and scott evenbeck -...

Barbara Wrightand

Scott Evenbeck

The Changing Nature of Faculty Roles and Rewards

June, 2014

ContactScott E. EvenbeckPresident, Stella and Charles Guttman Community CollegeTel: (646) 313‐8020E‐mail: [email protected]

Barbara D. WrightVice President, WASC Senior College and University CommissionTel: (510) 851‐0998E‐mail: [email protected]

Goals for this seminar:

Participants will be able to do the following:

● Describe the changing nature of faculty work.● Consider alternatives for professional development and contexts for faculty to implement and celebrate this transition.

Outline

• The National Context• From Teaching to Learning• From Solitary Activity to Public Activity and Collaboration

• From Context to Learning Outcomes• Do We Really Need Courses?• Doing the Work Differently• Discussion

The National Context

The national context for change in HE...

• Rising costs – for students, states, feds• Rising debt• Dissatisfaction with quality of learning• Difficulty of transfer, wasted time, money• Concern about economic competitiveness• Overbuilt, overextended institutions• Diluted mission, “arms race”• Potential for a populist backlash

Why now? A convergence . . .

• Demographics• Disruptive technologies• Tech‐savvy students • Availability of learning resources• Student‐ and learning‐centeredness• Outcomes assessment• Alternatives to traditional degrees• The Degree Qualifications Profile

The old business model of college and “the great unbundling” (Anya Kamenetz) ‐

• Knowledge• Instruction• Validation of learning• Degrees• Social networking• Cultural opportunities• Personal development

From Teaching to Learning

COMPARING EDUCATIONAL PARADIGMSThe Instruction ParadigmMission and Purposes

The Learning ParadigmMission and Purposes

Provide/deliver instruction Produce learning

Transfer knowledge from faculty to students Elicit students discovery and construction of knowledge

Offer courses and programs Create powerful learning environments

Improve the quality of instruction Improve the quality of learning

Achieve access for diverse students Achieve success for diverse students

Barr and Tagg, From Teaching to Learning (1995)

Comparing Educational ParadigmsCriteria for Success Criteria for Success

Learning variesInputs, resources

Learning variesLearning & student‐success outcomes

Quality of entering students Quality of exiting students

Curriculum development, expansion Learning technologies development

Quantity and quality of resources Quantity and quality of outcomes

Enrollment, revenue growth Aggregate learning growth, efficiency

Quality of faculty, instruction Quality of students, learning


Comparing Educational ParadigmsTeaching/ Learning Structures Teaching/ Learning Structures

Atomistic; parts prior to whole Holistic; whole prior to parts

Time held constant, learning varies Learning held constant, time varies

50‐minute lecture,3‐unit course Learning environments

Classes start/end at same time Environment ready when student is

One teacher, one classroom Whatever learning experience works

Independent disciplines, departments Cross discipline/department

Covering material Specified learning results

End‐of‐course assessment Pre/during/post assessments

Grading within classes by instructors External evaluations of learning

Private assessment Public assessment

Degree equals accumulated credit hours Degree equals demonstrated knowledge and skills

Comparing Educational ParadigmsLearning Theory Learning Theory

Knowledge exists "out there" Knowledge exists in each person's mind and is shaped by individual experience

Knowledge comes in chunks and bits; delivered by instructors and gotten by students

Knowledge is constructed, created

Learning is cumulative and linear Learning is a nesting and interacting of frameworks

Fits the storehouse of knowledge metaphor Fits learning how to ride a bicycle metaphor

Learning is teacher centered and controlled Learning is student centered & controlled

"Live" teacher, "live" students required "Active" learner required, but not "live" students required

The classroom and learning are competitive and individualistic

Learning environments and learning are cooperative, collaborative, & supportive

Talent and ability are rare Talent and ability are abundant

Comparing Educational ParadigmsProductivity/Funding Productivity/Funding

Definition of productivity: cost per hour of instruction per student

Definition of productivity: cost per unit of learning per student

Funding for hours of instruction Funding for learning outcomes


Comparing Educational ParadigmsNature of Roles Nature of Roles

Faculty are primarily lecturers Faculty are primarily designers of learning methods and environments

