Promotion and Tenure on the Basis of Excellence in Teaching: A Faculty Perspective

1. Promotion and Tenure on the Basis of Excellence in Teaching: A Faculty Perspective Michel A. Wattiaux, Assistant Professor,UW-Madison Jeannette Moore, Associate Professor,NC State University

2. 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.

3. “The prime business of American professors … must be regular and assiduous class teaching.” C. Eliot, 1896 President of Harvard. Early in the 20th century, the work of “investigation” added to the prevailing ideas of scholarship. During and after World war II, science identified itself with national interest and got funded accordingly 1st Morrill Act 1862. The Hatch Act 1887. 2nd Morrill Act 1890. R T R T R T Looking Back 1850 1900 1950 2000 Glassick et al. 1997.Scholarship Assessed, Evaluation of the Professoriate,

4. Teaching Universities became more open and inclusive in admitting undergraduates. The changing profile of the student body made the need for good teaching both more important and more challenging. Research Research accomplishments became a well-rewarded model for individuals and institutions recognition. The reward system made professors undervalue, and turn away from spending time improving their teaching. 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) 1950 2000 Glassick et al. 1997.Scholarship Assessed, Evaluation of the Professoriate, Diamond, R. M. 2002. New Direction in Teaching and Learning 90:73-79

5. So, What?… Bad News: • 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.

6. 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). Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641 Webster. D. 1986. Instructional Evaluation 9:14-20

7. 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

8. Teaching - Research Relation: Outcomes Overall Teacher Rating r = 0.03 Total Number of Publications (Last 3 Years) Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641

9. Teaching - Research Relation: Correlations Teaching Ability1 Motivation2 Time3 Outcomes4 Research Ability NC5 Research Motivation NC Research Time -0.33 NC Research Outcomes NC NC 1Ability = self-assessed. 2Motivation = degree of satisfaction and career objective. 3Time = hours spent. 4Outcome = publications (research) and course evaluation (teaching). 5NC = No correlation. Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641

10. R. skills T. skills Researcher Teacher Poor Good 25% 25% Good 25% 25% Poor 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. Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641

11. 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.). 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. Email Communication with UW-Madison Biological Division Committee, Spring 2005

12. Level of Expectation and degree of uncertainty (gray bar) Excellence in Teaching : How Does it Feel? Excellence: Research Instruction Significant Accomplishment: Instruction Research

13. Teaching Excellence, Teaching Expertise, and the Scholarship of Teaching Carolin Kreber Kreber C. 2002. Higher Education 46:93-121

14. 1. What are the sources of information relied upon as “building blocks” of pedagogical knowledge? Own experience (trial and error). Newsletters, Workshops Books. 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 Kreber, C. 2002. Innovative Higher Education 27:5-23

15. 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. Excellence vs. Expertise vs. Scholarship Excellence Expertise Scholarship Kreber, C. 2002. Innovative Higher Education 27:5-23

16. Draw on personal and formal sources of pedagogical knowledge and seek answers to specific questions; 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. Kreber, C. 2002. Innovative Higher Education 27:5-23

17. 5- Documentation of results and self-reflections 1- Systematic inquiry into a teaching and learning issue 2- Critical reflection on strategies, techniques, possibilities 6- (Semi-formal) peer review 3- Application to practice 4- Assessment of results Model 1: Scholarly Teaching (Expert) 7- “Publicly” available products (web-publications, student work, measures of student learning, course portfolios, etc). Modified from Ciccone, A. 2002.

18. Course Evaluations Traditional Disciplinary Research Traditional Educational Research Faculty Development Reflective Practices Content Knowledge Pedagogical Knowledge Classroom Research Student learning “Publications” Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model 2: Research in TeachingCreation of Pedagogical Content (Scholar) Modified from Paulsen, M. B. 2001. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 86:19-29

19. Criteria of Considering an Activity or a Work Scholarly 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. Diamond, R. M. 2002. New Direction in Teaching and Learning 90:73-79

20. Faculty Perspective - Web-based Survey Linked to 2005 ADSA - ASAS - CSAS meeting home page in early May, 2005. Items 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.

21. 35 Institutions (all from the U.S.)

22. 54 Respondents (no more than 3 per institution) Background n % of responses Department: Animal related (Animal sci., Dairy Sci.) 50 Non-animal related but in CALS 4 Other 0 Type of Institution: Teaching more than Research 11 Research more than Teaching 26 Both R & T are equally important 17

23. 54 Respondents Background Type of Appointment: Number of Respondents 0 to 20 21 to 40 41 to 60 61 to 80 81 to 100 Total 8 15 12 12 7 54 % Teaching % Research 13 11 10 6 0 40 % Extension 18 4 2 5 0 29 % Administration 23 1 3 0 0 27 Rank: Tenured (mostly Assoc. & Full professors) 41 Non-Tenured (all Assistant Professors) 9 Not Applicable 4

24. 54 Respondents Background n % of responses Year of College / University Teaching: 7 0 to 5 years 9 6 to 10 years 12 11 to 15 years 26 More than 15 years Number of courses taught in 2004: None 1 One 6 Two 13 Three 12 Four or more 22

25. What is Currently vs. Should Be Considered for the Purpose of Promotion and Tenure on the Basis of Excellence in Teaching? This is currently considered at my institution (check all that apply) This should be considered at my institution (check all that apply) Item 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) 06. Providing students with “course packages” developed by instructor

26. What is currently / should be considered for the Purpose of Promotion and Tenure on the Basis of Excellence in Teaching? (cont’d) “Current” “should be” Item 07. Documenting personal assessment of one’s own teaching (portfolio) 08. Presenting abstract at teaching conferences 09. Invited presentation on teaching at conferences 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 15. Being a member of an editorial board to review teaching manuscripts

27. Top 5 items CURRENTLY considered Item n % of responses 01. Students’ evaluation of instructor 53 02. Students’ evaluation of courses 52 11. Authoring undg. text book or chapter 42 10. Authoring peer-reviewed publications 46 12. Obtaining teaching-related funding 48

28. Top 5 items “SHOULD BE” considered Item n % of responses 06. Providing “course packages” (ppt, CD, web) 31 07. Documenting one’s own work (portfolio) 38 14. Being recognized for student advising 51 13. Organizing/facilitating teaching wrkshp 36 04. Peer-review (evaluation) of course 43

29. Top and bottom 5 items considered “LESS / MORE” Item n % of responses 06. Providing “course packages” (ppt, CD, web) 31 07. Documenting one’s own work (portfolio) 38 03. Peer-review (evaluation) of course 43 14. Being recognized for student advising 51 05. New courses for curriculum improv. 45 12. Obtaining teaching-related funding 48 10. Authoring peer-reviewed publications 46 11. Authoring undg. text book or chapter 42 02. Students’ evaluation of courses 52 01. Students’ evaluation of instructor 53

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

31. 02. The assessment, recognition and reward of the scholarship of teaching remains a primary challenge ………………………………………… 6.8 6.4 .03 25. Whether student ratings of instruction are acceptable measures of the scholarship of teaching is an unresolved issue ……………….. 1.9 4.1 <.01 Selected Items for Which “Educational Scientists” Differed from “Faculty” Experts Mean1 Faculty Mean Item P Kreber C. 2002. Higher Education 46:93-121 1:1= Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree

32. 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…………………………… 6.1 5.3 <.01 Selected Items for Which “Educational Scientists” Differed from “Faculty” Experts Mean1 Faculty Mean Item P 1:1= Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree

33. 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.

34. 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”.

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