TEACHING AND LEARNING FORUM ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEW

2017-2018

Prepared by Dr. Colleen Packer, Director Teaching and Learning Forum

LIB 326 801-626-7667

cpacker@weber.edu

Submitted to: Madonne Miner, Provost

Brenda Kowalewski, Associate Provost Doris Geide Stevenson, Faculty Senate Chair

July 20, 2018

Teaching and Learning Forum 2017-2018 Annual Program Review Document

Table of Contents

A. DESCRIPTION OF CONTRIBUTION 2 B. TEACHING AND LEARNING 2

TLF Theme 2017-2018 3 TLF Program Summary 2017-2018 4 TLF Events and Programs 5 Summer 2017 5 Fall 2017 5 Spring 2018 8 Fall-Spring Programs 10

C. COMMUNITY & GRADUATE SUCCESS (N/A) 11 D. STUDENT DEMAND (N/A) 12 E. RESPONSIVENESS TO STUDENT DEMAND (N/A) 12 F. CONTRIBUTIONS TO STUDENT SUCCESS 12 G. STRATEGIC PLANNING 12

Organizational Structure 12 Center Location 13 Resource Allocation and Infrastructure 14 Programs and Services 15 Pursuing New Opportunities 15 Teaching and Learning Consultants (TLCs) 16 Faculty Recognition for Excellence in Teaching 16 Strategic Planning Action Items 16

H. Other 18 I. Abstract 18

SECTION 2: Teaching, Learning & Assessment Committee Information 19 A. Committee Members 19 B. Attendance Report 19 C. Report on Faculty Senate Charges 21

Charge #1 21 Charge #2 22 Charge #3 22 Charge #4 22 Charge #5 22 Charge #6 24

1

Teaching and Learning Forum Annual Program Review Document

2017-2018

A. DESCRIPTION OF CONTRIBUTION TEACHING AND LEARNING FORUM VISION STATEMENT: Teaching and learning is the heart of Weber State University. The Teaching and Learning Forum is the center of WSU’s culture that values evidence-based teaching and engaged learning to promote student success. The TLF is a resource for all faculty who care about the learning environment they create for students. It fosters dialogue, scholarship, innovation, and excellence in learner-centered teaching. The TLF provides and promotes opportunities for the enhancement of excellent teaching and scholarship that mutually inform one another for the benefit of faculty, students and the community. In sum, the Teaching and Learning Forum values, promotes and seeks to reward teaching as a core scholarly activity informed by research and reflection to positively impact and promote student success.

B. TEACHING AND LEARNING

According to a recent publication by the American Council on Education (ACE), “faculty development can and does improve instruction and student learning outcomes. As catalysts for professional learning, teaching centers play a vital role in teaching excellence and cultures of teaching excellence” (p. 1) . This 1

quote demonstrates the import of faculty development in the role of improving instruction, which in turn, leads to student success. The Teaching and Learning Forum Mission Statement outlines the purposes of the organization to enhance teaching and learning at WSU.

TEACHING AND LEARNING FORUM MISSION STATEMENT: The Teaching and Learning Forum promotes, supports and provides faculty development opportunities to strengthen the teaching and learning environment at WSU.

1 American Council on Education. (2018). A Beta Faculty Development Center Matrix.

2

We accomplish this mission through FACULTY by:

● Fostering a community of conversation and reflection about the art and science of teaching and learning.

● Assisting faculty in developing and strengthening their identities as teachers and scholars.

● Contributing to a campus culture dedicated to student success through evidence-based teaching

and engaged learning across all disciplines.

● Upholding and advancing the university’s commitment to teaching and learning through promoting policies and practices that support and reward high quality teaching.

● Leveraging faculty development resources across campus to empower faculty in their role as

teachers at WSU.

● Tailoring faculty development opportunities to address faculty needs and current issues associated with teaching and learning.

● Yearly program evaluation and assessment. Using this mission as a guiding framework, the TLF contributes specifically to overall excellence in teaching, mentoring and campus-wide faculty development. We adhere to the notion that a successful faculty member can positively and effectively impact overall student success. This section of the report provides a detailed account of the programs and events designed specifically to further the teaching mission of Weber State University. TLF Theme 2017-2018

The Teaching and Learning Forum theme for the 2017-2018 academic year was “Keep C.A.L.M. and Teach On: Cultivating A Learning Mindset.” The theme was based on Carol Dweck’s (2016) growth 2

mindset research. This theme was carried through all of the programming sponsored by the TLF and the Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Committee of the Faculty Senate. This was the second year that the TLF has implemented an annual theme and we plan to continue that practice in the future.

2 Dweck, C. (2016). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books.

3

TLF Program Summary 2017-2018 The table below summarizes the number of faculty and staff who participated in TLF programs and initiatives throughout the year.

