OHIO STATE Freshman Engineering Conference

Helping New Faculty Succeedand

Using Course Revision for Faculty Development

Bruce LitchfieldUniversity of Illinois

April 20, 2001

Conclusions: The Illinois program has …

• progressed from a course about teaching to a HR-style program

• benefited students and faculty

• earned broad support

• been personally rewarding

Premise: a disconnect exists

Effort to recruit faculty

Expectationsof faculty

Supportfor faculty

Proposed plan for the next 30 minutes …

• A brief description of new faculty development, especially at Illinois

• A dialog about “senior” faculty development:

Q: What can we do for senior faculty?

• Q & A (throughout)

The “Teaching College”

Our primary goal is tohelp new faculty members

succeed and excelin all aspects of their careers, including executing efficient

and effective instruction

Characteristics of the Best New Faculty?

Q: What characteristics distinguish those new faculty who excel?

write/pair/share, 4-5 minutes

Some Research: Common Characteristics

of New Faculty (Boice) • equated good teaching with good content (cake

demonstration)• practiced defensive teaching (to avoid student

complaints), primarily concerned that students would complain about content errors

• received student evaluations that fell below their expectations, and blamed results on external factors (invalid rating systems, poor students, unfavorable class times and sizes)

Common Characteristics, con’t., 2 of 3

• were slow to reach high levels of comfort, efficiency, and student acceptance

• did not seek help• experienced a sense of loneliness and lack

of collegial acceptance; had difficulty establishing productive contacts with supportive colleagues

Common Characteristics, con’t., 3 of 3

• had time management as a central problem– admitted to being over prepared (more material

than could be covered)– rushed to complete many classroom tasks, often

at the expense of student participation– spent ~30 hours/week on class preparation– spent far less time on scholarly writing (proposals

and papers) than needed for P&T

“Quick Starters”

• wrote enough proposals and papers for strong progress toward P&T

• scored in top quartile of peer and student ratings of teaching

• scored in top quartile of self ratings of their enjoyment and comfort levels as teachers

Those new faculty (~5-10%) who during their first 2-3 years …

How did they do it?

Unlike the majority of new faculty, quick starters

• reduced time spent preparing courses (after the first semester, averaged 1-1.5 hours of preparation per hour of class time)

• spent more time on scholarly and grant writing (3 hours or more per week)

• integrated their research into their undergraduate classes

Quick starters, con’t., 2 of 3

• discussed teaching with their colleagues

• sought support from mentors and faculty development programs, averaging 4 hours per week on discussions of research and teaching

• were satisfied with supportiveness and competence of both their colleagues and their students

Quick starters, con’t., 3 of 3

• lectured at a relaxed pace

• encouraged student participation

Summary: Quick starters were effective, efficient, and satisfied.

Development Model

Information

RelationshipStarting Point

D1

D2D3

D4

Adapted from Situational Leadership

Instructional Goals

• Manage all aspects of an academic career.

• Become a reflective and thoughtful instructor.

• Plan, implement, and manage effective, research-based instruction.

• Design evaluations of learning and instruction.

TC/FAST Start Activities• Group activities

– Stage 1: Workshop (5 days)– Stage 2: Consultations (syllabi, lesson plans,

research proposals, mission statements and development plans, etc)

– Stage 3: monthly seminars» Class project: teaching seminar» Excellent teacher visits (as group and individual)

• Personal development projects• Mentoring and being mentored• Paired observer assessments with videotaping

total ~ 60-70 hours

Teaching College Curriculum

Learning and Instruction

• Theories of Learning and Teaching– Applying behavioral, cognitive, and social views of

learning– Limits of attention, retention, and memory– Emphasizing content vs. learning

• Instructional Design– Identifying the “Must Know” content– Determining learning outcomes– Creating useful plans

Learning and Instruction

• Instructional Methods– Polishing your presentations– Checking for understanding– Leading discussions– Incorporating active learning strategies

• Assessment of Learning– Evaluating concepts– Developing tests– Assigning grades

Practice and Feedback

• Student Evaluations

• Reflective Teaching

• Observation of Excellent Instructors

• Classroom Observation and Feedback

• Dean’s Seminar

Elements of Reflective Teaching1

• Simultaneous sessions demonstrate alternative approaches

• Experiential learning is in a safe environment

• Feedback is immediate• Videotaping is done for later review• Reflection is cultivated1 Cruickshank, D. R., et al. (1981). Reflective teaching.Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa. (From OSU!)

