ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1 Michel A. Wattiaux, Assistant Professor, UW-Madison Jeannette Moore,...
-
Upload
marcia-hawkins -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1 Michel A. Wattiaux, Assistant Professor, UW-Madison Jeannette Moore,...
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 11
Michel A. Wattiaux, Assistant Professor,UW-Madison
Jeannette Moore, Associate Professor,NC State University
Promotion and Tenure on the Basis of Excellence in Teaching: A Faculty
Perspective
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 22
Content/Objectives
1. A Quick Historical Perspective.
2. Research Productivity vs. Teaching Effectiveness.
3. Excellence vs. Expertise Vs. Scholarship of Teaching.
4. Scholarly Activity: a “Process” as Much as a “Product.”
5. ADSA-ASAS Web-based Teaching as Related to Tenure and Promotion Survey.
6. Summary and Conclusions.
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 33
Looking Back
1900 1950 20001850
Glassick et al. 1997.Scholarship Assessed, Evaluation of the Professoriate,
During and after World war II, science identified itself with national interest and got funded accordingly
RT
1st Morrill Act 1862.The Hatch Act 1887.2nd Morrill Act 1890.
Early in the 20th century, the work of “investigation” added to the prevailing ideas of scholarship.
R T
“The prime business of American professors … must be regular and assiduous class teaching.” C. Eliot, 1896 President of Harvard.
T
R
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 44
The Irony of the 2nd half of the 20th Century
Most faculty believed that the criteria used for
tenure and promotion were “out of Balance”
with what they believed was
important and appropriate for their institution (R. Diamond,
2002)
Diamond, R. M. 2002. New Direction in Teaching and Learning 90:73-79
Glassick et al. 1997.Scholarship Assessed, Evaluation of the Professoriate,
1950 2000
Research accomplishments became a well-rewarded model for individuals and institutions recognition.
Research
The reward system made professors undervalue, and turn away from spending time improving their teaching.
Universities became more open and inclusive in admitting undergraduates.
TeachingThe changing profile of the student body made the need for good teaching both more important and more challenging.
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 55
So, What?…
• Learning about — and training in — teaching has been almost entirely ignored in higher education programs.
• Most faculty in academic positions with teaching responsibilities have never learned how to teach.
• Most faculty teach undergraduates as they were taught … (for the most part lecturing).
• Current teaching styles are, for the most part, narrow and fit the needs of a narrow range of students with a particular learning style.
• Teaching still is a “private affair” that takes place behind the walls of a classroom. As a result, teaching has never benefited from a “peer-review” process.
Bad News:
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 66
Is there a Conflict Between Research Productivity and Teaching Effectiveness?
• Often time, the “pre-conceived” notion (bias?) has been that:…• Good researchers are (for the most part)
good teachers,
• …with the reverse implication being that:…• Good teachers may be “weak” researchers.
• Conventional wisdom is that teaching and research are mutually supportive if not inseparable (Webster, 1986).
Webster. D. 1986. Instructional Evaluation 9:14-20Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 77
The Relation Between Research Productivity and Teaching EffectivenessMarsh, H. W. and J. Hattie
• Is research and teaching complementary, antagonistic or independent constructs?
• Model: Teaching and research outcomes are a function of ability, motivation and time.
• Teaching effectiveness was measured with student evaluations (overall, presentations, and course value).
• Research productivity was measured with journal articles, conference papers, authored book or book chapters.
• One major research university, 20 academic departments, 182 Faculty.
Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 88
Teaching - Research Relation: Outcomes
Total Number of Publications (Last 3 Years)
Ove
rall
Tea
cher
Rat
ing
r = 0.03
Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 99
Teaching - Research Relation: Correlations
Ability1 Motivation2 Time3 Outcomes4
Research Ability
Research Motivation
Research Time
Research Outcomes
NC5
NC
-0.33
NC
Teaching
1Ability = self-assessed.2Motivation = degree of satisfaction and career objective.3Time = hours spent.4Outcome = publications (research) and course evaluation (teaching).5NC = No correlation.
NC
NC
Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1010
Teaching - Research Relation: Summary
• Good Researcher ≠ Good Teachers
• Good Teacher ≠ Good Researcher
• Research performance does not provide a surrogate measure of teaching effectiveness.
• Teaching performance should be evaluated with its own set of criteria.
Researcher
Poor Good
25%
25%
25%
25%
Good
Poor
Teacher
Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641
R.skills
T.skills
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1111
Documentation of “Excellence in Teaching” in a Tenure Package
• Student evaluations;
• Mentor teaching evaluations;
• Peer-review of teaching (mandatory);
• Invited presentations on teaching, especially outside the institution;
• Outside, arm’s-length evaluations by peers with nationally-recognized expertise in teaching… asked to comment on the broader impact of the candidate’s teaching scholarship;
• Course materials (syllabus, reading, etc.).
Email Communication with UW-Madison Biological Division Committee, Spring 2005
In addition to teaching well and often, candidates for tenure based on excellence in teaching must also demonstrate significant peer-reviewed scholarly contributions to teaching, usually research and publications on teaching. If grants support this research, grant panel evaluations and comments should also be included in the package.
