12 Tips for Improving YourFaculty Development Plan

Brought to you by

A MAGNA PUBLICATION

LeaderACADEMIC

12 Tips for Improving YourFaculty Development Plan

Table of Contents

Quick Reference ....................................................................................................................................................6

Why Do You Teach? ..............................................................................................................................................8

Teaching Circles: Low-Cost, High-Impact Faculty Development ..............................................................................9

A Focus on Teaching and Learning at Mid-Career ................................................................................................10

Web-Based Faculty Activity Reporting System Provides Easy-to-Update, Accessible Information ..........................11

Jump Start Program Prepares Faculty to Teach Online ........................................................................................12

Technology-Enhanced Faculty Learning Communities Expand Development Opportunities..................................14

Talk about Teaching That Benefits Beginners and Those Who Mentor Them........................................................15

Content Knowledge: A Barrier to Teacher Development ......................................................................................17

Teaching vs. Research: Finally, a New Chapter ....................................................................................................17

Simple Commitment but Long-Term Challenge: P&T and SoTL ............................................................................18

Serving Students by Helping Faculty: Encouraging Instructional Technology Integration ....................................20

Senior Faculty and Teaching Effectiveness............................................................................................................22

3

LeaderACADEMIC

THE NEWSLETTER FOR ACADEMIC DEANS AND DEPARTMENT CHAIRS

Collaborative Leadership through Strengths Development

Part I: Self-Awareness through Strengths Development

By Anita Henck, PhD, and EileenHulme, PhD

This is part one of a two-part article series

about leading through strengths-orientedcollaboration. In this first article, Henckand Hulme provide the context for thiscollaborative leadership model, beginningwith self-awareness and self-management.

Strengths identification and developmentwill be discussed as a tool for developing amore productive view of oneself. In Part II

(next month’s issue), they will address theimportance of other-awareness and look at

practical implementation issues in build-ing a strengths-oriented team.

Higher education administrationhas traditionally followed aconventional hierarchical lead-

ership model. Over the last decade, ithas begun to transition into a more col-laborative approach to leadership (Kezar,

Carducci, and Contreras-McGavin,2006). This is attributed both to theincreased number of women leaders,with collaboration over solitude being apreferred style (Kezar et al., p. 76) andto a theoretical shift that defines leader-ship as a process and, thus, “emphasizesmutuality between leader and followers”

(Kezar et al., p. 76).Today’s university leaders havethe opportunity to enhance the work ofstaff and faculty—both in quality andsatisfaction—through intentional effortsat building a collaborative team leader-ship approach. Unlike past attempts atteam building, collaborative leadership is

not just off-site sessions with ropescourses and “getting to know you exer-cises.” Nor is it a top-down approachrequiring interdepartmental projectswhile providing rewards for required col-

laboration. Rather, it requires a rich andinformed understanding of one’s innatecharacteristics, traits, and passions; anability to manage those abilities througha heightened sense of emotional intelli-gence; and a driving desire to understand

and value the other’s perspective. With-out these essential elements of teambuilding, it becomes difficult to establishthe trust necessary for team productivity;

strengths identification and development

provide tools for these essential elementsof team building.Understanding andmanaging selfFoundational work must bedone before team building can begin.The historic words inscribed on theancient Greek temple at Delphi—“Know thyself”—remain an importantadage millennia later. Effective leadersbegin with healthy self-awareness andmove to self-efficacy rooted in a positive

mind-set. The ability to manage oneself

is a crucial aspect of collaborativeengagement.

Self-awareness. Goleman, Boy-atzis, and McKee (2002) write, “Self-awareness means having a deepunderstanding of one’s emotions, as well

as one’s strengths and limitations andone’s values and motives. People withself-awareness are realistic—neither

overly self-critical nor naively hopeful.Rather, they are honest with themselves

about themselves” (p. 40). They advisethat “…to guide the emotional tone of a

group, … leaders must first have a suresense of their own directions and priori-

ties…” (Goleman et al., p. 32). Self-awareness is an important first step inthe development of collaborative leader-

ship, as it has considerable impact onindividual behavior and the value ofindividual contributions.Self-efficacy and mind-set.Self-awareness alone is not enough.Leaders must also be cognizant of thebeliefs they hold that affect theiractions. Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacytheory is rooted in the concept that self-

reflective thought affects one’s behavior.

It posits that belief in one’s capacity toproduce will result in the desired effect.

In short, if you believe you can dosomething, your likelihood to succeed is

In This Issue2Discipline-Based EducationResearch

4 Book Excerpt: Small Group Behav-ior

6 Creating a Center for ProfessionalDevelopment and LeadershipA MAGNA

PUBLICATION

PAGE 6�

12 Tips for Improving Your Faculty Development Plan

Professional development should be an ongoing endeavor for all faculty membersbecause their growth as instructors has a profound impact on their students. There

are always opportunities for improvement, new teaching techniques to learn and master,and experiences to share with colleagues.This is why we have created this special report. Whether your institution has extensive,

well-funded faculty development initiatives or you operate on a shoestring, I’m sure youwill find some useful information in this special report to help with your faculty develop-ment efforts.The articles, compiled from The Teaching Professor and Academic Leader, offer inspira-

tion and practical (and often inexpensive) ways to accomplish the goal of improvedteaching and learning.

Rob KellyEditor

Academic Leader

5

Faculty DevelopmentQuick ReferenceSources:

(3) Content Knowledge:A Barrier to TeacherDevelopment

(1) Can Training Make You aBetter Teacher?

(5) Talk about TeachingThat Benefits Beginnersand Those Who MentorThem

(2) Teaching vs. Research:Finally, a New Chapter

(6) Simple commitment butLong-Term Challenge:Promotion &Tenure andScholarship of Teaching& Learning

(7) Serving Students byHelping Faculty:Encouraging Instruc-tional TechnologyIntegration

When teachers think the only, the best, the most important wayto improve their teaching is by developing their contentknowledge, they end up with sophisticated levels of knowl-

edge, but they may have only simplistic instructional methods to con-vey that material. To imagine that content matters more than process isto imagine that the car is more important than the road. Both are essen-tial. WHAT is taught and HOW it is taught are inextricably linked andvery much dependent on one another. (3)

The best teachers are not always, not even usually, those teachers with the mostsophisticated content knowledge. The best teachers do know their material, but theyalso know a lot about the process of teaching. They have at their disposal a repertoireof instructional methods, strategies, and approaches — a repertoire that continuallygrows, just as their content knowledge develops. (3)

What can administrators do to help faculty marry contentknowledge with appropriate teaching processes to enhancestudent learning?

• Support Comprehensive Training (1)

Countless workshops, seminars, retreats, and other training opportunities areoffered under the assumption that they can positively affect how faculty teach,which in turn will help students learn more. However, there’s evidence that short-term interventions, such as an afternoon workshop, don’t have much of an effectwhen it comes to sustained behavior change. On the other hand, data suggest thatwell-designed, substantive training programs are worth the time and effort.Gibbs and Coffey looked at the effects of training programs at 20 universities in

eight countries. Each training program involved at least 60 hours (300 for thelongest) and spread those activities across four to 18 months. Results provide con-firmation that this kind of training does make a significant and lasting impact onteaching. Faculty who participated in more comprehensive training programsbecame more learner-focused and their students were more likely to take deepapproaches to learning.

• Use Mentoring Programs (5)

The fact is well established that college teachers benefit when they have aninstructional mentor; it is also well established that mentoring benefits the mentoras well. Here’s a list of instructional topics that are particularly beneficial todiscuss:

� Complex Instructional Issues Mentors can help mentees with the questionsthat don’t have easy answers on a level that reveals how much more there isto learn about teaching and learning.

12 TIPS FOR IMPROVING YOUR FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Quick Reference

Academic Leader Editor: Rob KellyMAGNA PUBLICATIONS, INC. • 2718 Dryden Drive • Madison, WI 53704 • 800.433.0499 or 608.246.3590

To subscribe: http://www.magnapubs.com/academicleader/

Tips for Academic Deans and Department Chairs compiled from the Academic Leader

6

NEXT PAGE�

� Student Ratings. It’s beneficial to consult with acolleague who’s been around for a while, one whocan look objectively at a set of ratings and say some-thing like, “Well, if these were my ratings, here arethe three things I’d conclude.”

