Update on Teaching
February 2000
|
|
|
|
Tony Ciccone |
|
In the 90’s, UWM attained Research II status by garnering
over $15,000,000 in federal funding and producing over 50 doctorates per year. Since
achieving that distinction, we’ve been preoccupied (some might say obsessed) with
reaching Research I status. Well, thanks to the Carnegie Foundation’s interim
reclassification system, we’ve reached it without further ado.
Until the entire classification system can be rethought in the
next five years, Carnegie has compressed the top four classifications, Research I,Research
II, Doctoral I and Doctoral II, into two -- Doctoral/Research I and II -- and defined the
former as institutions which produce at least 50 doctorates per year across 15 programs.
We average around 100 doctorates and have 17 programs, so we qualify. (see AAHE Bulletin,
v.52, no. 5, January 2000).
Our "victory" may be short-lived, however. The old
Research I institutions are sure to lobby for a scheme that would still distinguish
themselves from the likes of us.
Carnegie would like to head off that move by working toward a
series of classifications in the next 5 years that would enable institutions to describe
themselves and what they do in multiple ways, using improved indicators of research as
well as indicators which more accurately characterize instruction and service. These
indicators would allow an institution to select what best distinguishes it from others.
So where does this leave us? As poorly as it reflected the
variety of important work we do in research, teaching, and service, the mission to attain
the old Research I status at least gave us quantifiable measures and a reason for giving
priority to some faculty responsibilities, albeit marginalizing others.
In my opinion, we now need to decide how we will distinguish
ourselves from our new peers, and in the process, help create the new indicators of
institutional mission and success being readied for 2005. You can bet that two of these
indicators will most certainly be attention to undergraduate instruction and student
learning, and the relationship of the institution to the community.
Thanks to the work we’ve done on the Milwaukee Idea, we
can expect that the Carnegie Foundation will look to us for the criteria essential for
defining the "engaged university." We have "big ideas" that others
will surely try to emulate.
Just as importantly, we should play a crucial role in defining
what a Doctoral/Research I institution means when it says that attention to undergraduate
instruction and student learning is a valued and essential part of its mission.
We know that undergraduate instruction at a research
institution is different from that of a small liberal arts college. The expectation to do
research justifies a reduction in courses taught by faculty. Thus research institutions
necessarily depend on teaching assistants and ad hoc lecturers, certainly for the first
two years of instruction but increasingly for upper level and even graduate courses in
special areas.
How would an institution distinguish itself within parameters
such as these? Here are just a few thoughts.
Integration of ad hoc lecturers:
Now here’s a place where we could really shine. We’ve
made real strides in valuing the work of our teaching academic staff, but we could do so
much more with very little effort and expense. Certainly, we need to continue to improve
compensation, but in the meantime, why not provide department orientations? Why not
include academic staff in department curricular discussions, student advising,
grant-writing, not as replacements for the teaching that faculty don’t want to do,
but rather as individuals with essential expertise?
Professional development of graduate students:
Graduate students, especially doctoral students, are crucial to
faculty research and institutional prestige. Yet much of their development as teachers and
future professionals is haphazard, at best. Graduate students need different types of
professional development at different moments in their careers -- from assistance in
leading discussions to designing a syllabus to understanding professionalism to
experiencing teaching at other types of institutions. Why couldn’t we provide an
integrated program of professional development using a combination of campuswide programs,
department courses and mentoring, and Graduate School support? Why wouldn’t we want
to be known as a research institution with an explicit commitment to the professional
development of its doctoral students?
Commitment to the study of effective teaching and learning:
Note that I didn’t say "commitment to effective
teaching and learning," which we all share despite our different definitions, but
rather "commitment to the study of effective teaching and learning." Until
recently, institutions defined the latter as the work of researchers in schools of
education, or perhaps pointed to the work of faculty in psychology. Other institutions
created teaching centers with research as well as faculty development missions.
Unfortunately, these decisions defined the study of effective teaching and learning as the
province of only a few specialists, despite the obvious fact that each of us is, or should
be, a student of teaching and learning in every course. Carnegie’s other major
project at this time, the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Initiative invites
institutions to think seriously about how all faculty can be encouraged to examine issues
of teaching and learning in a scholarly way and how this work can become an integral part
of faculty responsibilities. At CIPD, we have taken up this challenge on several fronts
— Project 101 and our Teaching in the Professions group. CIPD will also sponsor four
individual/collaborative projects designed to exemplify the scholarship of teaching and
learning perspective (see info in this newsletter on FASDGP).
What can we expect if we participate nationally and locally in
this redefinition process? Obviously, we’ll find new and better ways to distinguish
ourselves among our peer institutions. More importantly, however, we may finally find a
way to explain more accurately and completely what we really value as an institution. And
not just incidentally, we could redefine faculty work by proving that we value its
variety.
