TB-L Archives

March 2008

TB-L@LISTSERV.ONEONTA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jim Greenberg <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Teaching Breakfast List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:28:14 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (350 lines)
TBers:

The posting below looks at how to create a create a "faculty community of
critical practitioners who teach in a reflective and intentional manner that
leads to better student learning." It is by by Michael Reder, director,
Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning, Connecticut College. The article
is from the Fall, 2007 issue of Peer Review, Volume 9, Number 4. Peer Review
is a publication of the Association of American Colleges and Universities
[www.aacu.org/peerreview] Copyright © 2007, all rights reserved. Reprinted
with permission.


  Does Your College Really Support Teaching and Learning?
Michael Reder

I believe that although small liberal arts colleges claim to care about
teaching, the majority only give lip service to the idea. Small liberal arts
colleges, for instance, have a reputation for being student-centered and
focused on teaching as core to their mission. They emphasize the centrality
of undergraduate education. They boast of small class sizes that allow for
interactive learning. They go out of their way to hire faculty who "know"
how to teach and are interested in working with our students. Good teaching
is taken for granted at such institutions. I mean taken for granted in two
senses, both good and bad: good teaching is assumed to be the norm (which is
good). However, because it is assumed, there is often the collective
illusion that good teaching happens "naturally" (which is bad) (Reder and
Gallagher 2007.) The false logic goes something like this: "We all value
teaching; that is why we are here; therefore, we must be good at it." Not
surprisingly, most administrators are complicit with the idea that good
teaching always happens on their campuses, without the need for support or
intervention. And, as a whole, faculty members do care about their teaching
and improving student learning, but caring is not enough. Too many
institutions are failing miserably when it comes to actually supporting
faculty to become the most effective teachers possible.

Although my remarks are focused on small liberal arts colleges, my argument
is certainly applicable to a range of institutional types that claim to be
focused on undergraduate teaching-which includes larger universities. I
focus on such small colleges because as institutions they make special
claims about their focus on the education of undergraduate students.

Another way of stating my point is this: Good teaching does not happen
naturally-and when I say good teaching I mean effective teaching: the types
of intentional pedagogical practices that lead to significant and deep
student learning. In the past decade or so, higher education as a whole has
spent a great deal of time and energy thinking about student learning and,
in the case of the ever-growing pressure for accountability, how to measure
the effect of the education we offer our students. Most of the recent
movements in higher education are centered on improving student learning:
the use of technology inside and outside of the classroom, experiential
learning, information fluency, learner-centered teaching, community
learning. The Association of American College and Universities' focus on
liberal learning outcomes, civic learning, diversity, global education,
residential learning, general education, and critical thinking echo this
current trend of concentrating on student learning.

The shortcoming of too many of these discussions focused on student
learning, however, is that faculty-and the role that faculty play-is often
an afterthought. While the integration of the diverse aspects of a student's
educational experience can only be a good thing, we cannot lose sight of the
fact that at most of our institutions, learning is "classroom-centered": the
majority of student learning either takes place in or is directed through
classroom activities. In order to affect any kind of widespread change in
student learning, we need to offer specific pedagogical support to faculty
who will play an essential role in that change.

From Faculty Teaching to Student Learning

Over the past ten years there has been a fundamental shift away from
teaching (which views knowledge as central, something that is objective and
simply passed on from teacher to student) to learning (and the idea that
knowledge is something that is constructed and relational, a process in
which the learner is central). It is a mistake, however, to think that this
shift in focus away from what is being taught to who is learning
de-emphasizes the importance of the teacher. If anything, the role of the
teacher is even more demanding and complex, as she is forced to negotiate
not only a body of knowledge, but also an ever-changing and diverse group of
learners. As Robert Barr and John Tagg note, this new learning paradigm
views faculty as designers of learning environments who work in consort with
learners (and other support mechanisms on campus) to "develop every
student's competencies and talents." They argue that, far from the
traditional notion that "any expert can teach," "empowering learning is
challenging and complex" (1995). In other words, although the learner may be
at the center, the teacher's role is more varied and demanding.