� Syllabus Construction Mentors can help a menteesee beyond the mechanics to convey the coursedesign, i.e., what the teacher believes contributes tolearning.

� Exams Together. The mentor and mentee can talkabout how exam events can be designed to promotelearning the course material not just as a means tograde student mastery of it.

� Intellectual Judgments Teachers need to give stu-dents accurate feedback about their performance,which is very different than saying or subtly convey-ing that a student doesn’t have the intellectual mus-cle required to master the material. Mentors can helpmentees see the difference.

� Classroom Management. It takes time and encour-agement from a mentor to learn that students can betrusted—not believed in blindly, but trusted enoughfor teachers to show them respect and believe that itwill be returned.

• Commit to Meritorious TeachingIt is time to move past the old teaching vs. research

debate and consider useful ways to talk about theserelated but very different parts of a faculty member’s job.Michael Prince, Richard Felder, and Rebecca Brent (2)

report that “integrating research into the classroom in theway integration is normally conceived — i.e., instructorsdiscussing the content of their research — has not beenshown to occur frequently or to improve instruction.”What these authors propose as a richer potential nexus

are those forms of teaching (inquiry-based approachesand problem-based learning, for example) that mirror theresearch process. In this case, “a faculty member’sresearch provides experiences that have the potential toenrich instruction by introducing students to the researchprocess and to important research skills.”Southern Illinois University Edwardsville made a com-

mitment to meritorious teaching for promotion andtenure in 1994-95. The new promotion policy includedthe following statement: “A candidate for promotion shalldemonstrate, at the level commensurate with rank, at

least meritorious performance in teaching, and at leastmeritorious performance in either scholarship or serviceand satisfactory performance in the other.” As a result,improvements in the quality of student learning arefound across SIUE. These improvements are supportedby an array of activities and programs, including thecommitment to meritorious teaching. (6)

• Encourage Instructional Technology Integration (7)

In a recent survey of college and university students,98 percent reported owning their own computer (PC orlaptop), and the same percentage reported owning morethan one electronic device (such as a computer and a cellphone). As a result, these “digital learners ... have differ-ent expectations of teachers, of the content, of the deliv-ery, and of access to that content.” What canadministrators — deans and chairs, specifically — do toencourage IT integration so faculty are ready to meetthese student expectations and needs?

� Regular overviews ensure that faculty are aware ofworkshops on the different technologies and whatcan be done with them.

� Roundtable discussions within departments canhelp faculty identify and articulate discipline-specificways to achieve IT integration.

� Emphasize student need and demand and advo-cate for student participation in departmental orcollege IT roundtables and service on IT-relatedcommittees at their institutions.

� Create departmental and course-specific templatesto lessen the learning curve for faculty and toprovide students with standardized resources andmaterials.

� Facilitate a peer review process for courses usingIT to help improve the quality of those courses andto clarify best practices criteria for instructors.

� Increase the credit given to IT users by promotionand tenure committees, and more clearly articulatehow IT integration relates to the scholarship of teach-ing and learning development stages for their firstonline class. �

Academic Leader Editor: Rob KellyMAGNA PUBLICATIONS, INC. • 2718 Dryden Drive • Madison, WI 53704 • 800.433.0499 or 608.246.3590

To subscribe: http://www.magnapubs.com/academicleader/7

Let’s imagine a “required” profes-sional development activity for

faculty: after 20 years of teaching, allcollege instructors must prepare(we’ll skip the and-submit-for-creditpart) an essay that explores the rea-sons why they teach. The idea forthis assignment derives from an essayby Laura B. Soldner (referencebelow) who found herself restive dur-ing a sabbatical year. She couldn’tseem to focus on the textbook shewas supposed to be writing but keptrevisiting the reasons she chose toteach and exploring how those rea-sons related to her current profes-sional life. The four reasons Soldnerchose to teach and that continued tomotivate her to remain in the profes-sion may not be reasons you’d list,but they illustrate the importance ofthis kind of introspection, and theymight springboard your own reflec-tion.

Sense of discovery—“I am contin-ually struck by the simultaneousnature of teaching and learning. Inone instant, I may be the teacher orfacilitator of a lesson, discussion,or activity, but I am, at the samemoment, a learner who is reconsider-ing previous knowledge, seeking outnew information, or making connec-tions between the two.” (p. 73)Teaching is a profession for thosewho love to learn.

Quest for self-improvement—Soldner writes about the manychanges teachers regularly face:favorite texts that go out of print, theincreased presence of technology inthe lives of students (and their teach-

ers), the declining levels of prepared-ness of college students, and others.Teachers can bemoan these changesand respond to them with much com-plaining, or see them as opportunitiesfor growth. Soldner says that hercommitment to teaching remainsbecause it provides her with so manyopportunities to grow and change.

Ability to scaffold development—Soldner is a developmental educator.She works with students on basicreading and writing skills. Sheexplains that the “ability to scaffolddevelopment, to provide studentswith the initial assistance they needand to withdraw that help graduallyas they are able to use the skills andstrategies independently, is anotherreason I find teaching so satisfying.”(p. 75) The success of one’s studentscan bring teachers much satisfaction.

Sense of “mattering”—“Develop-mental literacy educators are oftenthe front line of defense in stemmingstudent attrition. They may be theonly ones to have daily instructionaland personal interactions with theirstudents.” (p. 77) That makes theirwork important—to their students, totheir institutions, even to our soci-ety—and this sense of doing workthat makes a difference can be apowerful motivator for all kinds ofeducators.

Perhaps in preparing an essay on“why I teach,” some educators mayfind that what brought them to edu-cation in the beginning no longer sus-tains them. Those teachers shouldmake a change.

For the rest of us, this exercise canbe a confirming and motivating expe-rience. It’s easy to forget the reasonsor to take them for granted. Preparingan essay like this and then reading itat least once a year would be a bene-ficial endeavor for most faculty.

Reference:Soldner, L. B. (2002–2003). Why I

continue to teach: Reflection of amid-career developmental literacyeducator. Journal of College Literacyand Learning, 31, 71–78.

8

Why Do You Teach?

By Maryellen Weimer

Two years ago, a mid-career col-league in the mathematics depart-

ment sent around an e-mail to allfaculty at our college, inviting us toread a book with her. And as simplyas that, a teaching circle was formed.A teaching circle, the term we use

at my institution, is simply a group offaculty interested in discussing teach-ing at regular intervals, ideally overfood. As my colleague said, laughing,at our first meeting, “I need a supportgroup, and everyone needs lunch!”That first year, we chose to read

Maryellen Weimer’s Learner-CenteredTeaching, a chapter at a time. We metevery three or four weeks in a privateroom attached to the student cafete-ria, where we picked up our lunchesby going through the line. Ourprovost, perhaps impressed by ourinitiative, agreed to foot the bill forour lunches, a modest expenditurefrom his point of view. As many asnine people participated, though thecore group consisted of five facultyrepresenting sociology, nursing,chemistry, english, and math.As we discussed each month’s

assigned reading, we shared storiesand strategies. One person redesignedher entire approach to assessing stu-dent learning; our math leader incor-porated lots of writing activities intoher upper-level course. As we cameto know each other better, someonesuggested that we observe oneanother’s classes, which several of usdid. In the spring, six of us arrangedto attend the first Teaching ProfessorConference.The group reformed at the begin-

ning of the next school year and thistime read two books, one eachsemester: Bain’s What the Best Col-lege Teachers Do and Cross and Stead-man’s Implementing the Scholarshipof Teaching. Our numbers increasedto about a dozen faculty members.Currently, the group is in its thirdyear, and as many as 15 people turnup for lunch and discussion. Ourbook selection this year is L. DeeFink’s Creating Significant LearningExperiences.What makes a teaching circle work,

and could it work at other institu-tions? Modest administrative supportis helpful. In addition to paying forcafeteria lunches, our provost pur-chased books for participants, begin-ning in the second year. It is alsoimportant to have someone interestedin leading the group, setting dates,and sending e-mail reminders. Ourleadership has changed each year. Wehave decided together, at the end ofone year, which book to read for thenext. No other structure is necessary.No one ever takes attendance. Thereis a very populist, grassroots feel towhat we do.The benefits of ongoing conversa-

tion about the art of teaching areobvious. However, here are a few youmay not think of:• we have come to know oneanother better;

• we have become teachingresources for each other;

• we have embraced new ideas inour reading that we might havedismissed without the support ofthe group.

