1 / 35

Making Relevance a Priority: Assessing the Needs of New Faculty

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

Download Presentation

Making Relevance a Priority: Assessing the Needs of New Faculty

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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

More Related