A Comprehensive Faculty Development Model for Nursing Education

Evolving as Nurse Educators in Problem-Based Learning Through a Community of Faculty Development

A key challenge for faculty development is ensuring that learning is transferred to the workplace. An effective program fosters the development of a particular blend of knowledge, dispositions, and behaviors that are applied and sustained over time. The role of expert clinician aside, faculty in academic institutions may not be formally prepared for the evolving range of roles and tasks they are asked to fulfill. Designing an effective faculty development program poses formidable challenges. While the literature offers ample guidance on designing faculty development episodes, perspectives on organized and comprehensive faculty development programs based on the principles of transfer of training are lacking. In this perspective, we highlight 11 key considerations for effective faculty development in an institutional context (TABLE). Our aim is to guide individuals responsible for designing and implementing a development program with the goal of enhancing the transfer of learning into workplace practice.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, Lubbock.

BACKGROUND: Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the United States. To address this problem, a concerted effort by nurse educators to integrate Quality and Safety Education for Nurses (QSEN) competencies into nursing curricula is relevant. There is a need for innovative educational strategies, faculty development, and implementation approaches to support successful QSEN competency implementation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to evaluate a faculty development course that included QSEN competency education, resources, and support. METHODS: A pretest posttest design was used and 19 nursing faculty from a northeast U.S. public college participated in the program. Participants completed the National QSEN Faculty Survey before and after a 6-part QSEN competency-based training course. Descriptive statistics and the chi-square statistical test were used to compare means of pretest and post-test responses. RESULTS: Results indicated a significant increase of incorporating the QSEN competencies in nursing courses following the faculty development program. The most helpful QSEN resource was found to be the QSEN website followed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in pre and post-test results. Case studies, lectures, and group projects were the most frequently used teaching strategies, and the classroom was found to be the setting where most faculty integrated QSEN competencies into their courses. IMPLICATIONS: Faculty development programs are an effective method of providing support for the integration of QSEN competencies into the undergraduate nursing curricula. Evaluation of faculty development programs is essential so that effective programs can be shared and sustained. Keywords: QSEN, competencies, faculty development, quality, safety

