faculty interviews, scholar focus groups, and grantee reports were reviewed, categorized, and described. After each interview or focus group, one team member finalized the notes,
EP
consulting the audio recording to verify information as needed, and a second team member
AC C
reviewed the notes. The team used content analysis to identify key themes from the interviews, focus groups, and grantee reporting templates. To ensure confirmability of the data, we used triangulation of sources and analysts. For example, we synthesized interview and focus group data, scholar surveys, and grantee reports to develop a deep and comprehensive understanding of the program. We also used multiple analysts during data collection and analyses to ensure that multiple perspectives were included in the interpretation. Confirmability of data is defined as the degree of neutrality or the extent to which findings are shaped by the respondents and not by reviewer bias or interest (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 8
Findings Program Implementation
RI PT
The pool of interested candidates exceeded the number of scholarship opportunities available. Although the grantees did not publicize or advertise the FPP beyond their respective institutions, they received a sufficient number of applications for the FPP to identify qualified scholars for the program. Some grantees even reported concern about having too few openings
SC
for scholars, given the number of applications. For example, one grantee received 30 applications
M AN U
for seven or eight awards.
Scholar recruitment activities built on the grantees’ existing resources and networks of contacts. Schools encouraged existing instructors/faculty to apply, with the understanding that they received no preference in the selection process and would have to resign their faculty positions if accepted. The two doctoral grantees recruited half their cohort 1 scholars in this way.
TE D
Similarly, one grantee asked its faculty members who coordinate each clinical track to identify students who were interested and seemed eligible, and another grantee asked faculty advisors to call students who they thought had an interest in nursing education. At least one grantee focused
EP
some recruitment on minority candidates, using an affiliated association of minority scholars to encourage students to apply. As a strategy to weed out applicants who were solely interested in
AC C
the monetary aspect of the program, one grantee required applicants to submit an essay about their desire to pursue a nurse faculty career. Implementation of curriculum enhancements drew upon schools’ existing programs and strengths. Prior to receiving the FPP grant, grantees offered a variety of graduate programs (for example, clinical versus functional tracks) and modes of delivery, these differences extended to the enhancements they made to their curricula. For example, in one multischool collaborative, each university had a clinical master’s program; however, the programs comprised different
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 9
clinical specialties, and only one school offered education courses. Among the two doctoral programs, one was fully online, which attracted students from all over the nation, and the other
RI PT
offered an in-person program that had mostly regional or local students. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the FPP grantees and the variety of curriculum enhancements they made. Grantees used various strategies to enhance curricula including modifying existing course content to include education modules, piloting new courses, using a faculty committee to analyze
SC
which nurse educator core competencies were reflected in existing courses, and hiring a
M AN U
consultant. One of the multischool collaboratives offered three online education courses to scholars through one of the schools; prior to the FPP, only one of the collaborative’s schools had offered online education. A common theme that emerged among grantees was ongoing modification of the mode, timing, and content of courses based on scholars’ feedback; for example, before the end of its first grant, the online doctoral program changed its coursework to
TE D
an in-person program because it recognized the importance of face-to-face interaction. These curricula changes highlight existing tensions about the feasibility of incorporating nursing education content into existing graduate programs. Although project directors and faculty
EP
uniformly agreed on the importance of integrating education competencies into traditional
AC C
master’s level and Ph.D. preparation, they recognized the paradigm shift required to integrate education content into clinical tracks and doctoral programs. Grantees had latitude in specifying mentoring and acculturation activities and defining the process for selecting mentors. Some sites assigned the FPP program director or another advisor paid for by the grant to meet with scholars or act as an advisor for the first semester of the FPP and then helped scholars select a mentor; others assigned master educators (faculty who had received university recognition as excellent teachers) as mentors. Master’s grantees utilized
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10
Table 1. Grantee Characteristics and Curriculum Enhancements Grantee Characteristics
Curriculum Enhancements
RI PT
Ph.D. Programs
Developed and piloted new education courses. These include Design of Curriculum and Instruction and Practicum for the Professoriate offered by the College of Nursing (CON), and Psychometric Theory offered by the Graduate School of Education (GSE). Other new courses include Advanced Qualitative Methods for Nursing Research and Advanced Quantitative Methods for Nursing Research. Offered two doctoral-level statistics courses in the CON replacing two masters level GSE courses. Required dissertation seminar which was previously optional. Offered a nonacademic credit continuing education course called Test Construction and Statistical Analysis of Test Results. Converted from an online program to an in-person program for the second cohort.