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1212
Excellence in Teaching : How Does it Feel?
Excellence:
SignificantAccomplishment:
Research
Instruction
Instruction
Research
Level ofExpectation
and degree of uncertainty(gray bar)
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1313
Teaching Excellence, Teaching Expertise, and the Scholarship of Teaching
Carolin Kreber
Kreber C. 2002. Higher Education 46:93-121
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1414
Excellence vs. Expertise vs. Scholarship
Kreber, C. 2002. Innovative Higher Education 27:5-23
Excellence Expertise Scholarship
1. What are the sources of information relied upon as “building blocks” of pedagogical knowledge?
Own experience(trial and error).
Newsletters,WorkshopsBooks.
Conferences,Peer-reviewed articles.
2. What is the focus of the instructor’s reflection?
What works / does not work in the class as a whole.
Address a particular problem in their own teaching.
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1515
Excellence vs. Expertise vs. Scholarship
Kreber, C. 2002. Innovative Higher Education 27:5-23
Excellence Expertise Scholarship
3. Who do the instructors communicate their teaching and learning insights to?
No dissemination / communication of insights (“private affair” except for nomination material to a teaching award committee).
Insights are shared with others in the department or the campus(“public affair”).
Dissemination of insights to all interested in a particular T&L issue (“public
affair”).
4. Who are the beneficiaries of the instructor’s knowledge in teaching and learning?
- Students- One-self (instructor)
-Students-One-self- Colleagues - department - campus.
-Students-One self-Colleagues - beyond the campus& discipline.
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1616
Excellent vs. Expert vs. Scholar
Kreber, C. 2002. Innovative Higher Education 27:5-23
Excellent Teacher Expert Teacher Scholarship
Great course evaluations;
Recognize past “mistakes”;
Knows what works to help students learn their topics;
Recipients of (campus) teaching award.
Presented at teaching improvement “brown bag” series on campus or abstracts.
“Semi-formal” (collegial) peer-review of one’s teaching expertise.
Presented abstracts, invited talks, facilitated workshops on a T&L issue.
“Formal” (anonymous) peer-reviewed (journal-based) publications.
Draw on personal and formal sources of pedagogical knowledge and seek answers to specific questions;
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1717
Model 1: Scholarly Teaching (Expert)
2- Critical reflection on strategies, techniques, possibilities
3- Application to practice
4- Assessment of results
5- Documentation of results and self-reflections
7- “Publicly” available products (web-publications, student work, measures of student learning, course portfolios, etc).
1- Systematic inquiry into a teaching and learning issue
Modified from Ciccone, A. 2002.
6- (Semi-formal) peer review
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1818
Model 2: Research in TeachingCreation of Pedagogical Content (Scholar)
Modified from Paulsen, M. B. 2001. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 86:19-29
Reflective Practices
CourseEvaluations
FacultyDevelopment
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
TraditionalEducational
Research
PedagogicalKnowledge
TraditionalDisciplinaryResearch
Content Knowledge
Classroom Research
“Publications”Student learning
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1919
Criteria of Considering an Activity or a Work Scholarly
Diamond, R. M. 2002. New Direction in Teaching and Learning 90:73-79
1. Requires a high level of discipline-related expertise.
2. Has clear goals, adequate preparation, and appropriate methodology.
3. Results are appropriately and effectively documented and disseminated, include a reflective critique that addresses the significance of the work.
4. Has significance beyond individual context. It breaks new ground or is innovative. It can be replicated or elaborated.
5. The process and product or results, is reviewed and judged to be meritorious and significant by a panel of one’s peer.
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 2020
Faculty Perspective - Web-based SurveyItems 1-12: Institution and personal background.
Items 14-20: Description of learning environment of one class.
Items 13, 21-37: Current and “desirable” criteria for Tenure and Promotion on the basis of excellence in Teaching.
Item 38: Comment box.
Linked to 2005 ADSA - ASAS - CSAS meeting home page in early May, 2005.
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 2222
54 Respondents (no more than 3 per institution)
93
7
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Animal related (Animal sci., Dairy Sci.)
Non-animal related but in CALS
Other
Background % of responsesn
50
4
0
Department:
Teaching more than Research
Research more than Teaching
Both R & T are equally important
Type of Institution:
20
48
17
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
11
26
17
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 2323
54 RespondentsBackground
Type of Appointment:
0 to 20
% Teaching% Research% Extension% Administration
21 to 40 41 to 60 61 to 80 81 to 100 Total
8 15 12 12 7 54
13 11 10 6 0 40
18 4 2 5 0 29
23 1 3 0 0 27
Number of Respondents
Rank:
Tenured (mostly Assoc. & Full professors)
Non-Tenured (all Assistant Professors)
Not Applicable
76
17
7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
41
9
4
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 2424
54 Respondents
13
17
22
48
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 to 5 years6 to 10 years11 to 15 years
Background % of responsesn
7
9
12
Year of College / University Teaching:
Number of courses taught in 2004:
41
22
24
11
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
None
One
Two
Three
Four or more
More than 15 years 26
1
6
13
12
22
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 2525
What is Currently vs. Should Be Considered for the Purpose of Promotion and Tenure on the
Basis of Excellence in Teaching?