The goal of postgraduate training is the development of competency necessary for independent practice. To achieve this goal, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in 2013 implemented the Milestones assessment framework and mandated the development of clinical competency committees (CCCs), tasked with biannual review of evaluation and assessment data of trainees.1 The CCC, which consists of a chair and committee members, plays a critical role in assisting the program director in decision-making regarding resident or fellow advancement through the training period. Importantly, the committee makeup may span junior and senior faculty and include interprofessional representation, thus providing a spectrum of input.1To date, most of the literature regarding CCCs focuses on optimizing CCC function in terms of workflow and decision-making. Best practices for CCC function have been proposed, including use of varied assessment tools, structured meetings, and diverse members.2,3 Other work has outlined strategies for effective group decision-making necessary for CCC function.4–6 Ongoing faculty development has been proposed as an essential component of CCC function, yet little is known about which particular elements are necessary to optimize organization of meetings, decision-making, and to effectively utilize assessment processes.In order for the CCC to optimally operationalize the Milestones for individual learner development, members of the committee require intentional faculty development. This must span multiple domains important for the CCC process, including knowledge of assessment (and the use of the Milestones), understanding of group decision-making, awareness of how biases interplay with these factors, and the effect of their decisions on patient care (Box). While it remains unknown how often and who should develop such faculty development sessions, we would advocate for at least an annual review of these topics given faculty turnover and need to maintain a shared mental model of best practices. Faculty development remains essential for both new and longstanding members, as participants will likely have different levels of understanding of the assessment process and Milestones themselves.2We therefore aim to provide guidance for specific areas of faculty development for CCC members, including strategies for novel approaches to professional development for the committee. This includes: (1) the purpose and structure of the CCC itself; (2) the strategies, strengths, and weaknesses of the assessments employed by the program; and (3) the development of a shared mental model of the Milestones of the relevant specialty. Beyond this, the CCC chair will also need to understand (4) the best practices of an effective group discussion.7Faculty need to understand the purpose of the CCC meetings, which often employ 1 of 2 strategies: problem identification, where the committee focuses on identifying learners who may require additional remediation, or a developmental approach, where the committee discusses all learners to identify next steps for advancement.3 Members also need to understand the process of decision-making, including who will make the recommendations regarding remediation.In addition to understanding the intent of the Milestones, committee members must also be aware of the program's evaluation process (as related to each Milestone). Knowledge of the individual assessment methods and awareness of the data synthesis for each Milestone will improve a shared mental model and ideally minimize differences in individual interpretation of assessment data.6 This will also allow the committee to identify times when the assessment data is difficult to interpret requiring further group discussion.8Committee members should not only understand each of the relevant Milestones but also have a shared model of what a competent trainee looks like at their institution.9 It is evident that competencies are developed differently in different contexts and at different institutions.10 Therefore, a shared mental model is important for each CCC to minimize variation in how each member interprets the same assessment data.Effective committee groups understand the purpose, structure, and process of their work.4 However, sometimes groups encounter incomplete or otherwise difficult to interpret assessment data; therefore, group discussion is needed to draw a conclusion. The chair of the committee needs to lead the discussion and approach how decisions are made transparently. The chair should also be cognizant of the member composition of the group.4 A homogenous group is unlikely to present different views or opinions, which may be necessary in drawing fair conclusions.Additional faculty development topics for the CCC chair may be helpful in maximizing success of the committee. It is incumbent upon the chair to refine their own ability to synthesize feedback as well as interpret and gauge performance in specialty-specific Milestones. General leadership skills, such as how to effectively lead a committee or run a meeting, remain paramount.11,12 It is important for the CCC chair to adapt their mindset from the frame of educator to that of the “educator-leader.” The CCC chair plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the committee functions through fair and informed decision-making processes based on the data and facts, rather than emotional decision-making.Beyond this unique CCC training for the chair and members, all faculty educators must understand the intersection of biases on the assessment process. It is well-known that biases can manifest in a variety of ways through our traditional mechanisms of assessment. For example, in graduate medical education (GME), this has been highlighted in several settings showing differential Milestone achievement based on trainee gender,13–15 as well as gender differences in narrative evaluation.16 Similarly, standardized patient assessments, which are often included in CCC discussions, have highlighted differential findings by gender, race, and ethnicity.17 Knowledge of such biases and the potential ramifications on Milestones ratings, narrative evaluation, remediation referrals, and progression decisions is imperative for faculty development in the CCC process.Faculty development using bias reduction workshops or training, such as those employing the Implicit Association Test, could represent an avenue to initiate discussions,18 as these training programs have shown to be effective in mitigating biased decision-making in other settings.18–20 The potential quantitative and qualitative differences in assessment should be considered in recurring CCC reviews. Additionally, faculty participants should be versed in the potential impact of system-wide and personal biases on trainee assessments. Beyond an individual training level, CCC structure, including the diversity of CCC members, as well as process measures, including program assessment and trends, should be regularly reviewed for biased tendencies.2There are a multitude of topics important in faculty development for CCC chairs and members and implementation often requires novel solutions. One such approach was recently implemented within the MedStar Health GME Consortium in the Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC region, which includes more than 70 ACGME-accredited programs. The consortium conducted a half-day faculty development retreat specifically for CCC chairs. Topics addressed included a primer on evaluation of competence, a panel discussion of CCC best practices (for varied sizes of programs), small group discussions on CCC decision-making processes, and strategies for running effective meetings. The program also allowed for identification of distinct needs for various CCC stakeholders, as outlined in the Table. These sessions allowed for shared knowledge, highlighted knowledge gaps, and identification of distinct faculty training needs for success of CCCs. Such an approach allowed for sharing of best practices, strategies to overcome real or perceived challenges (such as time constraints to effective discussion in larger scale programs), and dissemination of knowledge throughout the sponsoring institution.Overall, the optimal functioning of a CCC requires dedicated faculty time, education, and investment in faculty development. CCCs form a critical component of GME assessment and play a pivotal role in ensuring readiness for independent practice. Given this critical role, we advocate for an appropriate fraction of protected time (or productivity) from clinical or other administrative duties for CCC chairs and similar key leaders to accomplish the important responsibilities of the role.We have highlighted some overarching themes of essential faculty development for CCC success, but recognize that the needs are varied based on role within the CCC, experience level, and size of the program, among other considerations. It is critical to acknowledge differing faculty development needs across levels of experience of faculty (junior versus senior members), as well as the unique training needs of interprofessional members. Additionally, future scholarship is needed to determine the optimal timing, content, and subsequently the impact of such faculty development on CCC processes. We believe that the continued development of expertise for both the CCC chair and its members remain critical to the success of the Milestones assessment system.