Seton Hall University Doctoral (in person) 10 scholarships awarded
Developed and piloted three new education courses: Curriculum Design and Instruction in Nursing, Measurement and Evaluation in Nursing Education, and a Practicum of the Faculty Role in Nursing Education. Completion of these three courses positions scholars in the Master’s, Ph.D. or DNP programs to take the national nurse educator exam for certification.
M AN U
SC
Rutgers University Doctoral (online) 11 scholarships awarded
Added Pharmacology for Advanced Nursing Practice, required the Advanced Clinical Nursing Practicum for all FPP scholars, and modified some existing courses to include education and learning theories and simulation.
AC C
Monmouth University Nursing Education 4 scholarships awarded
Offered one new in-person education course: Theory Development and Advanced Research. Also offered four sequential Advanced Educator Role seminars on current education issues and the faculty role. Modified some existing courses to include education and learning theories, research outcomes, principles of patient education, evaluation, and technology and simulation.
EP
Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) Collaborative Fairleigh Dickinson University Adult Nurse Practitioner 10 scholarships awarded
TE D
Masters Program Collaboratives
William Paterson University (WPU) Collaborativea William Paterson University Masters program with tracks in Advanced Clinical Practice (Adult Nurse Practitioner), Nursing Education, and Nurse Administration 3 scholarships awarded
Each partner school offered student teaching experiences in classroom and clinical settings; partner schools also implemented nursing education grand rounds with issues relevant to novice faculty members. WPU offered online education courses to partner schools in collaborative; courses include Curriculum Development, Classroom Teaching Strategies, and Clinical Teaching Strategies.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11
Curriculum Enhancements
Grantee Characteristics Kean University Community Health Masters Program 3 scholarships awarded
RI PT
Accessed online education courses offered by WPU; courses include Curriculum Development, Classroom Teaching Strategies, and Clinical Teaching Strategies.
Richard Stockton College Adult Nurse Practitioner 4 scholarships awarded
SC
Accessed online education courses offered by WPU; courses include Curriculum Development, Classroom Teaching Strategies, and Clinical Teaching Strategies.
The College of New Jersey Adult, Family, and Neonatal Nurse Practitioner 4 scholarships awarded
M AN U
Added a Health Care Delivery Systems/Health Policy course to the curriculum but this was not directly related to the FPP. Accessed online education courses offered by WPU; courses include Curriculum Development, Classroom Teaching Strategies, and Clinical Teaching Strategies. Masters Program
a
Modified education module in the Introduction to Advanced Practice Nurse Role course to address preceptorship, clinical teaching, and didactic teaching. FPP scholars took Teaching in Health Professions course in the education certification program offered in conjunction with the School of Health-Related Professions. Scholars in first and third cohorts also took a Curriculum Development course in the education certificate program.
TE D
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Nurse Practitioner Program with tracks in Adult, Family, Critical Care, Gerontology, and Women’s Health 12 scholarships awarded
Program types listed for schools in the WPU collaborative were obtained from the FPP grant application.
AC C
EP
Note: Seton Hall University and the William Paterson University Collaborative received grants during the first round of awards (fall 2008) and included a planning year. Rutgers University, the Fairleigh Dickinson University and Monmouth University master’s programs collaborative, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey master’s program received grants during the second round (spring 2009).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 12
the first cohort of scholars to assist with acculturation of the second cohort. Further, at the outset of the program, Rutgers and UMDNJ intended to incorporate the Institute for Nurse Educator
RI PT
Development7 into its mentoring activities; however, the Institute lost its funding in June 2010, causing the schools to revise their approach. The one prescriptive component of mentoring and acculturation activities was the requirement that all scholars attend Collaborative Learning Community seminars sponsored by NJNI, which included 10 sessions covering topics such as the
SC
role of nurse educator, seeking a job in academia, and succeeding as a nurse educator.
M AN U
The FPP increased collaboration and communication across grantees. One objective of the FPP was to encourage communication, collaboration, and resource sharing across New Jersey nursing schools. Schools within multisite collaboratives communicated with one another to varying degrees depending on their program design. For example, one multischool collaborative hosted education grand rounds quarterly, rotating the school at which the sessions were held. The
TE D
two Ph.D. program grantees communicated frequently and developed opportunities for scholars to be mentored by each school’s faculty and to take education courses required to meet
prior to the FPP.