Event Semester Participants Program Costs

Cost/Participant

Technology Buffet Summer 44 $ 2,839 $ 65

New Faculty Retreat Fall 78 $54,858 $ 703

Student Success Series - Todd Z. Fall 66 $ 3,000 $ 45

Pathways Fall 100 $ 107 $ 1

Last Lecture Fall 125 $ 1,761 $ 14

Great Teachers Summit Fall 3 $ 1,200 $ 400

25 Year Celebration & Open House Fall 25 $ 529 $ 21

Adjunct Faculty Retreat Spring 44 $ 4,247 $ 97

Red Rock Great Teachers Retreat Spring 11 $ 5,316 $ 483

Faculty Symposium Spring 60 $ 1,029 $ 17

Book Groups Fall-Spring 706 $10,870 $ 15

Communities of Practice Fall-Spring 48 $ 2,500 $ 52

Mentor Program Fall-Spring 51 $ 1,115 $ 22

Teaching & Learning Consultants Fall-Spring 3 $ 25 $ 8

Technology Equipment Program Fall-spring 2 $ 0 $ 0

TOTALS 1367 $89,396 $ 65

4

TLF Events and Programs Summer 2017 Technology Buffet The “Technology Buffet” was a day long seminar that showcased innovative uses of technology in the classroom. Presenters did a 20 minute “teaser” of their sessions during a blast session. From those presentations, participants attended two longer sessions in the afternoon to learn more about the technologies most salient to their needs. Presenters and topics included:

RC Callahan Quizlet Learn/ToonDoo Don Davies Video Creation and Storage Shandel Hadlock Kahoot/Canva Robin Haislett Flipped Classroom Accessibility Bronson Janes & Ty Naylor Spark Video Travis Price SmartPodium

● 37 participants | 7 presenters ● Total cost: $2839

Fall 2017 New Faculty Retreat The New Faculty Retreat was held at Zermatt Resort in Midway, Utah from August 18-20. The theme, Keep CALM and Teach On: Cultivating A Learning Mindset, focused on the new faculty being able to learn about WSU resources, connect with new and established colleagues, and experience evidence-based teaching practices modeled by presenters. Sessions began with an opening breakfast on campus, then continued throughout Saturday at noon at Zermatt Resort.

● 41 new faculty participants | 37 presenters ● Total cost: $54,858

5

Highlights: ● Presentation proposals were required for campus entities who wanted to present. Each

presentation was required to have an interactive element/student engagement strategy embedded within the presentation. Proposals were reviewed by the TLA committee.

● Sessions were interactive and consistent with one of eight evidence-based teaching strategies from the book “Teaching for Learning: 101 Intentionally Designed Educational Activities to Put Students on the Path to Success”. Each new faculty received a copy of the book upon completion of the retreat evaluation.

● Instead of having multiple presentations from resources on campus during the day, departments set up tables during the first part of the evening social where new faculty could get one-on-one information in a “speed-dating” format. Retreat feedback suggested this was preferred to having sessions during the day.

● Health assessments were conducted on Friday morning to encourage new faculty to enroll in the Employee Wellness Program.

● Evening socials provided opportunities for new faculty to network and connect with other new faculty and current faculty and staff.

Pathways Pathways is a series dedicated to the professional development of new members of the WSU faculty. The series features presentations, discussions and experiences designed to promote the development, advancement and retention of pre-tenure faculty. There were 3 formal sessions during Fall semester.

● 100 participants | 7 presenters ● Total cost: $107

Pathways Sessions

Date Topic Presenter Attendance

Sept. 12 Conversations about Hate, Race & Racism (co-sponsored with the Associate VP for Diversity)

Adrienne Andrews Doris Stevenson Barry Gomberg Stephanie Hollist

75

Sept. 20 Using the New York Times in the Classroom Kandace Rusnak & NYT Associate

10

Nov. 1 The Rank and Tenure File Catherine Zublin 15

6

Last Lecture The Last Lecture was held on October 24, 2017. For this event, the TLA Committee selects one of Weber State’s distinguished instructors from a list of nominees to give a hypothetical final presentation to students and colleagues. This tradition is common throughout the country, and has been a way to honor and highlight the work and experiences of one of our faculty members throughout his/her tenure at WSU. The 2017 speaker was Molly Smith whose presentation was entitled, “Off the Block without Goggles or Google.” There was a pre-lecture luncheon in the Alumni Center Garden Room and the lecture was in Dumke Hall in the Hurst Center.

● 50 attendees at the luncheon | 125 attendees at the lecture

● Total cost: $1761

Student Success Initiative The Teaching and Learning Forum collaborated with multiple campus entities to provide programming and support for the student success initiative from the Provost’s Office. Much of the information regarding the series and registering for the events was housed on the TLF website: The purpose of the Promoting Student Success Series is to encourage campus wide conversations about promoting and advancing the culture of student success. The student success lecture series has been designed to inform the development of a vision for the role of WSU educators in promoting student success. During the academic year, WSU educators will hear from nationally-renowned speakers regarding student success efforts in various contexts. Our goal is to identify strategies to better coordinate WSU efforts around student success and better define the roles of educators in promoting student success. The TLF scheduled and coordinated one of the major speakers for

the “Promoting Student Success Lecture Series.” Todd Zakrajsek, one of three authors of the “Teaching for Learning” book distributed to all new faculty, met with TLA committee members at a morning brunch, presented a campus wide keynote address entitled, “Teach Like a Puma” which focused on faculty roles in promoting student success, and led an afternoon workshop focusing on specific evidence-based learning strategies for the classroom. Additionally, the TLF provided marketing and advertising creation and support for many of the other student success programming efforts.

● Attendees: 66 (for “Teach Like a Puma” event) ● Total Cost: $3000 (for all events)

7

Spring 2018 Great Teachers Summit Every year, Utah Valley University sponsors a “Great Teaching Summit” for its faculty. The two day event was held at the Utah Valley University satellite campus in Midway, Utah. Working with their Office of Teaching and Learning, we were able to provide support for 3 faculty members from Weber State to attend the event. Participants included Susan Hafen, Fon Brown and James Hansen.