This relatively new role provides an excellent opportunity for faculty to
become learners themselves. As Trudy Banta asserts in a recent issue of Peer
Review, "Most current faculty are not trained as teachers, so extensive
faculty development is needed to raise awareness of good practice in
enhancing teaching" (2007). The programs that I and my colleagues at other
faculty teaching centers coordinate ask faculty to connect across
disciplines and ranks in order to think critically about something they all
share in common: teaching. Our work provides faculty with the opportunity to
overcome what Lee Shulman, the president of the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, terms "pedagogical solitude." Faculty from
different departments, some on the opposite ends of our campus, many with
differing levels of teaching experience, work together and learn from each
other. By providing occasions during which faculty may talk about their
teaching, we create the opportunities for them to learn: from each other,
from the literature about teaching and learning, from reflective practice.

From Student Learning to Faculty Learning

Many at liberal arts colleges are quickly becoming aware of the reality that
favorable conditions for good teaching are not the same as truly supporting
teaching in a visible and intentional manner. This new emphasis on effective
teaching explains the tremendous growth over the past five years in faculty
development programs at such institutions (Mooney and Reder 2008). One
strong indicator of this trend is the significant increase in small-college
membership and participation in the Professional and Organizational
Development (POD) Network, the professional organization for faculty and
administrators running faculty development programs and centers for teaching
and learning. Once mostly the domain of large research universities, centers
for teaching are also being established at small "teaching" colleges all
over the country, as such schools have realized that teaching deserves
attention, and that for professionals to do something well, they need to
practice their craft publicly and critically.

There are several widespread misconceptions about the work of faculty
teaching programs, and I would like to address three that I encounter most
often when working with faculty and administrators:

Misconception One-Programs for faculty teaching and learning are about
remediation. In reality, programs that focus on faculty teaching are about
intentionality and critical practice. People who do things well are
constantly reflecting upon what they do, gathering information, and making
it better. Our programming allows faculty to become more intentional, and
therefore more effective, teachers. At Connecticut College, for example, the
faculty regularly involved in the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL)
programming are not only exceptional teachers, they are also well-known
scholars and campus leaders. Our most engaged faculty-in terms of research,
teaching, and service-participate in and help lead our programming.
Especially at a small liberal arts college, there is a symbiotic
relationship between effective teaching and scholarship (see Misconception
Three).

Misconception Two-Programs for faculty teaching and learning advocate one
right way to teach. How one teaches is shaped not only by a person's
individual identity (race, gender, age, sexuality, experience), but also the
nature of the discipline, the difficulty of the material, the size of the
course, and the experiences of the learners. Successful faculty teaching and
learning programs must embrace a diversity of teaching styles in order to
accurately reflect both the variety of disciplinary approaches and the
individual personalities of faculty. Our work acknowledges this diversity of
approaches; such diversity is essential because exposure to a range of
options is required to allow faculty to make informed choices about their
teaching practices. The discussions that the CTL fosters are almost always
interdisciplinary, where scientists might learn from studio artists, or
economists from humanists. Additionally, when we focus on the question of
who is doing the learning, the diversity of the learners themselves becomes
central to the educational enterprise. Thus, programs for faculty teaching
address not only diversity related to teaching and content, but also
diversity related to our students-in terms of their abilities, experiences,
learning preferences, as well as race, gender, and class.

Misconception Three-Programs for faculty teaching and learning force faculty
to make a choice between being scholars and being teachers. Teaching well
and disciplinary scholarship require the same habits of mind: teaching and
learning programs ask faculty to become learners themselves, in a way that
is similar to their engaging in their research or creative work. As teachers
we are asked to learn about our own teaching, about student learning itself,
about designing learning activities, and about improving instruction and
curricula. Like our research, which is reflected upon, made public, and
therefore improved, our teaching should undergo the same processes. At many
kinds of colleges, faculty are asked to be both teachers and scholars, and
the lines between faculty teaching and research are often blurred,
particularly when we involve our students in our own research. Above all,
teaching needs to be conceived as a collaborative practice (something done
within a larger community that is open to discussion) and a critical
practice (something shared with an eye toward discovery, integration,
refinement, and improvement), just as faculty do with their disciplinary
scholarship.

