Making Relevance a Priority: Assessing the Needs of New Faculty

1. Making Relevance a Priority: Assessing the Needs of New Faculty Catherine Schryer & Donna Ellis Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 32nd Annual POD Conference – October 24-28, 2007 – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

2. Session Plan In this session, you will: • Learn about the challenges and needs expressed by new faculty members and department chairs at the University of Waterloo • Engage in discussions to share ideas about new faculty programming and resources and about our research tools

3. Our Local Context • University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada • 24,000 undergraduate students, 3,000 graduate students, 1,000 faculty members • Comprehensive university • Typical tenure-track load is 40/40/20 BUT we are a research-intensive institution ($127 million in sponsored research awards in 2006/2007) (http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infoiap/docs/pi/PIReport_Final_2007_withCoverPage.pdf)

4. New Faculty Support Pre-Study • Started NF-specific programming in 2002 • New hires = 60-100 each year • Components: • September full-day event – orientation, lunch with Deans and Chairs, panel on success, BBQ with spouses at President’s farm • Lunch & Learn events – on research funding sources, teaching & tenure, and course evaluations • Website & Binder – resources to help with teaching, research, service, and broader community • Individual services – course design, course evaluation analysis, classroom management, teaching observations, etc.

5. New Faculty Support Pre-Study Changes made before study: • New position – WatPort recruitment and retention coordinator in Associate Provost’s office • BBQ – moved to night before all-day event • Small welcome lunches in January and May

6. New Faculty Study: Methods & Participants • Received Office of Research Ethics clearance : • Run 8 focus groups (total n=32) with new faculty hired over past 5 years (duration: 2 hours each) • Interview 11 department chairs – selected based on: number of NF hired in recent years, length of time in position, and representation across 6 Faculties (duration: 1 hour each)

7. New Faculty Study: Focus Group Questions • What do you think are the characteristics of good teaching? • What challenges did you face as a new teacher? • What have you done to develop yourself as a teacher since coming to UW? • Who helped you and how? What resources did you access? • What could UW do better in supporting you as a teacher? • What could the units supporting teaching development do better to help you? • What is the best advice you could give to NF?

8. New Faculty Study:Chair Interview Questions • What do you think are the characteristics of good teaching? • What challenges do NF face in terms of teaching? • What could we (UW generally) do better in terms of teaching support for NF? • What could the teaching centre do better? • What advice do you give to NF?

9. New Faculty Study:Activity for You • Before revealing the results for most theme areas, we will ask you to predict the key responses from NF and Chairs • Each side of the room will have a role to play (NF or Chair) – quick brainstorm before the results

10. What are the Characteristics of Effective Teaching? • Personal character traits – inborn characteristics, e.g., enthusiasm • Course characteristics – teachable skills e.g., syllabus organization • Learning – students actually learned

11. Characteristics:Personality Traits • Chair – enthusiasm, organization • “If you have people that are enthusiastic teachers they may make mistakes, but if they work hard, they will overcome those” (C9) • “the notion that it is cute or eccentric (to be disorganized) is not acceptable” (C9) • New Faculty • “enthusiasm” (FG 1a,2b,3b,4b) • “approachable” (FG1a,4b) • “fair but flexible” (FG1b,4b)

12. Characteristics: Course Related • Chair – planning, organization • “So when I am talking about being prepared, I am talking about both big picture prepared and having the mechanics of day-to-day down” (C10) • New Faculty – planning, organization, clear expectations, meaningful assignments, gaining students’ trust, ensuring they know why they are learning • Learning. Effective teaching means that students learn

13. Characteristics: They learned! • Chairs 6/11 • “good teaching inspires students to apply themselves to the material, so that there is not an element of duress in self-motivated learning.” (C6) • New Faculty – understand where students are at, facilitate questions, convince students that they are intelligent and can contribute to field

14. What are the Challenges? • Lack of teaching experience • Lack of local knowledge • Students – cause problems • Research-teaching balance (or lack thereof) • Infrastructure

15. Challenge: Lack of Experience or Local Knowledge • Lack of experience – Chairs’ concern 6/11 • “Rarely do we have people with real teaching experience” (C4) • Hardly mentioned by New Faculty • Need for local knowledge – huge concern for NF – level of students, dealing with student problems, knowing who to go to for help without being a “pest”, knowing how course fits in curriculum, figuring out technologies

16. Challenge: Students • Chairs’ preoccupation: ill-prepared, demanding students • “they have to deal with what is popularly referred to as the ‘Millennial Generation’ which some of us prefer to describe as the ‘I’m Entitled Generation.’” (C6) • New faculty – almost no concern

17. Challenge: Research-Teaching Balance • Chairs • “biggest challenge is the competition between research and teaching” (C11) • “ institution does not value teaching…teaching is secondary” (C3) • New Faculty • UW does not value good teaching, although there’s lots of talk – not much incentive to be a great teacher – but there is to be good

18. Challenge: Infrastructure • Chairs are aware about class size, poor rooms, insufficient technology • “lousy classrooms” (C1) “overheated” “poor sight lines” (C6) • New Faculty – all of the above plus –poorly trained TA’s, poor support re: academic integrity (plagiarism), little access to past course resources