● Attendees: 3 ● Total Cost: $1200

Adjunct Retreat The 2018 Adjunct Faculty Retreat was held at the WSU Davis Campus on Saturday, February 3rd from 8:30 - 3:00. This year’s format followed the Great Teachers Model based on the philosophy that well-facilitated shoptalk is one of the highest forms of professional development. Adjuncts engaged in highly interactive discussions with other adjunct instructors from different and similar disciplines sharing teaching strategies and innovations, and seeking solutions to their own teaching problems and challenges. TLF provided breakfast and lunch. Participants received a $50 Amazon gift card, bags, water bottles, and a book of their choice. (Note: Bags and water bottles were extras from the New Faculty Retreat, and the books were from previous semesters of book group titles, so there was minimal expense for those).

● 44 adjunct faculty members | 8 facilitators ● Total cost: $4247

Red Rock Great Teaching Retreat The Red Rock Great Great Teaching Retreat was held in Moab, UT from February 23-25, 2017. The retreat provides a teaching-related professional development opportunity for higher education faculty. It is based on the philosophy that “well facilitated shoptalk is one of the highest forms of professional development.” Participants bring teaching ideas, teaching literature, and as a group, decide which issues are most relevant for discussion. Retreat facilitators provide structure and guidelines to assure effectiveness and efficiency. WSU sent 12 participants. Jake Gilson served as a facilitator.

● 12 participants ● Total Cost: $5316

Participants

○ Molly Sween

○ Brent Warnock

○ Tracy Covey

○ Alex Lawrence

○ Macey Buker

○ Kristin Radulovich

○ Ed Hahn

○ Jake Gilson

○ Aaron Ashley

○ Tonia Wilson

○ Jim Turner

○ Brenda Acor

8

Faculty Symposium The Faculty Symposium was held in the Shepherd Union Building on Tuesday, March 20th from 12:30 - 4:00 pm. The theme, “Keep Calm and Research On” was selected to correspond with the TLF theme and inspire reflections, research and presentations on teaching and learning experiences.

● Attendees: 60 (includes presenters) ● Total cost: $ 1029

9

Fall-Spring Programs Book Groups Each semester, the TLF sponsors book groups across campus. This year, 706 faculty and staff made selections from a plethora of titles. Each group member received a copy of the book and a lunch voucher to discuss the book with their groups.

● 706 participants ● Total cost: $10,870

Communities of Practice This year, the Teaching and Learning Forum started a new program known as Communities of Practice. Communities of Practice are groups of 8-12 people who share a common concern, passion about a topic and

come together with a facilitator to deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting with each other on an ongoing basis (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4) . At Weber State, these 3

communities of practice are groups of faculty and staff who commit to regularly scheduled sessions on a focus area in teaching and learning followed by actions such as planning and trying out the techniques discussed in the group. These communities provide a supportive environment where members can experiment with new approaches to teaching and learning, share successes and challenges, and/or engage in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) through collaborative research projects and dissemination of instructional practices and tools. We began with the program with five Communities of Practice, as listed below. We hope to increase our offerings to stay current with emerging teaching and learning issues and to meet faculty demand and interests. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning facilitated by Alex Lancaster & Heather Chapman

Participants: Colleen Packer, C. David Walters, Saori Hanaki, Bill Robertson Sustainability Across the Curriculum facilitated by Alice Mulder

Participants: Carie Frantz, Gary Johnson, T. Grant Lewis Using Great “IDEAS” from Evidence Based Teaching Strategies facilitated by Kristin Hadley & Adam Johnston

Participants: Louise Moulding, Shane Schvaneveldt, Sarah Hermann, Juanita Allen, Linda DuHadway, Kat Schramm, Kathryn MacKay, Meridee Calder, Azenett Garza, Don Davies, Sheila Anderson, Tracy Covey, Tim Herzog

Community Engaged Learning facilitated by Isabel Asensio & Melissa Hall

Participants: Yan Huang, Julie Rhodes, Kristen Arnold, Barrett Bonnella, Stephanie Speicher, Darci Costello, Chantal Esquivias, Kathleen Cadman, Andres Orozco, Mike Ault, Dan Pyle

3 Wenger, E., McDermott, R, & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

10

Teaching with Technology facilitated by Macy Buker

Participants: Juanita Allen, C. Ryan Dunn, Janelle Gardiner, Andrea Jensen, JoEllen Jonsson, Nadia Wrosch, Matthew Domek, Matthew Crook