Faculty and students act independently and in isolation

Faculty and students work in teams with each other and other staff

Teachers classify and sort students Teachers develop every student's competencies and talents

Staff serve/support faculty and the process of instruction

All staff are educators who produce student learning and success

Any expert can teach Empowering learning is challenging and complex

Line governance; independent actors Shared governance; teamwork independent actors


From Solitary Activity to Public Activity and Collaboration

“Scholarship Reconsidered”Ernest Boyer

• The scholarship of discovery: original research that advances knowledge;

• The scholarship of integration: synthesis across disciplines, across topics within a discipline, or across time;

• The scholarship of application (also called engagement): rigorous application of disciplinary expertise with results that can be shared with and/or evaluated by peers; and

• The scholarship of teaching and learning: systematic study of teaching and learning. Goes beyond scholarly teaching; requires public sharing and the opportunity for application and evaluation by others.

ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF “LEARNING COMMUNITIES”

Common cohort of students who attend two or moreclasses together

Robust partnerships between academic affairs and student support services

Explicitly designed opportunities for integrative learning

supported by an ongoing professional development program

Instructional Teams1. Faculty Roles

Faculty . . .• shape the learning environment • serve as the human bond to the academic dimension of the

university. • model the scholarly enterprise, commitment to both learning in

general and disciplines in particular. • design, deliver, and assess each first‐year seminar • work collaboratively with other members of the instructional team

to ensure a quality experience. • meet in a 25‐student section for all contact hours and serve as

mentor.

A Template for First‐Year Seminars at IUPUI

2. Advisor RolesAcademic advisors . . . • are integral to the first‐year seminar instructional team. • allow students to develop an ongoing relationship with an

academic advisor• help students learn more about value of University College

academic advisors as well as advisors in their majors. • teach student about academic planning, registration, schedule

adjustments, admission to the major, academic policies. • with first‐semester students develop a program plan, schedule

courses for the following semester, define goals.• coordinate personal development plan (PDP) process, follow‐up

with students in subsequent semesters. • work with students who receive warnings


2. Advisor Roles, cont.

Advisors’ assets . . . • active listening skills • knowledge of student development theory, • ability to help students develop their academic and career goals

• familiarity with degree requirements, university procedures and resources

• ability to instruct students in basic study skills.


3. Librarian RolesLibrarians . . . • are also an essential component of the first‐year seminar

instructional team• introduce students to information literacy concepts, e.g.,

information credibility, source evaluation, and plagiarism. • teach the “culture of the academy,” e.g., honesty in scholarship • introduce academic information resources, library services

Assigned subject librarians . . .• Work with specific units, schools, and departments • Contribute to the first‐year seminars for their disciplines • Share knowledge of the research process and experience with first‐

year students.


4. Student Mentor Roles

The student mentor . . . • offers an academic role model • shares personal experiences, e.g., in use of campus resources,

time management, development of study habits, and navigating the campus.

• Serves as information channel to the instructional team and advocate for interests, needs, and concerns of the first‐year students.


From Contexts (Where Students Learn) to Learning Outcomes

The Essential Learning Outcomes, LEAP• Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World

– Through study in the sciences and mathematics, social sciences, humanities, histories, languages, and the arts

• Intellectual and Practical Skills– Inquiry and analysis– Critical and creative thinking– Written and oral communication– Quantitative literacy– Information literacy– Teamwork and problem solving

• Personal and Social responsibility, including– Civic knowledge and engagement – local and global– Intercultural knowledge and competence– Ethical reasoning and action– Foundations and skills for lifelong ;earning

• Integrative learning , including– Synthesis and advanced accomplishment across general and special studies

Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP)Student Learning Outcomes

1. Broad, Integrative Knowledge: General education

2. Specialized Knowledge: The Majors3. Intellectual Skills for Life‐Long Learning4. Civic Learning, Engagement & Social

Responsibility5. Applied Learning

Do we really need courses?