Teaching and Learning: What Really Makes a Difference

Recent research suggests that there are specific classroom practices that
lead to improved student learning. The preliminary results of parts of the
Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education create direct links between
faculty teaching methods and achieving the goals of a liberal arts
education. The results indicate that faculty interest in student development
(both inside and outside of the classroom), a high level of challenge, and
the overall quality of teaching, are just a few of the conditions that
correlate positively with student growth in areas such as motivation,
openness to diversity and change, critical thinking and moral reasoning,
attitudes toward literacy, and the desire to contribute to the arts and
sciences. Having clear goals, requiring drafts of papers, incorporating
class presentations, offering prompt feedback, and utilizing higher-order
assignments (writing essays, solving problems not presented in the course,
and making and analyzing arguments), all contribute to student growth in
areas that many schools identify as overall educational goals. Although
these teaching characteristics may seem obvious, Charles Blaich, the
director of Wabash's Center for Inquiry in the Liberal Arts, notes that
preliminary results show great room for improvement in our classrooms: "...
a majority of the students at our institutions are not getting 'high enough'
levels of these teaching practices and conditions, which may explain why
students, on average, do not seem to grow much in the first year on the
outcomes we measured." Just as most colleges support faculty undertaking
their own scholarship, it is equally important for schools to support
faculty in their quests to become as effective teachers as possible.

Supporting Faculty as Teachers and Learners

Efforts focused on improving teaching can be coordinated using a variety of
models, the most common of which include a faculty development committee, a
dean's office, a rotating faculty coordinator, or a center model with a
director. At many colleges, faculty learn about teaching in a variety of
often-decentralized locations: first-year experience programs, community
learning projects, information fluency initiatives, the writing program,
instructional technology, and departmental discussions. Beyond helping to
shape and connect faculty to these many initiatives and opportunities, an
effective teaching and learning program will offer at least two types of
programming: a yearlong experience designed specifically to meet the needs
of incoming faculty with the primary goal of helping them make the
successful transition to teaching at the institution, and some form of
ongoing programming open to faculty of all ranks.

Supporting Incoming Faculty

Doctoral education emphasizes research, not teaching, and as the vast
majority of faculty are trained at research universities, the need for
faculty teaching development is particularly salient at small liberal arts
colleges, where the teaching ethos and classroom practices contrast
considerably. The excellent literature on early-career faculty (Rice,
Sorcinelli, Austin 2000; Moody 1997; Boice 1992, 2000) clearly defines the
challenges new faculty face across institutional types. However, faculty at
small liberal arts colleges confront a variety of distinctive challenges
that the literature does not directly address, including the small cohorts
of incoming faculty and the relatively small size of departments and the
faculty as a whole. In addition, diversity has been slow coming to many
small liberal arts colleges, and new faculty, often hired to diversify the
curriculum or the composition of the faculty in terms of race or gender, can
be challenged to find like peers. Thus, early-career faculty might feel an
isolation that their counterparts at larger institutions do not experience,
not only in terms of their own research and disciplinary interests, but also
in terms of pedagogical approaches, methodological training, and lifestyle.

There are additional issues that can impact early-career faculty at small
colleges in ways different from their colleagues at larger institutions,
such as the distinctive missions of many small colleges (including those
with a religious affiliation) and their locations, which are often away from
larger metropolitan areas (meaning that dual-career couples may need to
commute to find employment, and faculty who are single may want to commute
in from a larger community). Connecting incoming faculty to other
early-career faculty across the institution provides them with a network of
colleagues who have experience negotiating similar issues. Connecticut
College, which uses a peer mentoring model to connect first-year faculty to
each other and across cohorts to second- and third-year faculty (Reder and
Gallagher 2007), and Otterbein College, which employs a single-cohort
learning community (Fayne and Ortquist-Ahrens 2006), are two schools that
have successful yearlong programs that are designed to address the issue
that small-college faculty face.