Ten Before Tenure The Ten Before Tenure program is designed to provide pre-tenure Weber State University faculty with opportunities to enhance their understanding and use of evidence based teaching practices, interact and share ideas with colleagues, and create teaching materials that can be used in their tenure and promotion files. The four highly recommended experiences include participation in/at and reflection about the New Faculty Retreat, Communities of Practice, Digital Literacy through WSU Online, and Classroom Observation and/or the Mid-semester Assessment Process (MAP). The remaining six experiences are at the discretion of the faculty member so that they can select events and opportunities most relevant to their teaching situations. These include (but are not limited to) workshops, teaching conferences, teaching presentations, special projects for the TLF, and the like. TLF Mentorship Cadre This year, the TLF laid the groundwork for a mentoring program for new faculty. The goals of the program are four-fold: 1) New faculty will develop a sense of belonging and connection as a faculty member at WSU; 2) New faculty will be better prepared for success as a faculty member; 3) New faculty will receive access and guidance from a college mentor and TLF programming resources; and 4) New faculty will become engaged in the WSU community through participation with their mentor, TLF events, and/or other departmental/ college/ university programs and committees. To meet these outcomes, the TLF assigned each mentor up to 5 new faculty members with whom to interact throughout the academic year. Mentors were required to be from the college of the new faculty members and be tenured. They were asked to meet with their new faculty cohort at the New Faculty retreat, interact with them at least twice during fall and spring semesters, and go to lunch once during each semester. Additionally, TLF sponsored a luncheon for mentors and new faculty at the end of each semester. We will continue to explore methods to strengthen and improve this program. We recently conducted a focus group addressing benefits and challenges of the program and results are being compiled. As we move forward, we will utilize the information to inform our efforts. Mentors & their colleges are listed below: Janelle Gardiner Dumke College of Health Professions Lisa Trujillo Dumke College of Health Professions Michele Culumber College of Science Azenett Garza College of Social & Behavioral Sciences Allyson Saunders College of Engineering, Applied Science & Technology George Comber College of Engineering, Applied Science & Technology Melina Alexander Jerry and Vickie Moyes College of Education Colleen Packer Telitha E. Lindquist College of Arts & Humanities Kacy Peckenpaugh (alternate) Telitha E. Lindquist College of Arts & Humanities Nazneen Ahmad John B. Goddard School of Business & Economics

11

C. COMMUNITY AND GRADUATE SUCCESS (N/A)

D. STUDENT DEMAND (N/A)

E. RESPONSIVENESS TO STUDENT DEMAND (N/A)

F. CONTRIBUTIONS TO STUDENT SUCCESS As previously mentioned, the Teaching and Learning Forum strives to complement and collaborate with student success initiatives, specifically as they relate to faculty development, teaching and learning. To that end, we provide multiple professional development opportunities for faculty to strengthen and improve their teaching practices. As you can see in section B, we support, plan and promote student success initiatives across campus. It is our firm belief that professional development efforts focused on the implementation and execution of evidence-based instructional strategies will lead to faculty success, which in turn, positively impacts student success. Our programming is designed to meet those needs and reach those goals.

G. STRATEGIC PLANNING The future of the Teaching and Learning Forum is rich with possibilities. We envision the TLF as the hub of faculty development, collaborating and coordinating with other faculty development entities and initiatives on campus. It is important to keep in mind that the current structure of the Teaching and Learning Forum has been in place for over 25 years. In its early years, the Teaching and Learning Forum sponsored workshops and other events to help faculty improve their teaching. In the past, these workshops were probably adequate for faculty needs. With the growing body of research focused on teaching and learning, professional development for faculty continues to grow as a specific area of study. Since we espouse the virtues of evidence-based teaching to our faculty, it seems reasonable to pursue improvements in faculty development efforts that are also evidence-based. The changing landscape of higher education and the overall growth of the university warrants a comprehensive review of faculty development efforts at WSU. Four specific standards that address teaching and learning center development that prompt further investigation in the context of WSU’s Teaching and Learning Forum include:

● Organizational Structure ● Center Location ● Resource Allocation and Infrastructure ● Programs and Services 4

Organizational Structure “The organizational structure of the teaching and learning center, including location in the campus heirarchy and director status, reveals institutional commitment to faculty development and teaching” (p. 4). Organizational structure considers institutional placement, director status, director expertise and preparation, center mission and institutional memory.

Institutional Placement. Institutional placement is a challenge for the TLF because it is not the

4 American Council on Education. (2018). A Beta Faculty Development Center Matrix. Note that the comments included in the strategic planning section of this report are based on the comparative information from the ACE document.

12

foremost area for faculty development on campus. There are numerous other areas that also provide faculty development opportunities (such as WSU Online, Inclusive Excellence Programs, etc.). We contend that while we are moving in the direction of being recognized as the place to go for “all things teaching”, that there are other entities that provide similar opportunities. As we move forward with conducting a review of the TLF, we hope to identify ways to collaborate and combine efforts. Director Status. A “fully-developed” center will have a full time, mid- to high-level administrative director. Currently, our faculty development model does not reflect that standard. WSU continues to have a part-time director who may or may not possess competencies in faculty development skills. Additionally, there is potential for the director to change every three years which hinders continuity in the position. Director Expertise and Preparation. WSU’s current selection process for a TLF director will not necessarily lead to a director who has the expertise and preparation found in thriving centers of teaching and learning. Often, a good teacher is selected for the position, even though s/he may have no background or experience in scholarship that directly impacts faculty development or student learning. The ACE document suggests that the director should have an extensive background in higher education administration, be recognized as an excellent teacher, and have a background in disciplines that impact faculty development (p. 4). If WSU truly values teaching, learning and faculty development, then perhaps it is time to explore the possibilities of investing in a full time professional director. Center Mission, Vision, and Goals. The TLF has a specific mission and vision statement that align with the overall mission of the university. Improvements need to occur in terms of developing goals that complement the TLF mission and vision statements. Additionally, the TLF needs to develop a comprehensive assessment plan to measure the impact of the office and its programs. Institutional Memory. Currently, there are guidelines for many TLF programs, yet they lack organization and are sometimes difficult to access. A significant time commitment will be required to create a more robust set of guidelines for operating the office and its programs, which may prove difficult given the current responsibilities of office staff.

Center Location Center location refers to the actual place where the center is housed, space allocation, learning spaces and web presence.