Most important of all, those of uswho are at mid-career are findingnew energy for our profession. Whatbegan as a support group for oneindividual has supported us all.

Barbara A. Mezeske is an associateprofessor of English at Hope College inHolland, Michigan. �

9

Teaching Circles:Low-Cost, High-Impact Faculty Development

By Barbara A. Mezeske

Are your experienced faculty mem-bers as effective in the classroom

as you would like them to be? If not,perhaps a faculty development pro-gram like the University of Minnesota’sMid-Career Teaching Program could bethe answer.Many faculty members currently in

mid-career have probably had fewerteaching enrichment opportunities thantheir more recently hired colleagues,and just because they are experts intheir disciplines does not necessarilymake them good teachers. In addition,teaching is becoming more complex:student populations are more diversethan they used to be, and they oftenexpect more from professors than stu-dents did in the past.“Faculty at this level don’t generally

come together to talk about teaching.At a university like this and a lot ofother universities and colleges, facultymay come together to talk about theadministration, procedures and policiesin the department, curriculum,research, or research grants, but it’srelatively rare that faculty cometogether to talk about teaching in theclassroom,” says John L. Romano,professor of educational psychologyand one of the early developers ofthe MCTP.

GoalsThe program has four goals:• introduce faculty to pedagogicalstrategies to improve studentlearning

• support faculty as they apply newknowledge and techniques in theirclassrooms

• provide faculty with an opportu-

nity to converse with peers aboutimproving student learningthrough effective teaching

• offer a forum for faculty to discussmid-life events that have an impacton their personal and professionallives.

RecruitmentThe program is intended to attract

faculty from different disciplines andwith different teaching abilities. “Weset this up so that it isn’t a program forpeople who are bad teachers,” Romanosays. To recruit interested facultymembers, the Center for Teaching andLearning Services makes announce-ments at deans’ meetings and on fac-ulty and administration listservs. Theprogram also offers a small stipend.

Some faculty members come to theprogram because they are good teach-ers who want to improve. Some areconcerned about less-than-stellar eval-uations from students. Some arelooking to increase their emphasis onteaching now that they have tenure.Some are encouraged to sign up bytheir department chair or dean.For purposes of this program, the

faculty members determine for them-selves whether they are “mid-career”faculty members. They don’t need tobe tenured, and are admitted even ifthey have been teaching for just a fewyears. Most participants are between40 and 60 years old, and faculty mem-bers who are close to retirement agecan participate as well.

A multi-disciplinary approachThe program brings together faculty

from a variety of disciplines for 12 two-

hour sessions (six sessions per semes-ter) for a full academic year. They meetin groups of six to 15 led by facilitatorsfrom the Center for Teaching andLearning Services. The facilitators sug-gest topics, but encourage participantsto refine those topics.The following is a sample of topics

this program addresses:• Student Population: Characteristicsand Learning Needs

• Educational Paradigms: FromTeaching to Learning

• Inclusive Course Syllabus: Designand Detail

• Styles of Learning: Influences onInstruction

• Active and Cooperative Learning:Students as Participants

• Faculty at Mid-Career: Professionaland Personal Themes.

The sessions are a mix of presenta-tion and discussion. Between sessions,participants often continue conversa-tions through e-mail and electronicdiscussion boards. Participants alsoconsult with each other about issueswithin their classrooms.Diversity within the groups is a

strength of the program, Romano says.“We feel there is some benefit from anursing faculty member talking to abusiness faculty member and a liberalarts person talking to someone fromeducation because, especially inResearch 1 institutions, people getfairly isolated within their own depart-ments and sometimes within their ownprogram within a department. We feelthis cross-fertilization is important.”In addition to exposing faculty mem-

bers to the perspective of colleagues indifferent departments, working withfaculty members outside one’s depart-ment also can create a safe environ-ment to explore personal orembarrassing issues that might be diffi-cult to bring up with critical colleaguesor those who don’t have as strong aninterest in teaching and learning. Beingable to open up in the group tends to

10

A Focus on Teaching andLearning at Mid-Career

By Rob Kelly

PAGE 11�

get easier over time as well. This wasone of the reasons for asking faculty tocommit to the program for an entireyear, Romano says.

RecognitionAlthough department chairs and

deans are not directly involved in theprogram, their support has helped itsucceed. At the end of the year, theCTLS sends them letters reminding

them who participated along with acopy of the MCTP syllabus. Partici-pants also receive a letter of recogni-tion from the provost. A copy of thisletter is also sent to the departmentchair and dean.The MCTP culminates in an event

called “The Celebration of Teaching,”which acknowledges each participant’scommitment to teaching and learning.The event includes speeches from vari-ous stakeholders, including centraladministrators, the CTLS director,

MCTP facilitators, and select MCTPparticipants.For more information about the

MCTP, visit www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/faculty.

ReferenceRomano, John L., Hoesing, O’Dono-

van, Kathleen, and Weinsheimer,Joyce. 2004. Faculty at Mid-Career: AProgram to Enhance Teaching andLearning. Innovative Higher Education.29, no 1: 21-48 �

Faculty activity reports have thepotential to guide faculty develop-

ment, resource allocation, and evenfund-raising efforts. But too often fac-ulty perceive these reports as a burdenthat yields few, if any, benefits. Thisperception can change with a user-friendly electronic faculty activityreporting system like the one MaryvilleUniversity uses.The main driving forces behind the

creation of this system were the needto better integrate the university’s mis-sion with the process of recruiting andretaining the best faculty members,and to make clear to faculty how theycontribute to the university’s mission.Development of the university’s

Web-based activity reporting systemwas based largely on the faculty rolesthat Ernest Boyer outlined in his influ-ential book Scholarship Reconsidered:Priorities of the Professoriate (1990,Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-ment of Teaching).The system is an electronic journal

that enables faculty members to pro-

vide evidence as to how they areengaging in the various forms of schol-arship (e.g., the scholarship of discov-ery, the scholarship of teaching andlearning). “The key for us was that itprovides a way to begin the dialogueon what it means to be a faculty mem-ber in an institution that is seeking tointegrate liberal and professionallearning,” says Brian Nedwek, actingpresident of Maryville University.A major concern in building this sys-

tem was to make it as easy as possiblefor faculty to use. To this end, theuniversity’s system does not requirefaculty to input information about theclasses taught or enrollment figures.That information is preloaded into theelectronic forms from the university’sadministrative database. Inputting evi-dence on their scholarly activities isvery similar to composing a Worddocument.In addition, faculty have two

months after the end of the academicyear to make any final edits of theirindividual activity reports before sub-

mitting them.The system provides examples of the

various types of scholarship to helpfaculty categorize their scholarly activ-ities. Faculty describe each of theirscholarly activities and identify whichcategories they fit into. They do notprovide the actual products of theirscholarship, however. The quality offaculty’s scholarly work is addressedin promotion and tenure reviews. Thepurpose of the annual activity reportsis to ensure that faculty are on trackfor their promotion and tenure reviewsand to indicate areas in which facultyneed professional development.The main criterion for scholarly

activity is that it is made publicthrough publication in a journal, aconference presentation, or other out-reach activities. For example, if amathematics professor investigatesand determines why some students donot succeed in his course, developsinterventions to address the problem,

11

Web-Based Faculty Activity Reporting SystemProvides Easy-to-Update, Accessible Information

By Rob Kelly

PAGE 12�

FROM PAGE 10

and improves student success but doesnot share that work publicly, it wouldnot count as scholarly activity.“Transparency has to be a part of all

activities. It’s in becoming public thatone begins to enter truly scholarlyactivity. That’s where we leave it. Wedo not have peers evaluate or the deanevaluate the overall quality of thatpublic scholarly activity. It’s that spiritof faculty just coming out and takingthat risk of being public that we thinkis going to continually transform theculture,” Nedwek says.