19. What have New Faculty done? • Collected and used formative and summative feedback on teaching • Used teaching centre resources (workshops, observations, CUT) • Sought help from colleagues (attended others’ lectures, had mentor) BUT didn’t want others to know OR colleagues didn’t always know how to fix problems • Gave themselves some time

20. What Support Should UW Offer? • Clearly establish UW’s priorities regarding teaching • Provide teaching support • Improve university infrastructure • Provide local knowledge – mostly Chairs mention this here “…how is the university going to overcome this conflict between teaching and research?” (C11)

21. Support from UW: Priorities Regarding Teaching • Chairs are aware of the conflict between teaching and research at the university level, many use a ramp-up model for teaching loads, and some recommend peer review of teaching and better rewards for excellent teaching • New Faculty were most focused on the teaching loads: “Communicate to students what faculty have to do” (FG3b)

22. Support from UW: Teaching Support • Chairs • “We have to support them on the teaching side” (C1) – need departmental resources and programming yet unsure they can provide this • Teaching centre assistance (i.e., course design workshops) BUT better in conjunction with department to increase impact • New Faculty • Agree with Chairs: want a “lecture coach” and department help with teaching development

23. Support from UW: Local Resources • Both Chairs and New Faculty mentioned inadequate classrooms and scheduling difficulties • Chairs added what New Faculty need to understand about the students (backgrounds and Co-op) • New Faculty added concerns about TA training

24. What Support Should Teaching Centre Offer? • Provide programming for new faculty – held jointly with departments • Identify or coordinate learning resources • Assist with interpreting evaluations of teaching • Increase awareness of what Centre offers – especially with Chairs!

25. Support from Teaching Centre: Programming • Chairs mostly recommended programming done in conjunction with departments (workshops, discussions, open classrooms) “…focus on bringing new faculty together with people who have a proven excellence in teaching and a proven love of teaching…” (C7) • New Faculty wanted more specific orientation information and specific workshops (teaching large classes, academic integrity, getting tenure)

26. Support from Teaching Centre: Learning Resources • Chairs and New Faculty primarily focused on getting assistance with technological tools (CMS, repositories) plus having access to past exams • Chairs more focused on the investment of time needed to innovate with new technologies = resentment “you learn some software, it’s just going to change in two years…what they want to do is teach” (C7)

27. Support from Teaching Centre: Teaching Evaluations • Only mentioned for this question by New Faculty (Chairs talked about peer review in previous question) • UW should consider using a different evaluation form and different evidence • Teaching centre (versus senior faculty) should coordinate peer observations or even do faculty observations – seen as more objective

28. Chair Advice • Have the right attitude • “So being a good teacher is determined by your enthusiasm” (c1) • Consult with your senior colleagues • “Don’t let things fester—see the chair… ” (C9) • Put a higher priority on research, but don’t neglect teaching • “for the next 5 years your job is to get tenure” (C6) • Know your material and be organized

29. New Faculty Advice • Try to be a good teacher but not great • Get help – colleagues, open classrooms • Seek clarity in expectations • Research is what matters • Scads of specific advice • Be prepared, be aware of student problems and how to deal with them, pay attention to course evaluations, vary assessment measures

30. General Implications • Many chairs believe that effective teaching is related to personality; more NF see teaching as a set of strategies that enhance learning • Many Chairs point to a lack of general teaching experience as a key challenge; whereas NF point to a lack of specific, local knowledge being available to them • NF see “millennial students” as less problematic • NF receive mixed messages about value of teaching, but mostly hear that they should not prioritize teaching • Chairs offer general advice; NF offer specific advice – NF are quite “teaching-savvy” – culture clash?

31. Implications for Teaching Centre • NF and Chairs want more department-specific programming – feel faculty will receive the message more willingly – but it’s unclear who will offer it • Chairs do not have a clear sense of what the teaching centre offers, so not able to promote us accurately • NF may not be confident that colleagues can help them – should teaching centre help depts set up systems for peer review, sharing of resources, etc? • How much can teaching centre step in when value of teaching isn’t on par with research?

32. Discussion Time! • Discussion of Results: • What 1-2 ideas would you suggest that our teaching centre use to respond to these results (e.g., programming, resources, organizational development strategies, etc.)? • Discussion of Methods: • What 1-2 questions would you add to or delete from the research tools used and why?

33. UW’s Initial Responses • Hired two new instructional developers – faculty programming and consultations • Replaced orientation in Sept with 2 workshops (academic integrity and course management) • Added NF listserv and socials • Changing L&L topic areas: understanding students, assessing student learning • Providing more department-specific workshops through curriculum projects

34. Austin, A. E. (2002). Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing new faculty to face changing expectations in a shifting context. Review of Higher Education 26(2):119-144. Boice, R. (2000). The new faculty member: Supporting and fostering professional development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Menges, R.J. & Associates. (1991). Faculty in new jobs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sorcinelli, M.D. & Austin, A. E. (Eds.) (1992). Developing new and junior faculty. New Directiosfor Teaching and Learning. No 50. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Whit, E.J. (1991). ‘Hit the ground running’:Experiences of new faculty in a school of education. Review of Higher Education. 14(2): 177-197 Selected References:

35. Our Contact Information Catherine Schryer, Director, Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo cschryer@uwaterloo.ca Donna Ellis, Associate Director, Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo donnae@uwaterloo.ca