Center Location. The Teaching and Learning Forum is located on the third floor of the library, which is somewhat difficult to locate unless one is familiar with the building. We contend that it should be centrally located, accessible and easy to locate. Space Allocation. Space allocation presents challenges as well. There is adequate office space for the Director, the Administrative Specialist and one student worker. Yet, there are no dedicated training resources such as a classroom, lab or meeting space (we currently have to schedule with other entities). Learning Spaces. While the space is appreciated, it is not inviting for informal faculty discussions or drop-in faculty use. Sadly, the space does not reflect pedagogical principles and practices

13

associated with evidence-based learning. There is no faculty lab, teaching library, or meeting space. The TLF suite lacks the environment needed to promote discussions and collaborations among faculty. Web Presence. Fortunately, we are developing a stronger online presence. To further improve in this area, which is important in today’s digital society, a full-time social media specialist could enhance our presence and create a more dynamic, robust website. Our part-time hourly employee does fantastic work, but since his hours are limited by university policy, he is unable to maintain our web presence at the level we would like.

Resource Allocation and Infrastructure Resource allocation and infrastructure considers the budget, staffing, planning & data collection, instructional technology support, marketing and reputation.

Center Budget. The budget has been adequate for current programs, but with new initiatives and probable staffing changes in the future, it is questionable as to how long we will have sufficient funding. It seems reasonable to pursue an endowment specifically earmarked for TLF. Absent an endowment, the director could collaborate with the development office and/or the Office of Sponsored Projects to explore and possibly secure external funding. Staffing. The TLF staff is hard-working and their willingness to take on additional responsibilities is commendable. Challenges surface when we strive to excel, expand our offerings and are often expected to do more with little to no change in resources (in both staffing and funding). Currently, the workings of the office are often dependent upon the director and the administrative specialist. We would like to explore the possibility of staffing changes in an effort to create an office that is not dependent upon any one or two people to function. Planning and Data Collection. This is one area that remains challenging for the TLF. Current data collection is somewhat superficial in that it focuses mostly on attendance and satisfaction. In some instances, evidence of change in teaching practices is available, yet not in a systematic way. The TLF needs to explore strategies for collecting, analyzing, and integrating data to provide evidence of the integration of enhanced teaching behaviors that support student success. Instructional Technology Support. The similar professional development missions in TLF and WSU Online prompt numerous collaborations throughout the year. In spite of that fact, we have little influence over the selection of instructional technologies that may impact teaching, which is one of the marks of fully developed centers. We agree with the ACE recommendation of locating the two entities in spatial proximity, perhaps sharing the proximate physical space in Lampros Hall. Marketing and Reputation. The TLF makes an honest effort to market its programs to the campus community, yet sometimes experiences low attendance at events, particularly by adjunct faculty. Fully developed programs boast “proactive and

14

timely outreach via email, newsletters, social media engagement” and “well attended” programming that is perceived as being “open and available to all, including faculty with contingent appointments”(p. 6). According to Institutional Research, WSU employed 863 adjunct faculty members in 2018. We need to be more responsive to this population. As such, it is incumbent upon WSU to explore more meaningful professional development strategies for our contingent colleagues.

Programs and Services Key considerations in evaluating programs and services include the programming scope, program content, reach and communities of practice.

Programming Scope. Over the past few years, the TLF has worked to broaden the scope of its programming efforts, and has done so with little change in resources. Past years have focused on one-time events which may prove ineffective in terms of lasting changes in teaching behaviors. Harwell (2003) notes that “sustained, systematic professional development 5

programs that unfold as processes over time are generally superior (p. 1)” to one-time events. Thus, the TLF has moved beyond a collection of one-time workshops to promote more systematic, continuous programs to enhance faculty teaching practices. Program Content. The Student Success Initiative at the university has motivated much of the programming during the last two years, which explains why programs have focused mostly on teaching topics designed to improve student success. We have strived to address campus needs in this regard. We also focus on faculty success, specifically as they approach the tenure and promotion process. As previously mentioned, we hold that a successful faculty member can positively affect overall student success. Finally, exemplary programs provide a “continuous professional development model for faculty as learners” (p.7). The Ten Before Tenure program is a step toward creating a model that promotes continuous faculty growth and development as teacher scholars. Reach. The TLF needs to determine the extent to which we are reaching faculty across campus and which departments are more active so that we can identify strategies to better reach all academic departments. Communities of Practice. In the context of the ACE document, the TLF falls short in terms of communities of practice. We find ourselves at the lowermost level of development in this area. We emphasize work with tenure-track faculty, attempt to develop peer networks at events (specifically at retreats and within COPs) and are beginning to provide one-on-one consultations with our preliminary TLC program. Yet, some would argue that we fail to create an atmosphere where ALL faculty, including adjuncts, feel a sense of belonging at the institution.

Pursuing New Opportunities As the Teaching and Learning Forum moves forward with its plan for faculty development, there are a number of new opportunities that we would like to pursue. These opportunities have been mentioned previously in this document to include the implementation of a Teaching and Learning Consultant

5 Harwell, S. H. (2003). Teacher Professional Development: It’s Not an Event, It’s a Process. Waco, TX: Center for Occupational Research and Development (CORD) White Paper.