OutcomesMaryville University implemented

this electronic faculty activity report-ing system nearly three years ago, andin that time there have been severalpositive outcomes:• The university is undergoing amajor reconsideration of promo-tion and tenure criteria to reflectthe Boyer orientation to scholarlyactivities.

• Capture of the data electronicallyand ease of use make it easy foracademic leaders to see whatscholarly work faculty are

involved in, and they can begin tobuild professional developmentprograms around that to help fac-ulty improve in various areas.

• The data can be made availablefor other management functions.“I can have a report in a couple ofminutes that tells a donor whatour faculty are doing in the area ofapplied research, and it comes outas a beautiful, easily read report,”Nedwek says. “I also use it in mywork with the board of trustees todemonstrate the faculty’s produc-tivity.” (Of course, privacy is aconcern, and the system has aseries of security measures, andwhen the information is used forreports, faculty are asked for theirpermission to use the informa-tion.)

Motivation for complianceFaculty compliance with the system

has been good, Nedwek says. The easeof inputting their information hashelped, but faculty also realize thatthey stand to benefit. “We have gottenenormous compliance on the part ofthe faculty, who are just beginning tosee the utility of this approach fortheir requests for sabbaticals or as the

untenured faculty begin their dossiersfor their second-, third-, or fourth-yearreviews.” (The main differencebetween the activity reports and thedossiers for formal reviews is thatthe dossiers include informationthat demonstrates the quality of thescholarship.)At the department level, detailed

information in these activity reportscan bolster the strength of requests fornew faculty lines or additionalresources.In addition, there may soon be mon-

etary rewards attached to the informa-tion in these activity reports. “Theissue facing us in our fourth year is, towhat extent can we use the activityreports as a means for compensationmodeling? That’s a really tough ques-tion because when I was academicvice president, I sold this whole modelon the notion that this is purely devel-opmental, and now some might per-ceive this as changing the rules of thegame. On the other hand, for facultywho are productive, it will finally be away for us to begin to engage in meritpay,” Nedwek says. �

Indiana University-Purdue UniversityIndianapolis had mixed results get-ting faculty to develop and teachonline courses before implementing itsJump Start program, a faculty develop-ment initiative that provides facultymembers with a team of online learn-ing experts to help develop onlinecourses.

Now, rather than having to convincefaculty members to create and teachonline courses, the university can beselective as there is more faculty inter-est in creating online courses than theprogram can accommodate.Despite the administration’s interest

in developing online courses, manyfaculty members were leery of the

amount of time it would take. “Theirresponse was, ‘I don’t know how tocreate online courses, and I reallydon’t know that that’s what I want tospend my time learning to do,’” saysTerri Tarr, director of instructionaldesign and development at IUPUI’s

12

FROM PAGE 11

Jump Start Program Prepares Facultyto Teach Online

By Rob Kelly

PAGE 13�

Center for Teaching and Learning.The Jump Start program was devel-

oped in response to this issue. “Weprovide them with support so theydon’t have to develop the course totallyon their own. Their concern is mainlywith the content and how to teach thecourse,” Tarr says.Selection for the Jump Start program

is competitive because the program canaccommodate only eight to 10 partici-pants per year. Faculty members aregiven a $5,000 stipend so they can buythemselves some time, usually duringthe summer, Tarr says.The program gives priority to high-

enrollment freshman courses, coursesthat are part of online certificate pro-grams, and courses needed by associ-ate degree holders to complete ageneral studies degree. The selectioncommittee also considers the facultymember’s plan for the course, howwell those plans fit with the univer-sity’s goals, and how the programmight be able to help a particularfaculty member.Each faculty participant is assigned a

support team that consists of• An instructional design consultantwho:- helps faculty develop courseobjectives, activities, and assess-ment strategies- directs the creation of a workplan and design document for thecourse

• A subject specialist librarian who:- provides information resources- helps with remote access tolibrary materials- designs library instruction specifi-cally for the course

• Media production staff that- creates Web interfaces, images,illustrations, video, and audio

• A copyright managementconsultant who:- determines whether a work iscopyrighted- assesses fair use- manages permission requests

- maintains copyright compliancerecords.

The program begins with a four-dayworkshop in which participants learnabout the basics of online coursedesign and best practices. “We foundthat faculty have trouble envisioningright away what an online course isand what it looks like. So we start offby giving them some ideas on how towrite goals and objectives, and howto ‘chunk’ content. We show themexamples of different Web interfacesthey can use,” Tarr says.Then faculty spend time working on

their individual courses with theirdesign team, fleshing out their goalsand envisioning different course ele-ments. As they get farther along, theystart considering which multimediamight be used in the course. “We talkabout learning objects that can be sim-

ply altered or reused several times,”says Rhett McDaniel, director ofinstructional technology at IUPUI’sCenter for Teaching and Learning. “Isthe content best suited for a drag-and-drop exercise or some sort of 3-dimen-sional model?”The goal for the initial workshop is

for each participant to develop onemodule for his or her course, which ishanded off to digital media services todevelop a prototype. “We found thatthat’s really important having that onevery intensive week and getting thatprototype plan developed. We’ve donesome online course development with-out the Jump Start program and foundit was very easy for faculty to keepspinning their wheels as they thinkabout what they are going to do beforethey get started creating anything,”

13

FROM PAGE 12

PAGE 14�

Jump Start Week Workshop ScheduleDay 1• Learn the basics of online course design.• See examples of online courses with interactivity.• Introduce writing goals and objectives.• Consider Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance issues.• Meet with design team to develop work plan.

Day 2• Develop or refine goals and objectives for individual courses.• Learn visual design principles for online courses.• Meet with Digital Media Services (DMS) production group to learn aboutavailable production support.

• Consult with information resource library faculty about support for theproject.

• Select user web interface and types of interactivity available for IUPUIOnline courses.

Day 3• Discuss best practices in online teaching.• Identify departmental and school supports for the project.• Work with copyright consultant to determine elements of fair use andthose that will require permission.

• Learn about assessment of online courses.• Continue course design work and develop prototype.• Share your course design and view other faculty projects.

Day 4• Continue course design work.• Establish calendar for completion and finalize work plan.

Faculty learning communities pro-vide opportunities for faculty to get

together to discuss similar interestsand improve their teaching and learn-ing practices. In the past 15 years, theyhave become more formalized throughthe work of Milton Cox and others aswell as through use of Web-basedtechnologies to connect faculty in newways.Web-based technologies can

enhance faculty learning communitiesby providing faculty with more waysto communicate and by providing acollection of internal and externalonline resources, says Pamela Sherer,associate professor of management atProvidence College.Sherer, who helps faculty establish

and maintain technology-enhancedlearning communities, says that byusing listservs, threaded discussions,chat, Webcasts, and portals, technol-ogy-enhanced faculty learning com-munities can bring faculty togetheracross campus as well as from otherinstitutions.Sherer sees a wide range of possibili-

ties for the use of Web-based technolo-gies in faculty learning communities.

For example, an interdisciplinarygroup of faculty interested in dis-cussing the teaching of statistics invarious disciplines might use the tech-nologies to:• take an online course together onthe teaching of statistics

• collectively or individually down-load trial versions of new softwareand talk about it

• participate in listservs and chatrooms with colleague from otherinstitutions

• write a joint article for an onlinenewsletter

• serve as a group of experts forother colleagues.

Web-based technologies also canmake visible the work of these com-munities to a wider audience than thework of faculty who meet only face toface, which can be helpful for otherfaculty members. It also can let admin-istrators know the kinds of activitiesthe group is engaged in and theprogress they are making, which canbe helpful in seeking funding.