EP
educational competencies outside of their home schools. These relationships had not existed
AC C
A variety of facilitators and challenges shaped implementation of the FPP. Project directors and faculty cited a variety of facilitators to program implementation, including strong leadership and support for the program at the university level, commitment from those involved at RWJF, support from the program office, involvement of seasoned faculty, motivation and
7
The Institute, a collaboration between Rutgers and UMDNJ, was a demonstration project implemented to enhance the knowledge and skills of novice nurse educators teaching in schools of nursing throughout New Jersey.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 13
enthusiasm of faculty and scholars, and the setting of clear expectations for scholars. Respondents noted that full-time education is beneficial for the timely progression of scholars
RI PT
through their programs; however, some reported difficulty managing a full-time curriculum because their graduate programs were not designed for full-time students (for example, courses are typically offered during the evening and others are online). Respondents reported that
implementing curriculum enhancements was impeded by (1) differences in schools within
SC
collaboratives, (2) lack of interest in education courses and teaching on the part of some nurse
M AN U
practitioner students, and (3) resistance among faculty in some institutions to supporting the professional educator role.
Project directors and faculty emphasized the importance of socializing scholars to the nurse faculty role, with some noting that mentorship was the most important aspect of the FPP. Despite the recognition of mentorship, some project directors noted that the availability of only a few
TE D
faculty with formal education preparation to work with scholars and the lack of involvement of some faculty mentors were hindrances to mentoring. These findings support the literature documenting the lack of mentorship in academic nursing.
EP
Project directors and faculty consistently identified the following impediments to program
AC C
implementation: limited time on part of project directors and faculty, heavy workloads, distance between schools (in a multischool collaborative), and inexperience with grant management. Although project directors enjoyed having the opportunity to learn from each other about their experiences in implementing the program, communication and collaboration was not without strain or costs in terms of time and effort. The greater the number of partners, the more grantees reported spending additional time as well as budget and having administrative challenges. For example, one master’s collaborative involved schools that did not have a history of collaboration; this required the development of mechanisms for cross-registration of scholars. Also, many
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 14
grantees did not have experience managing similar grants and had to invest significant time and resources into ensuring timely distribution of funds and managing financial implications such as
RI PT
tax requirements for the stipend. Grantees’ plans to sustain components of the FPP varied widely. Grantees reported the following plans for sustaining curriculum enhancements: (1) offer and advertise a three-course nursing education track that will result in a certificate in nursing education and enable graduates
SC
to take the nurse educator certification exam; (2) incorporate some courses developed for the
M AN U
FPP into the existing curriculum; (3) implement the FPP model for all future nurse practitioner students (for example, these students will be required to take and pay for additional courses); and (4) implement a Professoriate Practicum that will be required for all Ph.D. students. The variation in plans to sustain curriculum enhancements may have been due, in part, to differences in the experience of faculty in managing grant-funded projects.
TE D
Grantees struggled to identify ways they would sustain mentoring and acculturation activities once the grant ended. The most frequent acculturation activity identified was attending faculty meetings. A few grantees noted the impracticality of graduate students
EP
continuing to attend faculty meetings due to schedule conflicts. For instance, if students are not
AC C
full time, they will not be able to attend faculty meetings held during usual business hours. On the other hand, one grantee noted that it will offer three teaching fellowships as a result of the FPP experience, and another planned to continue a formal mentorship program developed under the FPP grant. Findings suggest that faculty buy-in may have been a hindrance to sustainability planning among some grantee sites. For example, some faculty involved in the FPP expressed concern that sustaining the program would require replacing traditional courses (for example, research courses in the Ph.D. curriculum) with education courses. Incorporating education
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15
coursework into nurse practitioner and doctoral programs is a paradigm shift that has not been embraced by all nurse faculty.