Background Medical education is a continuously evolving field that requires faculty members to engage in ongoing professional development to maintain high-quality instructions. Faculty development programs at medical education department of medical colleges play a critical role in equipping educators with the necessary skills to address the dynamic challenges of medical education. However, the effectiveness of such programs is contingent upon accurately identifying faculty training needs. This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive need assessment survey to determine the specific areas where faculty members require further development in order to improvise their teaching skills. Methods The study was conducted at College of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa. A structured google survey was designed and developed to assess faculty training needs across various competencies, including teaching methodologies, clinical instruction, curriculum development, and educational research. Faculty members were asked to rate the importance of each competency and indicate their need for additional training. The survey was distributed to all faculty members of college of medicine, King Faisal University, Al-ahsa by email. 41 faculty members across different departments, including Surgery, Biomedical Sciences, Clinical Neurosciences, and Obstetrics and Gynecology responded to the survey. Data collection was conducted over one month, and responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results The survey yielded responses from 41 faculty members, with Assistant Professors constituting 70% of the participants. The highest departmental representation was from Biomedical Sciences (35%) and Surgery (25%). Teaching in large and small groups received the highest mean importance rating (4.5), followed by facilitating and managing learning (4.3). The most frequently reported areas requiring additional training included large group teaching (65%), assessment and learning (60%), and educational research (55%). Faculty members recommended regular workshops on teaching methodologies, educational research, and statistical analysis, with an emphasis on accreditation of training sessions through relevant health authorities. Discussion The findings highlight the critical need for faculty development in large group teaching, student assessment, and educational research. The increasing role of technology in medical education was also evident, as faculty members expressed a need for training in e-learning platforms. Need assessment surveys provide valuable insights for tailoring faculty development initiatives; however, their limitations must be acknowledged. Surveys may not capture all faculty challenges due to reliance on self-reported data, potentially leading to a narrow focus on training programs. To address these limitations, institutions should integrate qualitative methods such as focus groups and peer mentoring to supplement survey findings. The integration of interdisciplinary faculty development initiatives has the potential to augment collaborative efforts and elevate the quality of educational experiences. Conclusion: This need assessment survey provides essential insights into the training needs of faculty members, emphasizing the importance of structured and targeted faculty development programs. While need assessment surveys serve as a foundational tool for shaping faculty training initiatives by the Faculty Development Committee, Medical institutions must adopt a multifaceted approach that includes qualitative insights and collaborative strategies to ensure comprehensive professional development of faculty members and other staff. By fostering an inclusive and dynamic faculty development culture, medical institutions can enhance teaching effectiveness and improve overall educational outcomes. The study helped a lot in development of annual faculty training need for the college of medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa BJMS, Vol. 25 No. 01 January’26 Page : 297-304

To increase the competence of physicians to practice and teach geriatric medicine, the Office of Geriatric Medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio, offered an 11-week course to interested physicians on the faculty. This course, "Medical Management of the Aged--A State of the Art Symposium for Medical Faculty," was conducted as part of an overall plan of the Office to enhance faculty and curriculum development in geriatrics within the School. The weekly sessions consisted of clinical and research information presented by recognized experts in the field of geriatric medicine. Of the 52 formal registrants, 79 per cent were physicians and were from such fields of specialization as internal medicine, family medicine, and psychiatry. The mean attendance was 37. An overview and evaluation of the geriatric faculty development program is given.

