Where are CTLs? Implications for Strategic Planning and Research

1. Where are CTLs? Implications for Strategic Planning and Research Sally Kuhlenschmidt Faculty Center for Excellence in Teaching Western Kentucky University October, 2009 POD, Houston Texas

2. Background/Method Definition of Educational Development Unit (EDU) Demographic Data Using the Data/Discussion Powerpoint & handouts at http://www.wku.edu/teaching/ctl_lists/ Tiny (to declutter) numbers are “N.” See original. Overview

3. Test Yourself • How many postsecondary institutions are there in the USA? • What percent inst. have a unit devoted to teaching development? • Where are most “ctls” located? • What type of school (doctoral, etc.) is most likely to have a “ctl”?

4. Strategic Tools for CTLs normative data-based arguments. Research on what factors make for a successful center at what level Random Samples from Population Strategic Positioning for teaching development organizations (e.g., POD). Patterns, trends. Pick a position Goals of Study

5. Started master list of all CTLs to create Google Custom Search Engine for POD. POD membership, Hofstra, U Kansas, U Victoria Web lists, POD listserv, etc. Added NCSPOD list. Reviewed each site to see if matched definition Background/Method

6. Searched remaining schools • 3,000 plus USA institutions • Google Custom Search Engine with only the “Non-CTL” schools. • For search terms: • “Center Teaching Learning” Then… • Copied home page text of a random sample. • Most common words in the text. • Searched using set of terms until no new hits in 10 pages.

7. Majority are “centers” devoted to instructional excellence. But found units doing teaching development including Committees, System offices,/consortia, Research/assessment, Technology & teaching units, Staff & student & faculty development, GTA offices, libraries, etc. “Educational Development Unit” (EDU)?

8. Definition of EDU PostSecondary Level Instructors: Faculty, GTAs, Adjunct, Part-time Service Learning Units? A unit, in the region (could be virtual), has been assigned teaching development responsibility by the institution Mission includes some “Pure” Pedagogy : Seminars, Consulting. Not just on Technology but more than Tech. Not just a list of resources.

9. Caveats • Time located: Oct 2009. • Sample weighted toward those • Mentioned on the Web (but 66 have no URL) • That are not behind firewalls. • Still have to check. • More systems • The “For profit” schools • Associate Human Resource offices

10. N=1,261 total Educational Development Units, including known international. N=201 non-USA units. N= 1,060 total EDUs in the USA. N=899 “one per institution” in USA. The sample:

11. Carnegie (With IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) N=4,391 institutions in USA Combined w/my database N=881 unique institutions having an EDU & in Carnegie database. The number used for calculations. Matched to Carnegie Data (6/19/09) on PostSecondary Education

12. Normative: What % of x variable occurs in the national sample? E.g., How many doc/research institutions are there in the USA? Description: What does the field of EDU “look” like? What % of x variable occurs in my sample of EDUs? E.g., How many EDUs are at doc/research institutions? Questions

13. Questions (continued) • Impact: What is the penetration of EDUs into a category of institutions? • E.g., What percent of all doc/research institutions have an EDU? • Global: How do the rates compare to the national rate (20%)?

14. What % of USA institutions have an Educational Development Unit? How far have EDUs penetrated higher ed? At least 20% (lower bound estimate--minimums) Strategic Tool: Argument of Uniqueness. Results

15. Carnegie Basic 2005 classification

16. Enrollment

17. r = .52** (p<.0001) Explains roughly 27% of the variance of whether an institution has an EDU. ?Does having an EDU lead to more enrollment? Or more enrollment to an EDU? Or a 3rd factor? How about between number of full time faculty equivalents? r = .39** (p<.0001) Explains roughly 15% of the variance of whether an institution has an EDU. What is the correlation between FTE degree seeking students & the presence of an EDU?

18. Public/private

19. Diversity?

20. Land grant, Liberal Arts, Medical Schools?

21. Graduate Degrees in Undergrad Fields?

22. See handout List of all EDUs in this study & this Powerpoint/handouts: http://www.wku.edu/teaching/ctl_lists/ Region? Accreditation? Undergraduate Focus?

23. Conclusions: • Enrollment has a greater impact on presence of an EDU than number of full time faculty equivalents. • What does that say for arguments for keeping centers?

24. Conclusions: Typical? Descriptive (my sample) Penetration (most fully adopted by) • Master’s/Associates institutions, • public schools, • enrollment in the 3-10,000 range, • in the Southeast, • North Central or Southern accreditation • Doctorate/research institutions • public schools • enrollment 25,000+ • New England (but also US Service Schools) • Northwest accreditation

25. Conclusions: Typical? Descriptive Penetration • have grad programs that overlap with some but not most undergrad programs, • the ratio of Arts & Sciences to Professional degrees is balanced. • grad programs match undergrad at more than a 50% level • More A&S degrees are delivered or are balanced w/Prof.

26. Conclusions: National Rate, etc. • In comparison to the national 20% penetration, • Fine at HBCU institutions • Below average at HSI, MSI & Women’s; • Poor at Tribal colleges (0/32). • Perhaps also poor in Outlying Areas (0/94) – Spanish? • Land grant, Liberal Arts, & Medical Schools are fertile ground for EDUs. • Schools w/>80% professional degrees are under represented. (?Law, Faith, Business, schools? Do well in Medical.)

27. How does this change our “business”? • More effective benchmarking • Given out samples of Medical, STEM, GTA, enrollment size, Assoc, not active • Defining “CTLs”, create a taxonomy? • Accreditation of units? • Sidebar: Generic name preference: EDU or Teaching DU?”

28. 1. Strategic Tools for centers – normative/comparative data. Ideas how you could use this information. 2. Research on the nature of centers Hypotheses to investigate. (e.g., org life cycle) Random sample is possible. 3. Strategic Positioning for faculty development organizations (e.g., POD). Discussion

29. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Carnegie Classifications Data File, December 18, 2008. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=809 Reference

30. Thanks to: • PODNetwork • NCSPOD • Hofstra University Center for Teaching and Scholarly Excellence, • the University of Kansas, Center for Teaching Excellence, and • the University of Victoria, Center for Teaching & Scholarly Excellence • My student workers who entered the early data: Jenni West; Jaime Trotter.