15

program, develop and implement faculty recognition for excellent in teaching, and to move forward with a strategic planning task force. Teaching and Learning Consultants (TLCs) The foundations for the TLC program were developed last year by a small group of tenured, full professors: Michael Wutz, Peggy Saunders, and Colleen Packer. This year we are hoping to implement the program on a small scale to determine its effectiveness and usefulness for faculty. We had one request for a classroom observation (with no public information about the program), which we were able to fulfill. Additionally, there were a number of faculty who expressed interest in participating as TLCs when an interest survey was distributed earlier in the year. We will follow up with them as we move forward with program development. Faculty Recognition for Excellence in Teaching The TLF Vision Statement states that teaching and learning is the heart of WSU. As such, it is essential to recognize and reward excellent teaching. Yet, research cautions that one of the effects of teaching awards is affirming the winner rather than inspiring others (Chism, 2006) . We will keep these findings 6

in mind as we explore avenues for recognition for faculty. Additionally, adjunct faculty recognition should be an integral part of any program that rewards excellence in teaching. Gillespie and Robinson (2010) assert that adjunct faculty are much less likely than full time faculty to receive awards for 7

outstanding teaching, yet they should have the same opportunities for recognition. The abundance of adjuncts at WSU legitimates the development of recognition opportunities for them. Strategic Planning Action Items Year 1: 2018-2019 Create a Faculty Development Strategic Planning Task Force to conduct a comprehensive review of faculty development at WSU and recommend a direction for faculty development efforts at the university. Task force members should represent stakeholders in faculty development, including faculty from all colleges and ranks and other faculty development entities on campus. Given the importance of this process and the possible implications it could have on future faculty development efforts, I would like to secure the services of Kim Wheatley to facilitate the process. I expect that the return on investment would be stellar given Kim’s skills and abilities to work with multiple stakeholders as they strive to make progress on complex issues. Additionally, the task force will identify areas of deficiency and create action plans to remedy them in an effort to provide the most effective professional development opportunities to our faculty as they strive to promote student success. Charges:

1. Identify strengths and deficiencies in: A. Organizational Structure B. Center Location C. Resource Allocation and Infrastructure D. Programs and Services

6 Chism, N. V. N. (2006). Teaching awards: What do they reward? The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 4, 589-617. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2006.11772308 7 Gillespie, K. J. & Robertson, D. L. (2010). A Guide to Faculty Development, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

16

2. Provide recommendations to highlight strengths 3. Provide recommendations to remedy deficiencies

An ideal task force would include the following stakeholders:

Year 2: 2019-2020 The Strategic Planning Task Force should begin the process of implementing the recommendations it created during the first year. Charges:

1. Develop action plans to implement recommendations for:

A. Organizational Structure B. Center Location C. Resource Allocation and Infrastructure D. Programs and Services

2. Explore funding sources for implementing recommendations that require financial support from the university, donors, grants and/or other sources.

Year 3: 2020-2021 The Strategic Planning Task Force should continue the implementation of recommendations in consultation with the appropriate administrative personnel.

17

H. Other The Teaching and Learning Forum has broadened its offerings over the past three years, and continues to make improvements based on current pedagogical trends and issues. We have done so without an increase in personnel resources. The TLF staff who make this happen includes: Colleen Packer Director Rachel Cox Administrative Specialist/Office Manager Nathan Bennion Hourly Employee, Social Media, Advertising, Marketing Nicole McCandless Student Employee, Office Aide

I. Abstract

The Teaching and Learning Forum is experiencing some challenges based on numerous facets of institutional and disciplinary changes that have occurred since 1992, when the TLF was first established. The table below compares numbers of faculty and students between 1992 and 2018. Institutional 8

growth, increased expectations for faculty development, more robust faculty development research, and growth of off-campus and WSU Online course offerings have dramatically changed the face of teaching and learning. Yet little has changed within the organizational structure of the office. Granted, programs have been revised and adapted in efforts to stay current with pedagogical and faculty development research, but a comprehensive strategic planning effort seems prudent in light of the aforementioned challenges.

Item of Analysis 1992-1993 2017-2018

Professors 135 169

Associate Professors 89 103

Assistant Professors 129 162

Instructors 59 109

TOTAL FT FACULTY 412 551

Adjuncts No data available 461

Students 14,495 27,949*

*Of that number, 18,309 are degree-seeking students

8 Information in this table was provided by the Office of Institutional Research at WSU and is based upon data from the American Association of University Professors, a nationally recognized data point, and the Utah System of Higher Education Data Book for 1992 and 2017.

18

SECTION 2: Teaching, Learning & Assessment Committee Information

A. Committee Members

Teaching, Learning & Assessment Committee 2017-2018

Three Year Term Two Year Term One Year Term

Katharina Schramm, S Ernesto Hernandez, LIB Colleen Packer, A&H

Tamara Goldbogen, A&H Chris Eisenbarth, ED Kacy Peckenpaugh A&H

Colleen Cawley, HP Azenett Garza, S&BS Janice Thomas, HP

Amydee Fawcett, B&E Robert Ball, EAST

Bill Robertson, HP

CHAIR: Colleen Packer Liaison: Pamela Payne Administration: Wendy Holliday Ex Officio: Gail Niklason

