ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1 Michel A. Wattiaux, Assistant Professor, UW-Madison Jeannette Moore, Associate Professor, NC State University Promotion and

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


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.


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


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.


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:


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


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


Teaching - Research Relation: Outcomes

Total Number of Publications (Last 3 Years)

Ove

rall

Tea

cher

Rat

ing

r = 0.03



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



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


R.skills

T.skills


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.


Excellence in Teaching : How Does it Feel?

Excellence:

SignificantAccomplishment:

Research

Instruction

Instruction

Research

Level ofExpectation

and degree of uncertainty(gray bar)


Teaching Excellence, Teaching Expertise, and the Scholarship of Teaching

Carolin Kreber

Kreber C. 2002. Higher Education 46:93-121


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.


Excellence vs. Expertise vs. Scholarship


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.


Excellent vs. Expert vs. Scholar


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;


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


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


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.


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.


35 Institutions (all from the U.S.)


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


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


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


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


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


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



11. Authoring undg. text book or chapter


12. Obtaining teaching-related funding

Item % of responsesn

53

52

42

46

48


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


31

38

51

36

43


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


31

38

43

51

45

12. Obtaining teaching-related funding


11. Authoring undg. text book or chapter



48

46

42

52

53


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).


Study Background:


Selected Items for Which “Educational Scientists” Differed from “Faculty”

Item P


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


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


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.


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”.


Here you go! Citations are available at:http://dairynutrient.wisc.edu/page.php?id=87

Documents

ADSA - ASAS - CSAS 2005; 1 Michel A. Wattiaux, Assistant Professor, UW-Madison Jeannette Moore, Associate Professor, NC State University Promotion and