Continuing Support for Faculty: Creating a Community of Learners

In addition to orienting new faculty, it is essential to support faculty at
all stages of their careers. Although there are many types of programming
for faculty beyond their first year, the programs that often have the most
impact are ones in which faculty engage in a yearlong exploration of some
aspect of teaching and learning, or programs that offer a series of
standalone events that faculty can attend according to their interests and
needs. Many of these discussions focus on curricular objectives to liberal
arts values and goals, such as critical thinking or teaching writing or oral
communication skills. Programs such as Colorado College's "Thinking Inside
and Outside the Block Box" series
(www.coloradocollege.edu/learningcommons/tlc/programs_luncheons.asp) and
Connecticut College's "Talking Teaching" series
(ctl.conncoll.edu/programs.html#talking) offer faculty the opportunity to
discuss specific teaching issues with colleagues in an informal setting.
Other successful yearlong programs include Allegheny College's Teaching
Partners (Holmgren 2005), Macalester College's midcareer faculty seminar
(www.macalester.edu/cst/Mid%20Career%20Seminar) St. Lawrence University's
Oral Communication Institute (Mooney, Fordham, and Lehr 2005), and St. Olaf
College's CILA Associates Program (Peters, Schodt, and Walczak 2008).

Colleges that support faculty in the development of their teaching skills
recognize the difference between "caring about teaching" and "critically
practicing teaching." They are working to create a faculty community of
critical practitioners who teach in a reflective and intentional manner that
leads to better student learning. And this community, composed of colleagues
from across the disciplines right on campus, creates the opportunity for
faculty to become lifelong learners.

References
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). 2004. Portfolios
transform writing assessment at Carleton College. AAC&U News 4 Jan. 2005
www.aacu.org/aacu_news/AACUNews04/december04/feature.cfm.

Banta, T. W. 2007. Can assessment for accountability complement assessment
for improvement? Peer Review 9 (2): 9-12.

Barr, R. B., and J. Tagg. 1995. From teaching to learning: A new paradigm
for undergraduate education." Change Magazine (27) 6: 13-25.

Blaich, C. 2007. Personal correspondence. 23 November.

Boice, R. 2000. Advice for new faculty members: Nihil nimus. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.

Boice, R. 1992. The new faculty member: Supporting and fostering
professional development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fayne, H., and L. Ortquist-Aherns. (2006) Learning communities for
first-year faculty: Transition, acculturation, and transformation. In S.
Chadwick-Blossey and D. Reimondo Robertson (Eds.), To improve the academy:
Vol. 24. Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational
development (pp. 277-290). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Holmgren, R. A. 2005. Teaching partners: Improving teaching and learning by
cultivating a community of practice. In S. Chadwick-Blossey & D. R.
Robertson (Eds.), To Improve the Academy: Vol. 23. Resources for faculty,
instructional, and organizational development (pp. 211-219). Bolton, MA:
Anker Publishing.

Jones, L. F. 2005. Exploring the inner landscape of teaching: A program for
faculty renewal. In S. Chadwick-Blossey and D. R. Robertson (Eds.), To
Improve the Academy: Vol 23. Resources for faculty, instructional, and
organizational development. (pp. 130-143). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Moody, J. 1997. Demystifying the profession: Helping junior faculty succeed.
[3 papers.] New Haven: U of New Haven P.

Mooney, K. M., T. Fordham, and V. Lehr. 2005. A faculty development program
to promote engaged classroom dialogue: The oral communication institute. In
S. Chadwick-Blossey and D. R. Robertson (Eds.), To Improve the Academy: Vol.
23. Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development
(pp. 219-235). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Mooney, K. M., and M. Reder. 2008. Faculty development at small and liberal
arts colleges. In D. R. Robertson & L.B. Nilson (Eds.), To Improve the
Academy: Vol. 26. Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational
development (pp. 158-172). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peters, D., D. Schodt, and M. Walczak. 2008. Supporting the scholarship of
teaching and learning at liberal arts colleges. In D. R. Robertson and L.B.
Nilson (Eds.), To Improve the Academy: Vol. 26. Resources for faculty,
instructional, and organizational development (68-84). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Reder, M. and E. V. Gallagher, 2007. Transforming a teaching culture through
peer mentoring: Connecticut College's Johnson Teaching Seminar for incoming
faculty and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. In D. R.

Robertson and L.B. Nilson (Eds.), To Improve the Academy: Vol. 25. Resources
for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 327-344).
Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Rice, R. E., M. D. Sorcinelli, and A. E. Austin. 2000. Heeding new voices:
Academic careers for a new generation. New Pathways Inquiry #7. Washington,
DC: American Association for Higher Education.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2