In medical education there has been increasing emphasis on faculty development programs aimed at the professionalization of teaching and increasing students' learning. However, these programs have been shown to have an impact beyond improvement in teaching skills. The medical school of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (EMUC) has been running a faculty development program (DEM) since 2000. To explore the perception of graduates on the effects of having participated in DEM on their development as teachers and clinicians. Using an exploratory, descriptive and qualitative design, the 79 teachers who graduated from DEM from 2004-2008 were sent a questionnaire containing three open questions. Their answers were analyzed using the Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis of Glaser and Strauss by four researchers. Faculty development, becoming a better clinician, personal development, appreciation of the value of teaching and strengthening of the academic community were the five categories that emerged from the answers. Graduates felt that, besides learning new educational skills, they changed their attitude towards teaching. DEM was perceived as facilitating self-awareness and reflection about the graduates' role as doctors and teachers. The graduates also valued meeting other faculty. Faculty development programs can have an impact far beyond the learning objectives. The planning and design of programs contributes to their wider impact. This should be taken into consideration in the design, planning, and evaluation of faculty development programs. Care should be taken to protect time for participation, reflection and for interaction with other academics.

A description and opinions of a longitudinal book club for comprehensive pharmacy faculty development

Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California.

The Milestones Development team at the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has periodically surveyed the graduate medical education (GME) community and volunteers, during and after development of the specialty-specific Milestones 2.0, to check with members of each specialty on the implementation of the new Milestones. As we approached the conclusion of Milestones 2.0 development, it was decided to have broader survey dissemination for all specialties. Although still only 10 questions, 2 major changes were made to the quality assurance feedback questionnaire: (1) It solicited comments and impressions from the approximately 26 000-member email distribution list that receives the ACGME e-communications rather than only those who volunteer to be respondents; and (2) It had a more summative focus meant to be the start of the upcoming program evaluation stage of Milestones, rather than soliciting formative input for any further changes to Milestones 2.0. The survey was open for 6 weeks in the fall of 2022 and resulted in 215 responses, which, after clearing the data of collection errors and detectable duplications, produced 211 valid responses from 27 specialties across the GME community. At the time of distribution, email and survey tracking metrics were not available to produce a meaningful response rate. Respondents provided general descriptions of their specialties and specific roles, their program enrollment, and the membership of their Clinical Competency Committees (CCCs). They were then asked open-ended questions that allowed them to describe any challenges with Milestones 2.0 and to make suggestions for the program as a whole. The intent of this 10-item questionnaire was to collect data that will direct conversations on change and help guide this first step, as well as further program evaluation projects that explore the relationships between Milestones and the GME community. The results of the qualitative analysis of this questionnaire are based on those who chose to respond to the ACGME e-communication request for feedback. The subsequent findings should not be generalized to the GME community or be made to represent thoughts or reactions of any subpopulation therein.Of 211 valid responses, roughly half (n=105, 49.8%) identified as program directors (Table 1) from a dropdown list of options (Question [Q]3), and 46 (21.8%) indicated that they were their CCC chair (Q4). The most represented ACGME core specialties (Q1) were internal medicine (n=46, 21.8%), family medicine (n=35, 16.6%), pediatrics (n=24, 11.4%), and surgery (n=17, 8.1%). Additionally, 80 (37.9%) respondents self-identified a subspecialty (Q2) in the open text question following the specialty question.The responses to (Q5) “Indicate the number of residents or fellows you are currently assessing in your program using the Milestones” ranged from 2 to 170. This question was asked to obtain an approximate number of residents and fellows being assessed, and it was beyond the purview of this project to check a respondent's accuracy regarding this data point.When asked to describe the roles within their current CCC membership (Q6), 181 (85.8%) of the respondents listed their committee as having a program director, 162 (76.8%) indicated a program coordinator, 161 (76.3%) listed an assistant or associate program director, and 199 (94.3%) specified a core faculty member (Table 2). While the survey question had a “public member” option, no respondents indicated as such.Two open-ended questions guided the major focus of the survey: (Q8) “Indicate any challenges you have experienced with Milestones 2.0, or related concerns,” and (Q9) “What changes or resources would you like to see in the Milestones?” Finally, respondents could self-identify under (Q10) “Enter your email and full name to be notified of future Milestones feedback opportunities,” which produced a list of volunteers for future research projects.Researchers from the Milestones department used emergent, in vivo coding to categorize the open-ended responses describing challenges and providing suggestions. While responses reflected specific and individual experiences, some patterns emerged from similar data during analysis that helped paint a picture of the challenges facing the GME community around Milestones. Guided by a heuristic inquiry methodology, the research team performed the coding in the MAXQDA software (VERBI Software GmbH) to label the open-ended responses and look for the patterns using a constant comparative analysis approach.1 The most prevalent challenges and suggestions are discussed below with exact verbiage lifted from the responses.The first prominent idea uncovered in the response data involved faculty use and interpretation of the Milestones. Particularly, many respondents mentioned faculty not being fully invested in the