P 101 Workshop: The
Introductory Course
Date:
March 15, 2000
Time:
11:30 a.m. –
4:30 p.m.
Location: Golda Meir Library
Conference Center(4th floor)
Registration: by March 1 Call CIPD x 6638
Eligibility: Faculty & Teaching
Academic Staff
William Cerbin will be the featured speaker at this workshop
presented as part of Campus Conversations of the Carnegie Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning Initiative at UWM. The focus is the introductory course.
Cerbin is Assistant to the Provost, UW-La Crosse, director of
the Center for Effective Teaching and Learning, University Assessment Coordinator and a
Professor of psychology. He is the author of many articles on issues related to teaching
and learning, including "How to Improve Teaching with Learning-Centered
Evaluation" and "The Course Portfolio as a Tool for Continuous Improvement of
Teaching and Learning".
The workshop will focus on challenges faced in teaching
introductory courses and include working sessions for faculty and teaching staff to
discuss and integrate the principles and practices proposed by Cerbin.
Dates:
July 2000 – June 2001
Deadlines: April 7, 2000
Available $: 1,000 Academic Staff ONLY
8,000 Faculty & Teaching Academic Staff
12,000 for teams of 2 or more, match required
Selection: Campus Committee
Category III Center Associate Program
Date:
July 2000 - June
2001
Deadline: April 7, 2000
Available $: up to $8,000 (match provided by the
Provost)
Selection: Campus Committee
FASDGP provides funding to UWM Faculty and Academic Staff to
support professional development. The UWM program has three categories, each designed to
meet individual/group faculty and staff developmental needs as well as support UWM and
unit initiatives.
Categories I Grants are available to academic staff only.
Category II Grants are available to faculty and teaching
academic staff.
Category III Grants support the Center Associate Program.
Collaborative projects within or across units are encouraged.
The overriding two-fold focus of the Program is student learning (direct and indirect
support) and enhancing instruction/learning through the use of technology. Proposals less
directly tied to student instruction are also eligible. The critical expectation is that
both the individual(s) and the campus will benefit from the funded work.
This year, up to four Center Associates will be selected to
receive funding to develop expertise that can be shared with colleagues and departments on
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, the Carnegie Campus Program initiated at UWM
last year.
Grantees will be announced June 1, 2000.
Dates:
July 2000 – June 2001
Deadline: Mailed
by March 31, 2000
Available $: Approximately $400,000
Eligible:
Faculty & Teaching Academic Staff
Selection: LTDC
Committee
This program is presented by the UW Learning Technology
Development Council (LTDC) whose mission is to encourage systemwide collaboration and
individual campus efforts which promote professional development in the effective use of
learning technologies. Funds support curriculum redesign and related faculty and staff
development in instructional technology. For application deadlines and submission
information, please visit the UW-LTDC web page at: http://www.uwsa.edu/olit/ltdc/
Location:
UW Madison / Union South
Eligibility:
Faculty & Teaching Academic Staff
"Framing the Undergraduate Experience for the 21st
Century" is the topic of UTIC’s third annual spring conference.
Professor John Gardner, Executive Director of the National Resource Center for the
First-Year Experience at the University of South Carolina-Columbia will keynote the
conference. Sessions will showcase student learning initiatives throughout the UW System,
including a concurrent session by Anthony Ciccone Director of CIPD and Robert Kaleta,
Director of the LTC. They will share insights and successes related to their work in
undergraduate teaching initiatives and the Freshman Scholars program at UWM.
Dates:
June 1-4, 2000
Location: Richland Center
Deadlines: April 1
Eligible: Faculty & Teaching Academic Staff (
4 per campus)
Selection: CIPD Director
Faculty College, sponsored by the Undergraduate Teaching
Improvement Council (UTIC) provides an annual opportunity for UW System faculty and
academic staff to unite in concentrated study and discussion aimed at improving
undergraduate teaching and learning. Speaker and seminar leaders include a keynote address
by Randy Bass "Hyper Activity and Under Construction: Learning Culture in a Wired
World" and presentations by Greg Valde,Edith Fraser, Mathew Ouellett, Chuck Bonwell
and Barbara Walvoord on topics related to teaching and learning.
Approximately 100 participants meet for three days of
intensive, interdisciplinary seminars. Six campus participants will be selected, including
two campus Wisconsin Teaching Fellows. To apply, write and submit a one-paragraph
statement of interest to CIPD by April 1. All costs are paid by UTIC or CIPD. For more
information contact CIPD at cipd@uwm.edu or call at
ext.6638.
|