Elements of Observations

• Observers and participants are trained

• Engineering and Education specialists observe

• Videotaping is encouraged

• Follow-up is included

• Confidentiality is ensured

• Collegial tone is present: assidere

Become a Successful Professor

• Achieving Tenure

• Developing Professional Networks

• Grant Writing

• Mentoring Students

• Managing Students and Labs

• Creating Personal Mission Statements and Development Plans (PDP’s)

Outcomes: Course Evaluation Scores

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

Effect'ness

TC, before

TC, during

TC, after

No TC

ofInstructor

ofCourse

Quotes from TC “graduates”

“It makes me much more efficient in preparing lectures. My preparation time was reduced from12-15 hours/lecture to 4-5 hours/lecture withbetter feedback from students.”

Quotes, con’t.

“It gave me tools and confidence to take chargeof my curriculum and my class. It inspired meto get off the ‘content treadmill’ and to enjoy teaching and effectively educating others in myfield.”

Quotes, con’t.

“The opportunity to participate in an atmospherewhere issues related to teaching could be discussed with others who have similar doubts, fears, and successes was very beneficial.”

Quotes, con’t.

“I am more relaxed.”

“I feel more comfortable in the classroom.”

“My undergraduate advising has improved.”

Conclusions: Teaching College has …• progressed from a course about

teaching to an individualized, HR-style development program

• been beneficial to students and faculty

• earned support from individuals, corporate sponsors, provost’s office, and the college

• been personally rewarding to organize and coordinate

Teaching Academies at Illinois

• 1994 – Engineering

• 1996 – ACES Teaching College

• 1996 – Provost’s Office: Campus Teaching Advancement Board

• 1999 – LAS Teaching Academy

• 2000 – CBA, Education/Social Work, Vet Med

Teaching Academies at Illinois

• Workshops, seminars• Community: support, camaraderie,

mentoring• Classroom observations

The college-based teaching academies at Illinois include some or all of the following:

There are also differences.

Program Support: What has helped us

1. A dedicated team of implementers

2. Dean and Associate Dean(s)

3. Department Heads

4. General Electric Fund

5. Campus/Provost’s teaching program

6. College of Education

7. Office of Instructional Resources

Keys to Your Success

Q: What do you see as the keys to asuccessful faculty development program

at your campus?

Keys at Illinois

• Encourage Long Term Commitment

• Obtain Administrative Buy-In

• Create a Learning Community

• Promote a Philosophical Change

• Emphasize Educational Research

• Provide Multiple Opportunities for Practice and Feedback

Phase 1:Goals and Models

Phase 2:Demonstration

The National Teaching College

Phase 3:Implementation, Networking, & Support

Work atyour homecampus

Interactions withother implementers

Site visitsand regionalmeetings

Start

Now

August

Item #2: How to reach “older” faculty?

• What have you tried (or know about) that worked?

• What other ideas do you have?

Q: What is our goal? A?: To help ineffective instructors become effective.

ARC – Architecture for Change

• Select large, interdisciplinary courses• Spend 1+ semester observing/learning

– Student surveys and focus groups– Classroom observations– Course material reviews

• Work with teams of disciplinary experts, education experts, change agents– Learn about pedagogy– Observe courses that work– Experiment with different approaches

History of Teaching College

• Deans’ Seminars for Teaching Improvement

• Dean’s retreat (‘94)– experienced Ed Psych grad course at Purdue– identified need for new faculty at Illinois– developed “Teaching College” with faculty team

TC History, con’t 2 of 3

• TC enhanced by grant from GE (‘96)– shifted to HR-style development model– added collaboration with HR Education

• AE3 created with expanded mission (‘97)

Overview: AE3 Projects

Teaching College

Graduate Student Development

Engineering Emotional Intelligence

Advising Workbench

Architecture for Change

Writing in Engineering

2000-01 Academic Year

Overview: AE3 Team

Co-directors: Bruce Litchfield, Engineering Prof., Asst. Dean Scott Johnson, Education Professor Ray Price, Severns Chair for Human BehaviorProgram Manager: Leslie CrowleyOIR Support: Laura Hahn, Sharon ScottGraduate Students: Jared Barrett, Ray RichardsonUG student: Kelly Griswold

TC History, con’t 3 of 3

• Now in 7th year, ~ 100 participants (15/yr)

• Shifting to front-loaded program AY01-02