B. Attendance Report Committee Meetings

Name 9/18/17 10/16/17 11/20/17 1/19/18 2/16/18 4/13/18

Robert Ball, EAST X X E X

Colleen Cawley, HP X X E X

Chris Eisenbarth, ED X X X X X X

AmyDee Fawcett, B&E X X X

Azenette Garza, S&BS X X X

Tamara Goldbogen, A&H X X

Ernesto Hernandez, LIB X X X X X X

Tim Herzog, S/Michelle Culumber X X X X X X

Wendy Holliday, ADMINISTRATION X X X X

Gail Niklason, EX-OFICIO X X X X X X

Colleen Packer, A&H, CHAIR X X X X X X

19

Pamela Payne, ED, LIAISON X X

Kacy Peckenpaugh, A&H X X X

Bill Robertson, HP X X X X X

Katharina Schramm, S X X X

Janice Thomas, HP X X X

Events

Name NFR* SSS* LL* AFR* NYT* FS*

Robert Ball, EAST X X

Colleen Cawley, HP X X

Chris Eisenbarth, ED

AmyDee Fawcett, B&E X X

Azenette Garza, S&BS X

Tamara Goldbogen, A&H

Ernesto Hernandez, LIB X X X

Tim Herzog, S X X

Wendy Holliday, ADMINISTRATION

Gail Niklason, EX-OFICIO X X X X

Colleen Packer, A&H, CHAIR X X X X X X

Pamela Payne, ED, LIAISON X X

Kacy Peckenpaugh, A&H X X X

Bill Robertson, HP X X

Katharina Schramm, S X

Janice Thomas, HP

*NFR = New Faculty Retreat *SSS = Student Success Series, Todd Zakrajsek *LL = Last Lecture *AFR = Adjunct Faculty Retreat

20

*NYT = New York Times Session *S = Faculty Symposium Stellar Members There are a few members that warrant additional accolades for their support and participation on this committee: Gail Niklason: Gail is stellar! Even though Gail is an ex-officio member, she is one of the backbones to the committee. She chaired a working committee on student evaluations of teaching and provided reports when needed. Her work was always thorough and on target. Her insights were invaluable to the committee from an institutional effectiveness perspective. She attended the major retreats, serving as a presenter and facilitator at both of them. Truly, Gail is a gem. Ernesto Hernandez: Ernesto was always willing to help throughout the year. He attended all of the meetings and took an active role in each of them. Kacy Peckenpaugh: Kacy was active throughout the year and was a great help at the New Faculty Retreat and other events. Even though she was unable to attend meetings during Spring semester, she stayed in touch with the chair and was always willing to help with whatever we needed.

C. Report on Faculty Senate Charges Charge #1 Continue to explore faculty recognition methods/programs that can aid faculty in the tenure and promotion process. (Ongoing). In addition to the previous programs we have had in place (such as the Pathways series [see page 6 of this document] and the Faculty Symposium [see page 9 of this document]), this year, we instituted two new programs that were designed to aid faculty in the tenure and promotion process: Communities of Practice and Ten Before Tenure. We introduced a Teaching and Learning Consultant Program, which we will continue to integrate as a permanent program in the future when more resources become available. Communities of Practice This year, we instituted Communities of Practice, a program that brings together groups of 8-12 people who share a common concern and/or passion about a topic related to education and/or teaching and learning and come together with a facilitator to deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting with each other on an ongoing basis (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4) 9

. This program has the potential to aid faculty in the tenure and promotion process in multiple ways. First, it provides opportunities for instructional improvement as participants collaborate with other colleagues as to how to implement the various themed skills and strategies into their own teaching practices. Second, the program provides university level leadership opportunities for faculty as they serve as facilitators for the group. Finally, in some cases (such as the SOTL COP), the program promotes scholarship opportunities through assisting with developing and conducting teaching and learning-focused research. The five groups and their participants are listed on page 10 of this document.

9 Wenger, E., McDermott, R, & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

21

Ten Before Tenure We designed the Ten Before Tenure Program to provide pre-tenure faculty with opportunities to enhance their understanding and use of evidence based teaching practices, interact and share ideas with colleagues, and create teaching materials that can be used in their tenure and promotion files. The four highly recommended experiences include participation in/at and reflection about the New Faculty Retreat, Communities of Practice, Digital Literacy through WSU Online, and Classroom Observation and/or the Mid-semester Assessment Process (MAP). The remaining six experiences are at the discretion of the faculty member so that they can select events and opportunities most relevant to their teaching situations. These include (but are not limited to) workshops, teaching conferences, teaching presentations, special projects for the TLF, and the like. Charge #2 Continue to develop meaningful and systematic data collection procedures to inform programming and decision-making regarding faculty development efforts with the goal of increasing impact and focus. Our programming this year included event evaluation forms that asked for participant feedback. We still need to work on compiling the data in meaningful ways so that we can make adaptations and revisions pursuant to the feedback we collect. Charge #3 Continue to support, maintain and create awareness of the digital technology library, especially technology and conference equipment available for check out. Work with administration to develop a plan for sustainability. (Ongoing). Information about the digital technology library is available on the TLF website, so faculty and staff are aware that equipment is available for check out. Additionally, we worked with the Associate Provost’s Office to develop a 3-year rotation plan to replace out-dated technology. The Provost’s Office will provide $9870 (which includes funding for 30 ipads at $329 each) to begin the sustainability plan. We will start replacing existing i-pads during Summer 2018 through Summer 2020, replacing at least ⅓ of our inventory each year. This plan will help us keep current with technology and provide more up-to-date, compatible equipment to our faculty. Charge #4 Pursue faculty development efforts that maximize effective evidence-based pedagogy, including recommendations from the Faculty Advocates for Student-Centered Teaching (FAST) ad hoc committee. We met this charge, in part, by creating a Community of Practice (COP) specifically focused on evidence-based pedagogy. It was the largest COP for the year and explored evidence-based teaching from numerous perspectives. Charge #5 Continue to explore and develop action items based on department and program chairs survey of teaching evaluations and practices. Gail Niklason submitted this report on behalf of the ad hoc committee on student evaluations of professors.