RI PT
Scholar Experiences and Outcomes All 40 of the master’s scholars and 19 of 21 Ph.D. scholars completed the entrance survey. Thirty-five master’s scholars and nine of the Ph.D. scholars completed the exit survey.8
Scholars were very satisfied with the tuition and stipend package which was a key
SC
reason they applied for the program. Across Ph.D. and master’s programs, most scholars
M AN U
reported that the tuition and stipend were the features of the FPP that contributed most to their decision to apply to the program. Of the nine Ph.D. scholars who responded to the exit survey, six reported being very satisfied with the FPP scholarship tuition and stipend and seven reported being very satisfied with the post-graduate financial incentive to teach in New Jersey. Likewise, of the 35 master’s scholars who responded to the exit survey, 31 reported being very satisfied
TE D
with the FPP scholarship tuition and stipend and 28 reported being very satisfied with the postgraduate incentive to teach in New Jersey. Further, a majority of master’s scholars reported high levels of satisfaction with the postgraduate incentive for pursuing doctoral education.9
EP
These findings suggest that generous monetary incentives can effectively draw graduate nursing
8
AC C
students into a faculty preparation program.
Exit survey data from the second Ph.D. cohort (10 scholars), two Ph.D. cohort 1 scholars, and one scholar in the third master’s cohort are not included because these scholars had not graduated at the time this manuscript was written. 9
Only master’s cohorts 2 and 3 (N = 21) were asked about their satisfaction with the postgraduate incentive for pursuing doctoral education due to the timing of the implementation of the incentive program. Fifteen of those respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with the incentive. The incentive was a one-time award of $20,000 to scholar alumni who committed to teaching in New Jersey and enrolled in a doctoral program in nursing or other related field.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 16
Most scholars were very satisfied with the extent to which components of the FPP prepared them for the nurse faculty role, but a notable number of respondents were either not satisfied or
RI PT
only somewhat satisfied with the following (1) the format and content of some courses, (2) attendance at faculty meetings, (3) academic and career advisement, and (4) the online format of some Collaborative Learning Community sessions. Focus groups with scholars provided rich information about their experiences:
SC
Course content. Some scholars preferred more application of teaching concepts (for
M AN U
example, courses on clinical instruction or giving lectures). Some felt that the sequencing of their programs’ courses should be modified; in this case, at least one program offers education courses only toward the end of the degree program, whereas students reported they would be better served with education courses throughout the program.
Online courses and webinars. Scholars who took online courses did not find it useful to
TE D
review course content independently without discussion or application of the material. They felt that learning would be maximized if they had opportunities to apply the material and receive feedback from an instructor. Supporting survey respondents’ mixed satisfaction with online
EP
Community Learning Collaborative sessions, some scholars in the focus group did not find the
AC C
webinars effective and did not think a two-hour online forum was an ideal method for learning. Mentoring. Scholars questioned the variation across schools in mentoring and faculty socialization. For example, one school provided mentoring almost exclusively in the form of a course with homework, which seemed to dampen scholar interest in seeking additional mentoring. At another school, mentors were in clinical specialties that did not match the scholars’ own, which also limited mentoring. Scholars had mixed reviews on the extent to which they were satisfied with preparation to meet basic nurse educator competencies. Scholars were most satisfied with their preparation
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 17
to develop creative teaching strategies and learning environments but were less satisfied with preparation to develop and evaluate curricula and assess student learning using evidence-based
RI PT
tools. Focus groups revealed substantial variation in programs’ teaching requirements. Master’s scholars indicated that one program required 120 hours of teaching, whereas other programs did not require any. Scholars in programs that lacked teaching practicums noted that one more
semester for a teaching internship would be ideal. Finally, Ph.D. scholars reported that it is not
SC
feasible to achieve all of the competencies as a nurse educator in four years by taking three
M AN U
courses in education principles. These findings highlight the need to evaluate the formal education training provided to students pursuing a career as nurse faculty. Many scholars cited that the FPP scholarship tuition and stipend was the most important factor ensuring their completion of the program. Some scholars also indicated that their desire to become a nurse faculty member ensured program completion. Other factors such
TE D
as mentoring, academic advisement, career advisement, collaboration with other FPP scholars, and benefits of RWJF affiliation were identified as most significant by only a couple of scholars. These findings underscore the importance of providing financial incentives for nurse faculty
EP
development programs.
AC C
Challenges to scholars’ program completion varied by the graduate degree pursued. More than half of master’s scholars identified FPP academic workload as the biggest challenge to their program completion, whereas none of the Ph.D. scholars selected that response. Other challenges noted by a few master’s scholars and a couple of Ph.D. scholars were insufficient guidance from mentors/faculty, working while in the program, and personal/family reasons. Finally, a couple of Ph.D. scholars also cited completing the Ph.D. program in four years as a full-time student and financial concerns as challenges to program completion.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 18
Most scholars worked while in the program. Although the $50,000 stipend was intended to make working (not for course credit), unnecessary, most scholars reported doing so. When
RI PT
asked about the average number of hours worked per week, four of the Ph.D. scholars reported working less than 12 hours per week while four others worked at least 16 hours per week.