Creating and maintainingtechnology-enhanced FLCsEstablishing technology-enhanced

learning communities is becomingeasier to do as more faculty membersbecome familiar with Web-basedtechnology and institutions developthe infrastructure to support thistechnology.Faculty learning communities should

be a group of six to 16 people, Sherersays. They can be members of acohort such as junior or mid-careerfaculty, or they may be faculty mem-bers brought together for a particulartopic such as multicultural coursetransformation, problem-based learn-ing, the capstone experience, teachingwriting, teaching and learning in a labsetting, teaching a foreign language, orteaching and learning in large classes.These communities may exist for a

short time and have clear goals suchas development of a published reportor article, or they may continue indefi-nitely with new members sustainingthe efforts and bringing new ideas toadd to a growing list of best practices

14

Technology-Enhanced Faculty LearningCommunities Expand Development Opportunities

By Rob Kelly

Tarr says.The program does not end with the

four-day workshop. The entire processgoes on for 67 days. Faculty partici-pants work mostly with the instruc-tional design consultant, and “the restof the team members flow in and outof the process as they’re needed,”

McDaniel says.There is a showcase of all Jump

Start project prototypes in June and amidpoint project check for contentdevelopment. In July, faculty partici-pants submit their course contents tothe production unit, which completesproduction in August.Faculty members who do not go

through the Jump Start program still

gets the same quality of help from theCenter for Teaching and Learning, butwithout the structure that the JumpStart program provides, which keepsfaculty members on a tight scheduleand helps ensure quality. �

FROM PAGE 13

PAGE 15�

that can be made available to others.“Most faculty learning communities

emerge out of an on-campus facultydevelopment program with a person orpersons helping to maintain them overtime. That’s where I think a facultydevelopment person can help,” Sherersays.Faculty developers and department

chairs can be instrumental in generat-ing topics and identifying cohorts. Tomaintain a technology-enhanced fac-ulty learning community, there shouldbe a person in place to• coordinate funding• provide technology support• educate faculty and administratorsabout faculty learningcommunities

• identify people with common inter-ests

• help faculty find relevant resources• form partnerships with others oncampus such as student affairs andthe library.

In technology-enhanced facultylearning communities, the goal is todevelop a portal where communitymembers and others can go to accessall the tools and resources related tothat learning community. A logicalplace to house such a portal would beon the institution’s faculty develop-ment website.Institutions with large faculty learn-

ing community programs such asMiami University, Indian University-Purdue University Indianapolis, andThe Ohio State University can serve asresources for institutions that have fac-ulty learning communities that are lessestablished, Sherer says.

BenefitsSherer says that the technology-

enhanced learning communities can• create more faculty developmentopportunities

• expand faculty development froman event on campus to every-where, all the time

• provide resources for faculty intimes of need

• bring the scholarship of teachingand learning to a wider audience.

Continued need for F2FcommunicationSherer does not think the technology

will replace face-to-face faculty learn-ing community meetings but willbecome “just another way of conduct-ing business.”“Contrary to what some other people

may say, people do like to meet face toface, and I think face-to-face meetingshave been critical and will continue tobe critical for faculty learning commu-nities,” Sherer says. “I think we’redeveloping our [communication]styles. These are major changes in howwe communicate, how we get together,and what we consider being in touch.And for people like me where every-thing had been face to face, we need tolearn new ways of thinking aboutthings.” �

15

FROM PAGE 14

Talk about Teaching That Benefits Beginnersand Those Who Mentor Them

By Maryellen Weimer

Beginning college teachers benefitwhen they have an instructional

mentor. That fact is well established;as is the fact that mentoring benefitsthose who mentor. The influx of newfaculty over the past few years hascaused mentoring programs to flour-ish. All kinds of activities have beenproposed so that mentors and menteescan spend their time together prof-itably. Addressed less often are thoseinstructional topics particularly benefi-cial for the experienced and less-expe-

rienced teachers to address. Here’s alist of possibilities.

Talk about teaching that gets pastthe pleasantries and basic tech-niques. Most new teachers do needhelp with the mechanics. But detailsabout how many points for extracredit, what prevents late papers, andwhether students should eat in classshould be part of a first conversation.They should not dominate subsequentexchanges.

Early on, new teachers need to real-ize that real instructional issues aremuch more complex and much moreintellectually intriguing. Mentors canhelp new faculty talk about teachingon a different level—the level of ques-tions without easy answers and thelevel that reveals how much morethere is to learn about teaching andlearning.

PAGE 16�

How to put student ratings in per-spective. Most college teachers don’tget their best student ratings in thefirst courses they teach. But most newcollege teachers do take early ratingsmore seriously than those receivedsubsequently. Much like beginning(and sometimes not-so-beginning)writers, new teachers have troubleseparating themselves from the per-formance. So it’s beneficial to have acolleague who’s been around for awhile, who can look objectively at aset of ratings and say something like,“Well, if these were my ratings, hereare the three things I’d conclude.”

Help seeing syllabus constructionas the design of learning environ-ments and the construction oflearning experiences. For beginningteachers, there’s the mechanical ques-tion of what goes on a syllabus—it’s apragmatic question and often needs tobe answered in a hurry. But syllabusconstruction is not just about whathappens in the course and when. It’sreally about course design. The poli-cies placed on a syllabus convey whatthe teacher believes contributes tolearning. Assignments dictate theterms and conditions under which stu-dents will have their most in-depthencounter with the content. A mentorcan help a new college teacher seebeyond the details and look for theassumptions on which a policy orpractice rests.

Reminders that exams not onlyassess learning, they promote it. Toooften faculty (not just new teachers,although new teachers are particularlysusceptible) see exams as the meansthat allows them to gauge and thengrade student mastery of material.Faculty forget that exams promote

learning. They “force” an up-close andpersonal encounter with the content ofthe course.Students review their notes, they

read the text, they ask each otherquestions, they decide what’s impor-tant, and they make guesses aboutwhat they need to know for the exam.All these activities promote the learn-ing of course material. Together, theteacher with experience and the newteacher can talk about how examevents can be designed so as to maxi-mize their inherent learning potential.

Warnings about the folly of pre-dicting who will and won’t make itin the course/major. Making judg-ments about who is and who isn’tgoing to succeed in the course is natu-ral, and with experience, the accuracyof those calls improves but doesn’tmean it’s always reliable. Honestteachers have lots of stories about howbadly they missed.What any teacher must avoid is let-

ting students think that the teacherdoesn’t believe they have what ittakes. Yes, teachers do need to givestudents accurate feedback about theirperformance in a course and what thatlevel of performance will lead to if itcontinues. But that’s very differentthan saying or subtly conveying that astudent doesn’t have the intellectualmuscle required to master the mate-rial. Students need teachers whobelieve in them and who recognizethat ultimately, the decision about suc-cess or failure is one that studentsmake.

Wise advice on classroom manage-ment. Not being seasoned, confidentpedagogues, new teachers can besuckers for rules, especially those thatmake clear the teacher’s authority overlife in the classroom. New teachersneed to learn that the attraction to

rules grows out of an interestingconundrum. Despite having lots ofpower over students, teachers are notin control of the classroom. It takestime and encouragement from a men-tor to learn that students can betrusted—not believed in blindly, buttrusted enough for teachers to showthem respect and believe that it will bereturned. �

FROM PAGE 15

16

Teaching vs. Research: Finally, a New Chapter

By Maryellen Weimer

The argument persists: teaching andresearch are complementary—each

in some synergistic way builds on andsupports the other. Standing againstthe argument is an impressive, ever-growing array of studies that consis-tently fail to show any linkage

between teaching effectiveness andresearch productivity. Becauseadministrators have a vested interestin faculty being able to do both well,the two sides continue to exchangearguments and accusations in a debatethat has grown old, tired, and terribly

nonproductive.Could it be that the two sides are

actually debating different proposi-tions? That’s what Michael Prince,Richard Felder, and Rebecca Brent