22

Student Evaluation Proposal Student evaluations are currently administered using the Chi Tester assessment platform. With the pending update of that platform, the opportunity to review and revise procedures around student evaluations has presented itself. Based upon results of a survey sent to department chairs last year, asking a variety of questions about practices around the evaluation of teaching, it is clear that student evaluation of courses is still an important and needed evaluation tool. At the same time, faculty have expressed frustration with student evaluations on a number of fronts. These include 1) unequal weighting of student evaluations in the evaluation of teaching, across colleges and even departments within a college, 2) the validity of the questions/prompts given to students, 3) low response rates since the move to fully online evaluations that can challenge both validity and reliability of results, and 4) reporting of results is currently very limited to an aggregate average of responses for a given course and a frequency distribution of responses for a given course. Faculty have expressed interest in more flexible reporting that allows longitudinal reporting, comparative reporting by lower vs upper division, etc. 1) Unequal Weighting of Students Evaluations in Evaluating Teaching Across the Colleges. Item 1 is not under the purview of the TLA; this is decided at the Dean and/or Chair level and is often times driven by external accreditation. It is the recommendation of the committee that this issue be addressed initially at Dean’s Council, with the understanding that no change may result. 2) Question Validity. Item 2 could be addressed by a committee willing to work towards researching, developing and testing better, more valid prompts to which students can respond. Additionally, new functionality in the Chi Tester upgrade will allow different levels or categories of questions to be included in an evaluation instrument. For example, there could be institutional-level questions (2 or 3 questions that are common on every instrument), college-level questions (questions that appear on every instrument in the college), departmental-level questions, and individual instructor questions (the results of which do not have to be reported to anyone other than the individual faculty member). There is also a possibility to add questions based upon delivery/teaching mode (online, hybrid, lab, etc.). It is the recommendation of the committee that a group of faculty begin to develop question sets that can be leveraged in the revised Chi Tester assessment tool. 3) Low Response Rates. Item 3 can be addressed in a number of ways:

•We have evidence that a focused effort by faculty to encourage students to complete the evaluations (setting aside time in class, scheduling a lab, talking to students about the use and value of evaluation results, and/or offering some sort of incentive) results in higher response rates. Continue to educate faculty about engaging students in evaluation and encourage their active participation in soliciting student responses. •The current tool allows departments to determine the dates for which an evaluation is available While many departments use the default dates (two weeks prior to the end of the term through the last day of finals), many select different dates. This leads to confusion for students; it is not clear which evaluations are open when and for how long. It is the recommendation of this committee that with the introduction of the new tool, common course evaluation dates be set for everyone, with little allowance for deviation from those dates. This will allow for a concerted marketing/notification effort to encourage students to complete their evaluations.

23

•The current tool allows departments to select ‘all courses’ to be evaluated, or indicate the specific courses to be evaluated. The PPM indicates all students have a right to evaluate every course.

Given that, it is the recommendation of this committee that the ‘all courses’ option be the only option available. Selective reporting to the chair/dean based upon tenure rights can be addressed separately. 4) Limited Reporting of Results (Means & Frequencies). Item 4, reporting options, can be informed by the progress made in the Computer Science program,under the guidance of Brad Peterson, which has developed new, more useful reporting of course evaluations. It is the recommendation of this committee that a sub-committee convene to identify reporting needs to be incorporated in the new tool. Charge #6 Continue to explore mentoring opportunities to promote faculty success through the tenure and promotion process. TLF Mentorship Cadre This year, the TLF laid the groundwork for a mentoring program for new faculty. The goals of the program are four-fold: 1) New faculty will develop a sense of belonging and connection as a faculty member at WSU; 2) New faculty will be better prepared for success as a faculty member; 3) New faculty will receive access and guidance from a college mentor and TLF programming resources; and 4) New faculty will become engaged in the WSU community through participation with their mentor, TLF events, and/or other departmental/ college/ university programs and committees. To meet these outcomes, the TLF assigned each mentor up to 5 new faculty members with whom to interact throughout the academic year. Mentors were required to be from the college of the new faculty members and be tenured. They were asked to meet with their new faculty cohort at the New Faculty retreat, interact with them at least twice during fall and spring semesters, and go to lunch once during each semester. Additionally, TLF sponsored a luncheon for mentors and new faculty at the end of each semester. We will continue to explore methods to strengthen and improve this program. We recently conducted a focus group addressing benefits and challenges of the program and results are being compiled. As we move forward, we will utilize the information to inform our efforts. Mentors & their colleges are listed below: Janelle Gardiner Dumke College of Health Professions Lisa Trujillo Dumke College of Health Professions Michele Culumber College of Science Azenett Garza College of Social & Behavioral Sciences Allyson Saunders College of Engineering, Applied Science & Technology George Comber College of Engineering, Applied Science & Technology Melina Alexander Jerry and Vickie Moyes College of Education Colleen Packer Telitha E. Lindquist College of Arts & Humanities Kacy Peckenpaugh (alternate) Telitha E. Lindquist College of Arts & Humanities Nazneen Ahmad John B. Goddard School of Business & Economics

24

25