Similarly, 80 percent10 of master’s scholars worked while in the FPP. Although most scholars reported that they were very satisfied with the FPP scholarship tuition and stipend,
SC
supplementing the scholarship and stipend was reported as the most common reason scholars
M AN U
worked while in the program.
Most Ph.D. scholars relied on non-FPP sources of support to complete the program. Ph.D. scholars received support from employment and benefits, car loans to finance transportation to and from school, student loans and mortgages or other lines of credit, and child care assistance. Four scholars indicated two or more sources of support, with one of those
TE D
scholars specifying the need to use retirement savings. Another scholar indicated the “huge expense” of paying for parent and child care as well as to conduct research with “out of pocket” funds. Only two Ph.D. scholars reported receiving no such support. Thus, despite receiving a
AC C
program.
EP
generous stipend, the majority of Ph.D. scholars required additional support to complete the
The majority of scholars planned to work in nursing education at least part-time. Twenty-nine master’s scholars and seven of the nine Ph.D. scholars who responded to the exit survey identified an ideal professional workload mix that included at least a part-time nurse faculty position. That ideal aligns with the program office’s expectation that scholars work in a
10
Calculated based on a denominator of 35, the number of master’s scholars who completed the exit survey.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 19
nurse educator position at least part-time. Because master’s scholars would not qualify for a tenure-track faculty position in a baccalaureate nursing program, it is not surprising that 21 out of
RI PT
35 of those scholars reported that their ideal workload includes part-time or full-time clinical practice. Three of nine Ph.D. scholars indicated that their preferred professional workload is parttime nurse faculty and part-time clinical practice. This finding is noteworthy because the
mitigate the nurse faculty shortage in New Jersey.
SC
program office had hoped all Ph.D. scholars would pursue a full-time nurse faculty position to
M AN U
Upon graduation, most scholars reported that they had already obtained or planned to look for a position as a nurse educator in New Jersey over the next five years. Of the 35 master’s scholars, more than half indicated that they planned to look for a position as a nurse educator in New Jersey, 11 had already obtained such a position, and only one reported that he or she did not plan to work as a nurse educator in New Jersey. Further, a majority of master’s scholars planned
TE D
to engage in clinical practice or another non-faculty role at least part time over the next five years. Five of nine Ph.D. scholars reported plans to look for a nurse educator position, and the other Ph.D. scholars had already secured a faculty position. Four Ph.D. scholars also planned to
EP
engage in part-time clinical practice or a non-faculty position over the next five years, and three
AC C
scholars already had been practicing clinically on a part-time basis or had a part-time non-faculty position. One Ph.D. scholar reported no plans to engage in a clinical or non-faculty position over the next five years.
Many scholars noted that the education experience gained as an NJNI nurse scholar is what helped (or will help) the most in obtaining a nurse faculty position in New Jersey. A smaller number of scholars indicated that their professional network of nurse faculty is or will be most beneficial to obtaining a nurse faculty position in New Jersey, and almost all scholars (37 out of 44) reported that being an NJNI nurse scholar greatly expanded their professional networks as
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 20
nurse educators. These findings are consistent with the objective of the FPP to create a collegial and collaborative nursing community in New Jersey.
RI PT
Scholars anticipated several challenges to maintaining a nurse faculty position. Of the 32 master’s scholars providing responses,11 12 reported that nurse faculty compensation/benefits presented the biggest challenge, eight were concerned about competing career opportunities, and eight highlighted the limited availability of nurse faculty positions. Of the nine Ph.D. scholars,
SC
four anticipated that nurse faculty workload would be the biggest challenge, two scholars
M AN U
indicated competing career opportunities, and two others cited the limited availability of nurse faculty positions. These findings are not surprising as heavy nurse faculty workloads and inadequate nurse faculty compensation have been reported widely in the literature. Discussion
Findings from this evaluation suggest that a faculty preparation program that includes
TE D
generous monetary support, mentoring and socialization to the faculty role, and formal education courses produces graduates who readily assume a faculty position and are committed to at least a part-time career in nursing education. A limitation of this study is the small sample size of
EP
scholars from one state, which prevents generalizability of the findings to nursing students in
AC C
other states. Despite this limitation, this study highlights the “real-world” experiences of faculty and nurses participating in a nurse faculty preparation program that sought to alleviate the nurse faculty shortage in New Jersey. Several valuable lessons for program developers, funders,
11
This analysis excludes scholars who selected “other” open-ended responses, selected multiple responses, or indicated that they were not planning to work as a nurse educator in New Jersey.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 21
nursing schools, and others interested in supporting the development of nurse faculty can be drawn from this evaluation.