PAGE 18�

17

Now, there’s a headline you mightread in the educational equivalent

of the National Enquirer. Aware thatyour material prevents instructionalgrowth? How can that be?A love of the material and a willing-

ness to convey that to students onlyenhances learning. The problem iswhen the content becomes the be-alland end-all of the teaching process,when the content matters more thananything else. When content is thatimportant, faculty are prevented fromusing methods that enhance howmuch students learn. In this case thecontent orientation of faculty hurtsstudents, but the argument here is thatit also hurts teachers.When teachers think the only, the

best, the most important way toimprove their teaching is by develop-ing their content knowledge, they endup with sophisticated levels of knowl-edge, but they have only simplisticinstructional methods to convey thatmaterial. To imagine that content mat-ters more than process is to imagine

that the car is more important than theroad. Both are essential. What weteach and how we teach it are inextri-cably linked and very much dependenton one another.Even though both are tightly linked,

they are still separate. Development ofone doesn’t automatically improvehow the other functions. So you canwork to grow content knowledge, butif the methods used to convey thatknowledge are not sophisticated andup to the task, teaching may still bequite ineffective. It may not inspireand motivate students. It may notresult in more and better studentlearning. Because teachers so love thecontent, they almost never blame it.No, it’s the students’ fault. They aren’tbright enough. They don’t studyenough. They don’t deserve to be pro-fessionals in this field.But teachers who teach courses in

which large numbers of studentsstruggle and routinely fail are not gen-erally positive about teaching. Theyare more often cynical, rigid, and

defensive. The truth about how muchisn’t being learned in these courses ishard to ignore, no matter how rou-tinely students are blamed.The typical college teacher has spent

years in courses developing the knowl-edge skill set and virtually no time onthe teaching set. This way of preparingprofessors assumes that the content ismuch more complex than the process,when in fact both are equally formida-ble. Marrying the content and theprocess requires an intimate andsophisticated knowledge of both.Some kinds of content are best taughtby example, some by experience.Other kinds are best understood whendiscussed and worked on collabora-tively. Other kinds need individualreflection and analysis. Besides theseinherent demands of the content itself,there are the learning needs of individ-ual students, which vary across manydimensions.The best teachers are not always,

not even usually, those teachers withthe most sophisticated content knowl-edge. The best teachers do know theirmaterial, but they also know a lotabout the process. They have at theirdisposal a repertoire of instructionalmethods, strategies, and approaches—a repertoire that continually grows,just as their content knowledge devel-ops. They never underestimate thepower of the process to determine theoutcome. With this understanding,content is not a barrier to teacherdevelopment. �

Content Knowledge: A Barrier toTeacher Development

By Maryellen Weimer

(all well-known in the field of engi-neering education) propose in thearticle referenced below. The firstproposition rests on the notion thatresearch has the potential to supportteaching. The second side is arguingwhether it has done so in practice, andthe evidence supporting that it has notis comprehensive and persuasive.In an extraordinarily well-referenced

article, these authors move the discus-sion forward by exploring the effec-tiveness of three strategies that couldstrengthen the research-teachingnexus: 1) bringing research into theclassroom, 2) involving students inundergraduate research projects, and3) accepting broader definitions forscholarship. They review the literatureto see whether and how much each ofthese strategies has improved under-graduate teaching, ways each nexusmight be strengthened, and whatfurther research questions meritattention.Briefly, here’s what they discovered

about each. “Integrating research intothe classroom in the way integration isnormally conceived—i.e., instructorsdiscussing the content of theirresearch—has not been shown tooccur frequently or to improve instruc-

tion.” (p. 286)What these authors propose as a

richer potential nexus are those formsof teaching (inquiry-based approachesand problem-based learning, for exam-ple) that mirror the research process.In this case, “a faculty member’sresearch provides experiences thathave the potential to enrich instructionby introducing students to the researchprocess and to important researchskills.” (p. 285)The effects of undergraduate

research experiences have been stud-ied in some detail. Does the opportu-nity for students to be involved inresearch projects strengthen the teach-ing-research nexus by producing betterlearning for the student? The authorsanswer that question with a qualifiedyes. Involvement in undergraduateresearch does correlate positively withretention and with the decision to pur-sue graduate study. Students evaluatetheir experiences positively and saythose experiences helped them learn.But direct evidence of impact on

learning is scant. “[T]here is very littleevidence that undergraduate researchhas much of an effect on students’content knowledge.” (p. 288) Anotherlimitation of this nexus: very few stu-dents have the opportunity to beinvolved in undergraduate research

projects, and those that are tend to bethe very best students.As for whether broader definitions

of scholarship make it easier for fac-ulty to integrate their research andteaching work, the authors found“limited but encouraging evidence”that these models do help facultymake stronger connections betweenteaching and research.It is time to move past the old teach-

ing vs. research debate and this articleprovides a new and useful way to con-sider and talk about these related butvery different parts of a faculty mem-ber’s job. “The primary goal ofresearch is to advance knowledge,while that of teaching is to developand enhance abilities. Researchers arevalued mainly for what they discoverand for the problems they solve, andteachers for what they enable theirstudents to discover and solve.” (p.283)

ReferencePrince, M. J., Felder, R. M., and

Brent, R. (2007). Does faculty researchimprove undergraduate teaching? Ananalysis of existing and potential syn-ergies. Journal of Engineering Educa-tion, 96 (4), 283-294. �

For well over 20 years we haveheard that higher education does

not reward teaching. We have alsoheard that research accomplishmentscome first in determining tenure andpromotion decisions, and teaching sec-ond. At the same time, the imperative

to increase our valuing of teachingcontinues.The Spellings Commission Report

calls for new forms of teaching anddirects FIPSE to promote innovativeteaching and learning models. Boyer’sargument in Scholarship Reconsidered

for broadening our understanding offaculty work to include forms of schol-arship other than discovery, includinga scholarship of teaching, underliesmuch of the conversation regarding

18

FROM PAGE 17

Simple Commitment but Long-Term Challenge:P&T and SoTL

By David Sill

PAGE 19�

faculty roles to this day. Yet acceptableteaching is too often defined as “notdisastrous in the classroom,” particu-larly for stellar researchers. If there isno damage, no lawsuit, no newspaperheadline about bad teaching, nothingillegal or immoral, then the teachingmust be OK if the research record isgreat.This leads to an interesting series of

questions: What if higher educationactually responded to these calls toincrease the value of teaching? What ifcolleges and universities demandedhigher levels of teaching performancefor tenure, for example? Would thatmake a difference? Perhaps and per-haps not—making a commitment tohigher levels of performance is onething, but determining how to achievehigher levels of performance isanother.Southern Illinois University

Edwardsville made a commitment tomeritorious teaching for promotionand tenure in 1994-95 when the fac-ulty senate and the provost negotiatednew promotion and tenure policies.The new promotion policy includedthe following statement: “A candidatefor promotion shall demonstrate, atthe level commensurate with rank,at least meritorious performance inteaching, and at least meritorious per-formance in either scholarship or serv-ice and satisfactory performance in theother.” The commitment to meritori-ous teaching raised four questions:How would we define meritoriousteaching? How should we documentit? How could we evaluate it? Andhow might we help faculty becomemeritorious teachers?The four questions turned out to be

interconnected, and all four presentedchallenges. The first question, how todefine meritorious teaching, was farmore challenging than it firstappeared. The problem was that satis-factory teaching at SIUE was consid-ered good teaching. To receivesatisfactory rankings, faculty were

expected to have strong student courseevaluations; stay up to date in thefield, incorporating new develop-ments; use appropriate pedagogies;develop quality syllabi, handouts, andexams; and meet all normal responsi-bilities such as office hours. The chal-lenge, then, was to determine whatwas better than good.If meritorious teaching must be

something better than good teaching,is that simply a matter of degree? Onecould look for higher course evalua-tions, better or more handouts, moredeveloped syllabi, more office hours,or better class management. Butwhere do we draw the line? Lookingfor super-quality syllabi or extra-appropriate pedagogies made nosense. The temptation is to slide thescale down so that what had beendefined as satisfactory teaching nowbecomes meritorious, because the dif-ference between quality and super-quality, between appropriate andextra-appropriate, is indefinable.The same problems arise when look-

ing at the differences between merito-rious and satisfactory teaching as amatter of practice or of differences instudent learning. Using improvementstrategies, involving students inresearch or engaging activities such asservice learning, and demonstratingquality student learning are expecta-tions of satisfactory teaching. All theseapproaches are suspect when they areused to differentiate between differentlevels of quality teaching, becausethey are necessary conditions for goodteaching.The year after SIUE reworked its

promotion and tenure policies, facultybegan the Faculty Roles and Responsi-bilities Initiative (FRR), part of the Illi-nois Board of Higher Education’sPriorities*Quality*Productivity man-date. FRR developed a multiprongedapproach to implementing a commit-ment to meritorious teaching by devel-oping a meaningful peer-reviewsystem (course portfolios and recipro-cal classroom interviews), exploringbroader issues such as technology in