If we focus on outcomes, do we really need courses? • A student‐centered institution

– shifts the emphasis from teaching to learning– provides flexible timeframes, multiple pathways– aims for “mastery learning”

• Learning is the end, courses a means• Other paths can lead to learning, too, e.g.,

– Open courseware– Independent study– Job training– Avocations

• Assessment can validate learning from any source

What if . . .• the business model for HE is no longer sale of courses and credit hours but validation of learning?

• What are the implications for– Students?– Faculty?– The curriculum?– Administration?– The public?

Assessment becomes the key to

• Diagnosing students’ strengths, weaknesses, levels of proficiency

• Validating acquisition of knowledge and skills• Confirming fulfillment of degree requirements defined as outcomes

• Substantive communication • Safeguarding quality

The student’s role changes . . .

• Greater freedom of choice• Prior knowledge validated• Fewer courses needed• Swifter degree completion• Greater personal responsibility • Discipline, engagement required• New skills essential

The faculty’s work changes . . .• Less focus on curriculum, courses: flipping the faculty role

• Less classroom teaching• More

– Advising, creating degree blueprints– Diagnosing gaps in skills, knowledge– Guiding study groups– Devising tutorials, identifying resources– Developing assessments– Administering assessments – Faculty development

The administrator’s role ...• Courage, leadership required: flipping the university

• Refocused mission, emphasis on learning• Planning, budgeting, revenue affected • Robust assessment infrastructure• Collaboration with other institutions• Transparency, accountability• Engagement with public, policy makers

Cautions and questions . . .• Can students assume this responsibility? Will some be

left behind?• Will institutions be willing, able to change?• Will departments and faculty be able to change?• Can faculty acquire new skills fast enough?• How can administrators support faculty

development?• What happens to the social role of HE – social justice,

equity, civic engagement?

Assessment is the linchpin

• In the 20th century –– Improvement of learning– Accountability

• In the 21th century –– Improvement & accountability plus

– Institutional transformation– Institutional & national survival

Doing the Work Differently

CATALYST PAPER

Sturm, S., Eatman, T., Saltmarsh, J., & Bush, A. (2011). Full participation:Building the architecture for diversity and public engagement in highereducation (White paper). Columbia University Law School: Center forInstitutional and Social Change.

1. Increasing student access and success, particularly for underrepresented, first-generation,and low-income students;

2. Diversifying higher education faculties, often with separate projects for hiring, retention, andclimate;

3. Promoting community, civic, or public engagement for students; and,

4. Increasing support for faculty‘s public or engaged scholarship.

At: http://imaginingamerica.org/fg-item/full-participation-building-the-architecture-for-diversity-and-community-engagement-in-higher-education/

Faculty Roles and Rewards

• Work in isolation• Know‐how assumed• Provide/deliver instruction• Transfer knowledge from faculty

to students• Offer courses and programs

• Improve the quality of instruction• Access for diverse students• Limited view of “educator”• Low prestige, little reward

• Work in teams• Educator role learned• Produce learning• Elicit students discovery and

construction of knowledge• Create powerful learning

environments• Improve the quality of learning• Success for diverse students• “Educator” multi‐dimensional• High prestige, high rewards

Old Paradigm New Paradigm

Faculty craft courses Faculty craft assessments

Discussion

Questions to consider:‐‐How might likely changes in faculty roles impact the implementation of your project? What will your project look like in five years? What will faculty be doing?

‐‐How do we support faculty commitment to student‐centered institutional change? To what extent are faculty commitment to the institution and faculty commitment to the discipline/department in opposition? Complementary?

‐‐What single change in your reward structure would most benefit your GE program?

and scott evenbeck -...

Documents