RI PT
Monetary support for advanced nursing education is invaluable but is not a panacea. Financial support in the form of full tuition and a stipend was necessary to attract applicants and ensure scholars’ completion of the program. However, despite the generous funding support, the majority of scholars worked while in the program, with half of those scholars reporting the need
SC
to supplement the stipend and scholarship as the main reason for working. Thus, having the
M AN U
flexibility to work while in graduate school may be necessary for many graduate nursing students so they can maintain their standard of living and financial obligations, such as caring for children and parents. Further, this finding has implications for funders interested in supporting the development of nurse faculty. Despite receiving a $50,000 stipend, the NJNI nurse scholars still worked. Thus, support provided to scholars should consider not only their educational and living
TE D
costs, but their need to maintain health insurance, licensure, and clinical and teaching tracks for those who want to work in their existing institutions after graduation. Workload and compensation must be addressed to ensure retention of nurse faculty.
EP
Consistent with the literature,12 the biggest anticipated challenge to maintaining a nurse faculty
AC C
career most commonly reported by Ph.D. nurse scholars is nurse faculty workload. Some scholars also cited competing career opportunities and limited availability of nurse faculty positions as potential challenges. In contrast, master’s scholars reported that nurse faculty
12
The factors noted in the literature that contribute to the nurse faculty shortage include (1) lack of resources to hire additional nurse faculty, (2) increased faculty workload, (3) dissatisfaction with nurse faculty career, (4) low academic salary, (5) lack of interest in nurse faculty career, (6) high costs associated with faculty training, and (7) shortage of qualified faculty candidates (Reinhard, Wright, & Cook, 2007; Yordy, 2006; Dickson & Flynn, 2006; AACN, 2005).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 22
compensation/benefits are the most anticipated challenge. Almost every scholar had secured at least a part-time nurse faculty position upon graduation from the program. However, we do not
RI PT
know whether these scholars will maintain faculty positions over the long term. Nursing schools experience substantial market competition from employers in the private health care sector and other industries that offer nurses with graduate degrees a much higher salary than could be attained as nurse faculty. An illustrative example of wage inversion is the associate degree nurse
SC
with 2 to 5 years of nursing experience who earns $92,197 as a head nurse compared to an
M AN U
associate professor with a Ph.D. who earns $74,556 (Dickson & Flynn, 2006). Financial incentives for nurses to maintain a nurse faculty position are lacking. These findings demonstrate the importance of incentives to ensure retention in academia because these scholars could be lured away from the academy to pursue a more financially lucrative position. Sustaining curricular enhancements focused on education requires creativity,
TE D
collaboration, and buy-in from nurse faculty and students. To implement curricular enhancements, some master’s program grantees increased course credits to include formal education courses—these increased course loads presented challenges to program completion for
EP
scholars. These grantees noted the inability to increase course credits over the long term because
AC C
of the additional cost that would be incurred by non-FPP scholars to take these courses. However, grantees reported that enhancing current course content to include education concepts is sustainable. Some grantees noted that faculty at their institutions did not support the professional educator role, thereby making sustainability of the education curriculum more difficult. These findings should be used to inform the ongoing debate about the most appropriate strategy for preparing future nurse educators. The majority of scholars were either not satisfied or only somewhat satisfied with online education courses suggesting that the mode of delivering education courses warrants further
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 23
research. Further, focus group participants expressed the desire for opportunities to apply the material and for feedback from the instructor. To fully address sustainability of faculty
RI PT
preparation programs, nursing schools and program developers need to understand the consumer’s preferences and what the market will bear. For example, although on-line instruction may be a convenient method for reaching a large number of students, it may not be the most effective method for preparing nurse educators. Research should be undertaken to understand
SC
consumers’ preferences. Finally, this evaluation assessed students’ perceptions of preparedness
M AN U
in meeting nurse educator competencies, future research should focus on developing objective measures of competency.