the classroom and AAC&U’s GreaterExpectations, balancing faculty roles,and redefining rigor. Exploring thescholarship of teaching and learning,framing questions of quality teachingin broad intellectual terms, and model-ing scholarly pursuit in teaching andlearning became the means of defin-ing, documenting, evaluating, anddeveloping meritorious teaching.FRR adopted the analytical frame-

work from Scholarship Assessed: Eval-uation of the Professoriate by Glassick,Huber, and Maeroff (1997), whichincludes six standards for scholarlywork that apply both to teaching as ascholarly activity and to a scholarshipof teaching and learning. The six stan-dards of scholarly work are cleargoals, adequate preparation, appropri-ate methods, significant results, effec-tive presentation, and reflectivecritique.Lee Shulman’s claim that “intellec-

tual communities form around collec-tions of texts” (Course Anatomy: TheDissection and Analysis of Knowledge,AAHE Forum on Faculty Roles andRewards, 1996) provides a usefulheuristic at SIUE for making concretethe abstract framework provided byScholarship Assessed. Peer reviewactivities provide a variety of texts,from course portfolios to publishedarticles, including model promotion-tenure dossiers in the library.Each year, the dossiers that make

the strongest case for promotion ortenure are selected for inclusion inlibrary course reserves. We startedwith six dossiers the first year, andthere are now 25. Some of the earlydossiers have been removed becausethey are no longer models of bestpractice. Faculty with dossiers in thelibrary participate in workshops andfaculty development activities. Theprofessional schools and the College ofArts and Sciences are represented.These dossiers indicate how to docu-ment meritorious teaching. The ana-lytical framework answers questions

19

FROM PAGE 18

PAGE 20�

of definition and evaluation. FRR pro-vides assistance for faculty to becomemeritorious teachers.Improvements in the quality of stu-

dent learning are found across SIUE.These are supported by an array ofactivities and programs, including thecommitment to meritorious teaching.One of the strongest contributionsfrom that commitment is the reward-

ing of faculty who participate in otherparts of the array, including internalgrant programs, assessment activities,and faculty development programs.While SIUE cannot claim to have

found the answer to raising the valueof teaching, we have found that thereis no single answer. The answers relyon differences in degree, kind, prac-tice, and student learning, but only ifthey are looked at through the lens ofa scholarship of teaching and learning,

supported by rich texts and institu-tional commitment.SIUE’s commitment to meritorious

teaching was simple compared withthe challenge of implementing thatcommitment. We have made muchprogress, but also know there is far togo yet.

David Sill is a senior scholar atSouthern Illinois UniversityEdwardsville. �

In a recent survey of college and uni-versity students, 98 percent reportedowning their own computer (PC orlaptop), and the same percentagereported owning more than one elec-tronic device (such as a computer anda cell phone) (Caruso, 2007). Starrett(2005) calls these students “digitalnatives” and uses the term “digitalimmigrant” to distinguish a good num-ber of educators from them. Digitalnatives are individuals “born in thelast 30 years or so, who [have] alwaysor mostly known a life with comput-ers” (p. 24). In addition to their bondwith computers, Starrett argues, these“digital learners . . . have differentexpectations of teachers, of the con-tent, of the delivery, and of access tothat content” (p. 24).Also referred to as NetGeners or Mil-

lennials, digital natives make up thegreat majority of students in academia.Although many faculty members arenot part of that generation, the major-ity are increasingly aware of students’multitasking habits, their demand forimmediate feedback, and, more impor-

tantly, their expectations about the useof technology in higher education. Arefaculty ready to meet these studentexpectations and needs? What barriersstand in the way of faculty integrationof instructional technology (IT)? Whatcan administrators—deans and chairs,specifically—do to encourage IT inte-gration?Even if we assume adequate levels

of training, support, and access, thereare many barriers to faculty members’adoption and integration of instruc-tional technology. These barriers canbe placed into two general categories:technology-related and academic-related. The most common technol-ogy-related barriers include the widerange of IT options, the potential forensuing faculty role conflicts (forexample, between being a technologyexpert versus a content expert), andthe rapid pace of IT improvement andinnovations. The most common aca-demic barriers naturally include timeand effort, concerns about the aca-demic quality of courses that use IT,lack of adequate incentives and com-

pensation, lack of tenure and promo-tion credit for the teaching and schol-arship associated with the use of IT,and concerns about job security. Anextended discussion of these barrierscan be found in Brinthaupt, Clayton,and Draude (2008) as well as in theEDUCAUSE Quarterly 2002 SpecialIssue.What can deans and chairs do to

help their digital immigrant facultyovercome these many barriers andincorporate IT in their courses? First,academic leaders must recognize thatdifferent faculty will be interested indifferent kinds of technologies,depending on their interests, experi-ences, and disciplines (Beggs, 2000).Working with campus IT trainers

and consultants, deans and chairs canensure that their faculty receive regu-lar overviews of or workshops on thedifferent technologies and what can bedone with them, especially within spe-cific disciplines. Of course, deans andchairs would benefit from such

20

FROM PAGE 19

Serving Students by Helping Faculty:Encouraging Instructional Technology Integration

By Maria A. Clayton, Thomas M. Brinthaupt, and Barbara J. Draude

PAGE 21�

21

overviews and training themselves.To minimize potential faculty role

conflicts, academic leaders canencourage regular roundtable discus-sions within departments to help theirfaculty identify and articulate disci-pline-specific ways to achieve IT inte-gration. For example, some institutionshave created intradepartmental train-ing programs that rely on experiencedIT users to help prospective or newusers (Clayton, 2005; Efaw, 2005).Identifying experienced faculty mem-bers within departments can also pro-vide deans and chairs with local ITexperts who can be drawn on for sup-port and training.Students will come to expect and

depend on new instructional technol-ogy, further increasing the demand forincorporating IT into courses. Aca-demic leaders, in addition to empha-sizing this student need and demand,could also advocate for student partici-pation in departmental or college ITroundtables and service on IT-relatedcommittees at their institutions.Let’s now consider the major aca-

demic barriers to IT integration. Thegreatest concern for both faculty mem-bers and academic leaders has to behow to reduce the time and effortneeded to learn about and implementIT. There are several ways to addressthis concern. For example, some insti-tutions have created departmental andcourse-specific templates within theirLMS platform (Clayton, 2005). Thesetemplates lessen the learning curve forfaculty and can provide students withstandardized resources and materials.There is also some discussion of uni-

versity and departmental standards orrequirements (Seminoff and Wepner,1997), such as developing guidelineson the minimal technology tools thatall faculty members need to under-stand and use. If an institution decidesto mandate a Web presence for all itscourses (e.g., having all faculty pres-ent their syllabi and contact informa-tion online), local support staff could

facilitate this process, taking some ofthe time and effort load off faculty.As institutions attend to accredita-

tion standards, learning outcomes,assessments and benchmarks, andcourse design and redesign efforts,academic leaders must understand thepedagogically sound ways that coursescan implement and integrate IT (Semi-noff and Wepner, 1997). This will helpaddress concerns about the academicquality of courses that integrate IT.One promising development alongthese lines is the creation of institu-tional centers that focus on learningand teaching. Such centers can helpfaculty to better understand the peda-gogy associated with IT integration.Academic leaders can also facilitate

a peer review process for coursesusing IT. Such a process can help toboth improve the quality of thosecourses and clarify the best practicescriteria for instructors (Bombardieri,2006). New IT users can reduce thetime and effort involved by followingthe developmental guidance and feed-back associated with such reviews. Atthe same time, experienced IT userscan improve their pedagogical expert-ise by conducting these reviews.Even if there are sufficient incen-

tives and compensation to help facultyintegrate IT into their courses,demands on time and effort will stillbe an issue. Deans and chairs mustalso work to increase the perceivedvalue and necessity of incorporating ITinto their faculty’s teaching. Of course,faculty members will do this only ifthey are held accountable and if theyget sufficient “credit” for doing so(Beggs, 2000). Thus, academic leaderscan increase the credit given to ITusers by promotion and tenure com-mittees, and more clearly articulatehow IT integration relates to the schol-arship of teaching and learning (Bom-bardieri, 2006; Hagner andSchneebeck, 2001; Seminoff and Wep-ner, 1997; Young, 2002).With regard to concerns over job

security, open dialogues between aca-demic leaders and their faculty offer a

good beginning. Deans and chairsneed to solicit and understand the jobconcerns of their faculty when itcomes to the use of IT. For example,how will online and Web-enhancedcourses impact teaching load, the useof adjunct faculty, what one teachesand how often? Failing to addressquestions like these will lead togreater faculty resistance and distrust.