01. Students’ evaluation of instructor
02. Students’ evaluation of courses
03. Peer-review (evaluation) of the instructor
04. Peer-review (evaluation) of the course
05. Establishing new courses for curriculum improvement (beyond core research area)
Item
This is currently considered at my
institution(check all that
apply)
This should be considered at my institution(check all that
apply)
06. Providing students with “course packages” developed by instructor
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 2626
What is currently / should be considered for the Purpose of Promotion and Tenure on the Basis
of Excellence in Teaching? (cont’d)
10. Authoring peer-reviewed publications
11. Authoring undergraduate textbook or book chapter
12. Obtaining funding for teaching-related projects
13. Organizing and/or facilitating teaching-related workshops
14. Being recognized for quality of student advising
Item “Current” “should be”
15. Being a member of an editorial board to review teaching manuscripts
07. Documenting personal assessment of one’s own teaching (portfolio)
08. Presenting abstract at teaching conferences
09. Invited presentation on teaching at conferences
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 2727
Top 5 items CURRENTLY considered
79.2
89.1
95.2
96.2
96.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
01. Students’ evaluation of instructor
02. Students’ evaluation of courses
11. Authoring undg. text book or chapter
10. Authoring peer-reviewed publications
12. Obtaining teaching-related funding
Item % of responsesn
53
52
42
46
48
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 2828
Top 5 items “SHOULD BE” considered
69.8
72.2
72.6
73.7
74.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
06. Providing “course packages” (ppt, CD, web)
07. Documenting one’s own work (portfolio)
14. Being recognized for student advising
13. Organizing/facilitating teaching wrkshp
04. Peer-review (evaluation) of course
Item % of responsesn
31
38
51
36
43
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 2929
Top and bottom 5 items considered “LESS / MORE”
4
10
16
21
26
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
06. Providing “course packages” (ppt, CD, web)
07. Documenting one’s own work (portfolio)
03. Peer-review (evaluation) of course
14. Being recognized for student advising
05. New courses for curriculum improv.
-40
-40
-36
-35
-15
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Item % of responsesn
31
38
43
51
45
12. Obtaining teaching-related funding
10. Authoring peer-reviewed publications
11. Authoring undg. text book or chapter
02. Students’ evaluation of courses
01. Students’ evaluation of instructor
48
46
42
52
53
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 3030
Comparing the Views of “Experts” and “Regular Academic Staff”.
• Experts = Educational scientists who have “published” on the Scholarship of Teaching (n = 10).
• Regular staff = Faculty from two listservs of professional associations (n = 99).
• Survey instrument of 105 likert-type items measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Kreber C. 2002. Higher Education 46:93-121
Study Background:
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 3131
Selected Items for Which “Educational Scientists” Differed from “Faculty”
Item P
Kreber C. 2002. Higher Education 46:93-121
ExpertsMean1
FacultyMean
1:1= Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree
02. The assessment, recognition and reward of the scholarship of teaching remains a primary challenge ………………………………………… .036.8 6.4
25. Whether student ratings of instruction are acceptable measures of the scholarship of teaching is an unresolved issue ……………….. <.011.9 4.1
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 3232
Selected Items for Which “Educational Scientists” Differed from “Faculty”
Item PExpertsMean1
FacultyMean
1:1= Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree
18. The scholarship of teaching is an activity that, in the context of promoting student learning, meets each of the following criteria:• It requires high levels of disciplinary expertise,• It breaks new ground and is innovative,• Can be replicated and elaborated,• Can be peer-reviewed,• Has significant impact…………………………… <.016.1 5.3
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 3333
Summary and Conclusions
• After more than 50 years of “second-citizen status” in many institutions, the scholarship of teaching may bring back a shining quality to the instructional responsibilities of the faculty.
• Teaching effectiveness and research productivity are separate constructs relying upon separate, but inter-related sets of skills. Thus, it follows that:
• good researchers are not necessarily good teachers,
• good teachers are not necessarily good researchers, but...
• (presumably) one can acquire the skills to be good at both.
• A scholarly activity (in teaching) is defined as much by a process than by a specific product – peer-review is key.
ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 3434
Summary and Conclusions• Excellence, expertise and scholarship of teaching:
• are three distinct, but equally valid models that describe a faculty’s level of commitment to teaching and learning issues.
• provide a framework to set standards and expectations.
• could be used in tenure and promotion guidelines to help document teaching accomplishments in the context of:• each specific individual appointment (% teaching)• the mission statement of the department and the institution.
• ASAS and ADSA survey respondents indicated that the process of evaluation of teaching for the purpose of tenure and promotion should place a greater emphasis on traits related to “excellence” or “expertise” and a lesser emphasis on traits related to “scholarship”.