Establishing clear expectations and minimum requirements for mentoring and acculturation may be necessary for developers and funders of faculty preparation programs. The majority of faculty and students found equivalent value in mentoring and
TE D
acculturation activities; however, these activities varied widely across grantees, and some activities were perceived as more successful than others at socializing scholars to the faculty role. Scholars in the focus groups cited the importance of having mentorship activities that are
EP
individualized to scholars’ needs. Thus, it may also be beneficial to implement a formal process
AC C
for evaluating mentors and mentoring activities to ensure that mentors and acculturation activities are appropriately matched with scholars and are adequately addressing their needs. In addition, to foster the development of nurse educator competencies in new nurse faculty, nursing schools may need to invest in developing nurse faculty to function as educator mentors. The Collaborative Learning Community has the potential to be sustained over time and replicated by other nursing schools. The Collaborative Learning Community served as a valuable opportunity for grantees to communicate and collaborate with other FPP grantees and for scholars to network with faculty and scholars outside of their schools. Although both faculty
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 24
and students had favorable impressions of the Collaborative Learning Community in terms of topics, content, and speakers, scholars had a preference for in-person sessions. If a long-term
RI PT
funding or organizational mechanism is established, the Collaborative Learning Community could continue to be used as a forum for networking and collaboration across the scholars as they transition into junior faculty roles.
In summary, this study emphasizes the need for careful consideration of the design of
SC
programs that integrate faculty preparation and advanced clinical training. Programs need to
M AN U
include sufficient monetary compensation and be flexible in allowing scholars to work while enrolled in the program. Further, the context in which faculty preparation programs are set should also be considered because strong faculty support and dedicated mentors are critical to implementation. Long-term outcomes studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of faculty
AC C
EP
TE D
preparation programs to produce high quality nurse faculty that remain in nursing education.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 25
References American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2005, June). Faculty shortages in baccalaureate
supply. Washington, DC: AACN. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Publications/pdf/05FacShortage.pdf
RI PT
and graduate nursing programs: Scope of the problem and strategies for expanding the
SC
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2012, October) Nursing Faculty Shortage Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: AACN. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media-
M AN U
relations/FacultyShortageFS.pdf.
Bakewell-Sachs, S., Mertz, L., Ladden, M. J., & Egretzky, D. (2011). The New Jersey Nursing Initiative: Building sustainable collaboration. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27(6), 96– 102.
TE D
Dickson, G., & Flynn, L. (2006, November). New Jersey’s educational capacity: Impact on the nursing supply. Newark, NJ: New Jersey Nurse Collaborating Center. Gerolamo, A. M., & Roemer, G. F. (2011). Workload and the nurse faculty shortage:
EP
Implications for policy and research. Nursing Outlook, 59(5), 259–265e. Guttman, M., Parietti, E.S., Rieneke, P. R., & Mahoney, J. (2011). Preparing clinically expert
AC C
faculty educators: An academic partnership model. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27(6), 103–107.
Institute of Medicine. (2011). The future of nursing: Leading change, advancing health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Kem, L., Campbell, M., Donaghy, C. P., Rice, L., & Sabatini, M. (2011). A successful academic collaborative to increase nurse faculty in New Jersey. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27(6), 108–113.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 26
LaRocco, S. A. (2006). Who will teach the nurses? Academe Online, 92(3). Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2006
RI PT
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Reinhard, S., Wright, B., & Cook, M. E. (2007, January). New Jersey’s nursing faculty
workforce: A technical report for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Newark, NJ: Rutgers Center for State Health Policy.
M AN U
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved from
SC
Yordy, K. D. (2006). The nursing faculty shortage: a crisis for health care: A report to the
AC C
EP
TE D
http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/other/NursingFacultyShortage071006
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Master’s cohort 1
RI PT
Figure 1. Faculty Preparation Program Scholar Cohorts
N=18
Master’s cohort 2
M AN U
SC
N=20
Master’s cohort 3
Ph.D. cohort 1
N=11
N=10
2009 Fall
2010 Fall
AC C
EP
Ph.D. cohort 2
TE D
N=2
2011 Fall
2012 Fall
2013 Fall
2014 Fall
2015 Fall
2015 Spring