Milestones as an assessment tool and that faculty may consider the goals of the Milestones as too lofty or unachievable.Another common topic from the data highlighted issues with specific subcompetencies, namely those that measure advocacy or well-being. Some respondents called out a few Milestones that were difficult to observe as well as directly assess, particularly those speaking to system management and the physician role in the health care system. Similarly, there were comments that described the Milestones as being too vague or subjective and too difficult to transfer to the provided scale. One comment stated: “Based on how these are worded many of our residents hit a level 3 at PGY-2 and then stay there despite continuing to improve in their abilities.” (internal medicine)Data also reflected issues with the amount of time required to adequately assess residents and fellows on each Milestones subcomeptency. This may be related to other comments where respondents felt there were too many Milestones to assess or that the Milestones were too long or wordy. “Too many Milestones! Takes way too long to complete them twice a year for all of our residents.” (diagnostic radiology)Some respondents described challenges with transitioning from Milestones 1.0 to 2.0, such as making adjustments to their assessment practices and software tools to reflect the changes. One comment pointed out that it would get easier: “There are some that don't correlate perfectly with the new milestones, so this made tracking resident improvement over time difficult. This should get easier once we use the 2.0 version for all 3 resident years.” (pediatrics)There were also a few respondents who felt as though the Milestones were not applicable to actual clinical practices. For example: “I find the wording of the Milestones 2.0 incredibly hard to apply to real world resident performance.” (internal medicine) and “The verbiage is still extremely convoluted and often does not apply to real life.” (family medicine) Others indicated that the Milestones do not capture the context of the resident's “rotation experience.” (family medicine)Similarly, data from the survey described issues with few opportunities for residents to be assessed or actually observed within specific Milestones contexts. They also spoke of other challenges: “Bias from prior milestone evaluations. Some CCC members may evaluate residents that they have not personally worked with over the past 6 months.” (surgery–surgical oncology) and “Finding ways for residents to achieve, and for us to observe and document, some milestones elements (ex. SBP2, SBP3, PROF1, ICS1), especially those in the upper levels.” (pathology–surgical pathology)There remained some responses that did not fall into a particular pattern or theme but still highlighted concerns worth mentioning:The survey respondents' suggestions were just as varied as their challenges, but some themes were evident. The most prominent area for suggestions centered around the need for clearer applications and more examples for the Milestones levels, either beyond the existing supplemental guidebooks or an updated version of them.Another common thread among the suggested changes was the inclusion of either additional Milestones or a new focus reflected within Milestones. Particularly, these responses spoke to skills development in leadership, teaching, and scholarly activities.Respondents also focused their suggestions on language simplification and applying more realistic language as well as condensing Milestones, making them shorter or even reducing the overall number of them.Another theme identified the need for more faculty development and education that address “goals, changes, and interventions to address failure to progress.” (surgery–acute care surgery) Responses also spoke to the need for evaluation forms that would be easy to use and implement into the learner's record automatically. Some respondents suggested using the Milestones as the assessment tool: “Evaluation tools would be helpful, not just the milestones but also some suggested way to assess. Or just let us use the milestones as assessment tools, because the rubrics are built out well enough now that they could be used as direct assessments.” (anesthesiology)Individual comments spoke to a wide variety of suggestions, such as the following:This survey was developed to collect general, voluntary feedback with only 2 focused questions for challenges and suggestions as an early look informing program evaluation for Milestones. While the data are not representative of any group or subgroup within GME, the broad and organic analysis shows that the GME community feels that the Milestones program should continue its focus on providing a transparent and concise assessment tool that does not overburden faculty, program directors, or the residents and fellows.2-5 The survey results also indicate the need to reiterate the validity of the Milestones assessments in the harmonized competencies as well as in patient care and medical knowledge.6,7 There is evidence supporting more emphasis on developing a concerted effort by faculty and CCCs to utilize the tools and resources that the Milestones program provides. Some survey respondents also expressed the need for Milestones to continue efforts for developing subcompetencies that could integrate with other specialty-specific assessment tools.The Milestones department has already researched and taken steps to provide GME faculty with access to resources, such as guidebooks (Milestones, CCCs, assessment, etc) and faculty development courses,8,9 and currently offers periodic courses to address faculty understanding and usage of the Milestones assessments. The department also has developed supplemental resources and has explained the rigor that goes into developing the validity and reliability of the tools.10 The data also spoke to the importance of keeping current and future resources visible, available, and accessible to the GME community.The ACGME Milestones team would like to thank those who took part in the survey and provided their valuable feedback. The resulting suggestions and conversations will give the Milestones department the foundations to better inform their upcoming evaluation research on the Milestones program. Over the next few years an intensive review of the Milestones will occur. This research will delve into the development process, content, and implementation within programs. Data will be collected through focus groups, interviews, content analyses, and targeted surveys. If you are interested in sharing your opinion, please send an email with your name, specialty, and/or subspecialty to MilestonesQA@acgme.org.