ReferencesBeggs, T.A. (2000, April). Influences

and barriers to the adoption of instruc-tional technology. Proceedings of theMid-South Instructional TechnologyConference, Murfreesboro, Tenn.Available electronically atwww.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed00/beggs/beggs.htm.

Bombardieri, M. (2006, September5). Harvard studies ways to promoteteaching. The Boston Globe. Availableelectronically atwww.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/09/05/harvard_studies_ways_to_promote_teaching/.

Brinthaupt, T.M., Clayton, M.A., andDraude, B.J. (2008). Faculty integra-tion of instructional technology inhigher education: Barriers and strate-gies. Manuscript under review.

Caruso, J.B. and Salaway, G. (2007).ECAR study of undergraduate studentsand information technology, 2007.EDUCAUSE Center for AppliedResearch. Available electronically athttp://connect.educause.edu/Library/ECAR/TheECARStudyofUndergradua/45075.

Clayton, M.A. (2005). Faculty devel-opment is only the beginning: How toget faculty interested in technologyintegration. Higher Learning, 5, 13.

Efaw, J. (2005). No teacher leftbehind: How to teach with technology.EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(4), 26-32.

FROM PAGE 20

PAGE 22�

22

Hagner, P.R. and Schneebeck, C. A.(2001). Engaging the faculty. In C.A.Barone and P.R. Hagner (Eds.), Tech-nology-enhanced teaching and learn-ing: Leading and supporting thetransformation on your campus (pp. 1-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Seminoff, N.E. and Wepner, S.B.(1997). What should we know abouttechnology-based projects for tenureand promotion? Journal of Research onComputing in Education, 30, 67-82.

Starrett, D. (2005, September). Dowe have to talk the talk? Campus Tech-nology, 24-26.

Young, J.R. (2002, February 22).Ever so slowly, colleges start to count

work with technology in tenure deci-sions. Chronicle of Higher Education,48 (24), A25.

Maria A. Clayton is a professor ofEnglish, Thomas M. Brinthaupt is aprofessor of psychology, and BarbaraJ. Draude is director of academic andinstructional technology services atMiddle Tennessee State University. �

Now that I’m one of those “senior”faculty, I hear a lot of digs about

faculty who need to retire … dead-wood, still standing but hopefullyabout to topple. The belief that theteaching effectiveness of most“seniors” declines is strong and per-sistent. Is it true or yet another one ofthose academic myths?Interestingly most of the research on

the subject is rather dated. To believeit applies now, you must assume thatsenior faculty teaching today are thesame as seniors were in the ’70s and’80s. Given everything else that haschanged in higher education, I’m notsure how valid the assumption mightbe.Second, as with so many other top-

ics in social science research, thelimited results that do exist are notconsistent. For example, one studyfrom 1974 found that only 6 percent ofthe variance in ratings could be attrib-uted to age. On the other hand, a 1989study of 106 psychology faculty mem-bers (all faculty members are probablynot like psychology faculty members)was able to document an overall nega-tive correlation of .33 between age and

general teaching effectiveness.However, one of the definitive

sources on senior faculty (see refer-ence below), after a review of researchon the topic, offers this conclusion:“In summary, no studies found a largenegative association between a facultymember’s age and effective teaching.If a negative effect exists, it is small. Itis clear, however, that senior facultyare interested in, committed to, anddevote significant time to teaching.”(p. 31)That last conclusion is justified in

part by a study of New Jersey seniorfaculty who participated in a lengthy50-question interview. The researcherswondered if these veterans still found“joy” in teaching. “The data wereclear: the overwhelming majorityenjoy teaching and care a great dealabout student learning.” (p. 25)That’s encouraging, but not every-

thing that came out of these inter-views was. The daily obligations ofteaching keep even senior faculty verybusy, leaving little time to focus onteaching per se. “Without periodicopportunities to revitalize their profes-sional lives generally and their teach-

ing lives in particular, faculty membersreport that their ‘teaching vitality’tends to slip.” (p. 24)And despite these needs for renewal,

half of these interviewees said thatthey did not discuss teaching withtheir colleagues. Only one in 10reported talking to colleagues aboutinstructional topics such as books, labmaterials, and student complaints.And this kind of pedagogical conversa-tion wasn’t happening for this cohortin departmental meetings either. Onlyone in 14 reported that classroomteaching was discussed at those meet-ings. If faculty in this cohort talkedabout teaching, it was through someinstitution-wide faculty developmentprogram.According to these data, “seniors”

do care about teaching, and they don’tdecline precipitously in their effective-ness as measured by student ratings.But for these folks, those who knowtheir institutions and colleagues best,teaching remains a private, isolatedactivity; and if it is this way for thosewith years of experience, it’s not a big

FROM PAGE 20

Senior Faculty and Teaching Effectiveness

By Maryellen Weimer

PAGE 23�

23

stretch to assume the same for facultyin all age cohorts.

References:For a good review of the research on

age and teaching effectiveness see,Bland, C. J., and Bergquist, W. H.(1997). The Vitality of Senior FacultyMembers: Snow on the Roof—Fire inthe Furnace. ASHE-ERIC Higher Educa-tion Report, Vol. 25, No. 7. Washing-ton, DC: The George WashingtonUniversity, Graduate School of Educa-tion and Human Development.

The results of the interview study ofNew Jersey faculty appear in, Finkel-stein, M. J., and LaCelle-Peterson, M.W. (1993). Institutions matter: Campusteaching environments’ impact on sen-ior faculty. In Finkelstein, M. J., andLaCelle-Peterson, M. W. (eds.) Devel-oping Senior Faculty as Teachers. NewDirections for Teaching and Learning,No. 55. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

FROM PAGE 22

24

Provide Effective Leadership

Innovative strategies andfresh ideas to advanceteaching, scholarship,and service.From department chairs to provosts, sub-scribers value the information and insightthey find each month in AcademicLeader. Our own experienced editors,along with contributors from campusesacross the country, examine currenttrends, challenges and best practices,helping to advance teaching, scholarshipand service on hundreds of campusesacross the country.

Academic Leader helps you:• Lead and manage change• Build consensus and promotecollaboration

• Promote faculty development• Set academic priorities• Champion your programs• Evaluate faculty effectively andfairly

A must-read publication for:• Academic Deans• Department Chairs/Heads• Provosts• Academic Vice Presidents• Others in Academic LeadershipRoles

You’ll find articles in every issue ofAcademic Leader containing valuableinsights and practical advice to helpfulfill your institutions’ primary mis-sions of teaching and scholarship.Topics cover such subjects as:• Curriculum• Program assessment• Faculty development• Pedagogy• Budgeting• Leadership methods• Conflict management• Promotion and tenure• Personnel policies• Adjunct faculty• Faculty evaluation

Exceptional Value!12 issues only $208Ask about multiple-copy subscriptions.Available in print, online, or both.Choose the online version of AcademicLeader and enjoy these extras:• Free access to our full archive ofback issues!

• Convenient search capabilities!• Easy login to your subscriptionwherever you have a Webconnection!

Share this newsletter with your entirestaff with a Group Online Subscription.Contact sales@magnapubs.com formore details.

Submission Guidelines:Please review the author’s guidelines atour website or contact the EditorialDepartment at editor@magnapubs.comor (608) 227-8120.

Don’t miss another issue subscribe today! Visit www.magnapubs.com/academicleader

alsr08

Magna Publications, Inc.2718 Dryden Drive

Madison, Wisconsin 53704USA

www.magnapubs.com

26