Clinical associated faculty (CAF) are typically expert clinicians but novice educators, lacking professional development opportunities targeted to their unique needs. This can result in unnecessary variability in content delivery and potentially negative student learning outcomes. The purpose of this article is to describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of a faculty development program designed specifically for CAF. Thirty-two CAF completed a longitudinal faculty development program designed by faculty at the University of Colorado Doctor of Physical Therapy Program (CU). Content was driven by faculty development literature, core concepts of CU's Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) program, and key constructs for excellence in DPT education. Changes in teaching confidence were examined with a modified version of the Nurse Educator Skill Acquisition Assessment (NESAA) in pre-test/post-test design. Creighton University DPT Program (Creighton) adapted the faculty development program for their own CAF and similarly assessed change in teaching skill in 21 CAF using the NESAA. Additional data were collected through session evaluations and review of student course evaluations for both programs. At CU and Creighton, 28 and 21 participants, respectively, completed the CAF development program and all desired outcome measures. Outcomes revealed a significant increase (P < .05) on NESAA scores. In addition, results demonstrated decreased negative student comments related to teaching inconsistencies on course evaluations and an overall positive perception of the program by participants. A CAF longitudinal faculty development program was developed and successfully implemented at 2 universities. This model could be used as a template by other DPT programs to address the existing faculty development gap and support the distinctive needs of CAF.

Determining nursing faculty development needs

This article demonstrates how to create, manage, and administer a comprehensive faculty development programme utilising the Kirkpatrick model. The academic literature lacks discussion and analysis of how faculty development might improve healthcare faculty in all academic domains. This study shows that the Kirkpatrick model may be used to create and manage institutional faculty development programmes, filling a gap in the academic literature. If medical schools priorities staff development in line with their mission, they can become more competitive and serve their students better. Healthcare students will benefit from this. Place of Study: Rai Medical College Sargodha Study Duration: June 2021 to February 2022 Study Design: Empirical research Conclusion: This article suggests that faculty development should be done methodically and to fit the needs of various faculty groups. It also suggests that the educators' ultimate purpose is to train medical business executives who can handle the challenges of modern medicine on their own. Medical education programmes must adapt to changing stakeholder needs, focusing on outcomes rather than instruction. Keywords: Faculty Development Program, Medical Education, Kirkpatrick’s Model, Teaching Performance, Effectiveness

This paper presents the international collaboration and experiences of an effective faculty development initiative based on a vertical education enhancement (VEE) model.The VEE faculty development program was designed to effectively improve performance and moral through life-long learning and training, mentoring, continuous assessments and improvement feedbacks, research and external funding, grant writing, seed money for research, international activities and collaborations, and increased conference participations and journal publications.The VEE model consists of three fundamental interwoven components: curriculum and mentoring; industry, government and community partnerships; and research and funding.The VEE faculty development initiative was successful implemented in a collaborative program between Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University (AAMU) and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL).The results and outcomes for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) faculty members include increased participation in international education and research collaborations, and increase in the number of students engaged in research and international education activities.