Teaching at UK

Vol. 4, No.1 (Fall 1997)

Table of Contents
What is Effective Teaching at UK?	Scholarship Assessed Book Review

What is Effective Teaching at UK?

On October 3, 1997 approximately 90 Lexington Campus faculty members met for a day to discuss the question: "What are the criteria for effective teaching?" This "Conversation about Teaching" was the starting point for a three-year process meant to create both university-wide and discipline-specific definitions of good teaching, determine the evaluation techniques needed to best assess teaching, and develop an appropriate reward system. While no one expects miracles, this process is one way for the UK community to underscore its continued commitment to excellence in teaching at all levels.

An Ad Hoc Committee to look at teaching criteria and evaluation procedures at UK(1) has taken the ideas advanced at the "Conversation about Teaching" and worked to find categories underlying the many individual characteristics proposed. During this stage of the process, the committee recognized the relevance to its work of the recently published companion volume to Ernest Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered, titled Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate.(2) In this new volume, the Boyer project continues by addressing the very real concerns of how to assess the various kinds of scholarship (discovery, integration, application, and teaching). The Carnegie Foundation report is designed to provide a vocabulary for a thoroughgoing debate about the elements of faculty evaluation. Many of the underlying themes implicit in the ideas generated by UK's faculty have been explicitly stated in Scholarship Assessed. Thus, the committee used the Carnegie Foundation's schema with some modifications as an organizing principle for its work. The particulars of the October 3 conversation have been integrated into this format. Two additional broad categories have been added in order to adequately reflect the scope of the UK conversation.

Note that all material summarized or quoted from Scholarship Assessed appears in italics. In keeping with Boyer's premise that teaching is a form of scholarship that can be assessed along the lines employed for all forms of scholarship, the Carnegie Foundation's report uses the word "scholar" where one might traditionally expect "teacher." What is not italicized is a direct product of the UK conversation. Quotations indicate the exact wording used by faculty at the workshop.

Criteria for Effective Teaching

Colleagues at UK felt that creating and maintaining standards is an important part of effective teaching. Specific responses included "appropriate course goals," "goal-oriented," "maintain high standards," "maintain high expectations even when support is lacking," "clear course objectives," "clear criteria for grading."

Characteristics of effective teaching relating to an instructional philosophy, in particular, attitudes towards the teaching-learning process, were also raised: an instructor who "cares about student learning," who looks at "student outcomes skills technical, presentation, interpersonal, 'vocational,'" and who values "intellectually engaging with students and is available to help students make the transition to higher learning."

2. Adequate Preparation

"Does the scholar show an understanding of existing scholarship in the field? Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to his or her work? Does the scholar bring together the resources necessary to move the project forward?" (SA 36)

For teaching, this group of questions includes asking if the instructor displays a clear understanding of the course topics, is well prepared for each class, is, indeed, well prepared to teach in general, showing a mastery of the various teaching skills and giving evidence of knowledge of the array of teaching choices. (SA 26-27)

UK faculty felt that a current knowledge-base of the subject was essential to effective teaching. They listed: "keeping up with discipline," "integrate research," "teacher is knowledgeable and organized," and "competent and organized."

Alongside criteria related to knowledge of content were items that pointed to the need for knowledge of teaching strategies, such as "best practices using technology," and an "interest in teaching/learning theory, ideas, techniques."

One interesting aspect of preparation was the repeated concern that faculty must also know their students. Workshop participants noted the following:

• "understand different level of students' ability,"
• "know students as individuals,"
• "recognize different learning styles,"
• "be in touch with audience, i.e., students," and
• "understand student perspectives."

• "spends the time to organize as part of the course,"
• "strong solid detailed syllabus,"
• "organized on-time follow-thru,"
• "logical, orderly lectures," and
• "well-prepared for class."

UK faculty underscored the need for teaching that "uses methods in terms of content and presentation that are creative, ethically and culturally sensitive, but not patronizing," "addresses individual differences among students," "reflects relevant curriculum choices," "recognizes different learning styles," and "employs techniques that show care for diverse learning styles."

Looking at concrete teaching methods or strategies, the faculty pointed out characteristics ranging from the general to the concrete. They mentioned characteristics such as:

• "variety in methods,"
• "variety of teaching skills,"
• "teach to course objectives (start with end in mind),"
• "effective assignments and activities,"
• "involving students: active learning,"
• "model types of problem-solving,"
• "requires revised work,"
• "interdisciplinary activities interconnected learning,"
• "student presentation of individual projects,"
• "outside class support for discussion (work sessions)," and
• "motivate, reach students."

With respect to assessing student work, faculty were concerned about effective evaluation. Many comments revolved around the issue "maintains high standards." Concrete criteria reported include:

• "provide timely and relevant feedback affirm excellent,"
• "clear feedback to student work,"
• "clear criteria for grading,"
• "evaluated students relative to academic achievement standards,"
• "willing to fail students who do not achieve competence standards set," and
• "fair and unbiased grading."

A particularly interesting point related to methods was "listens to and engages with students as a way to assess learning, as well as an avenue for intellectual exchange. The measure of what we do is their self discovery. Learning is demonstrated and recognized in their life, not ours."

4. Effective Communication and Interaction(3)

"Does the scholar use a suitable style and effective organization to present his or her work? Does the scholar use appropriate forums for communicating work to its intended audiences? Does the scholar present his or her message with clarity and integrity?" (SA 36) Under this general category are considerations that range from characteristics of an instructor who communicates effectively to items that include the use of "images, metaphors, analogies, and examples that connect the subject matter to who the students are and how students learn." Another aspect of the scholarship of teaching implied by this category is the presentation of teaching to colleagues at conferences, workshops, etc. (SA 32).

The ability to communicate clearly was represented by such responses as: "ability to present material clearly," "articulate and clear," "high expectations communicated," "explicate learning objectives," "communicate criteria for student success," and "use effective examples."

UK faculty underscored the effectiveness of certain instructor attributes such as "passion about subject," "enthusiasm for sharing knowledge," "entertaining/engaging," "spontaneous," and "effective use of humor."

UK faculty underscored the need to create a classroom in which instructors interact with students and communicate a "sense of mutuality of responsibility for achievement of the student outcomes." Other aspects of classroom climate were:

• "challenging and supportive at the same time,"
• "respect for diverse opinions,"
• "interact with students individually,"
• "create an environment that encourages student risk-taking,"
• "learning from students,"
• "guide, don't only instruct," and
• "emphasize uncertainty not authority."

One important issue raised was the importance of faculty who "model good professional practice" and are seen as "rigorous yet fair" and "honest."

5. Significant Results

"Does the scholar achieve the goals? Does the scholar's work add consequentially to the field? Does the scholar's work open additional areas for further exploration?" (SA 36)

For teaching, this area includes the results, and not just the process, of teaching. Here one can ask whether learning or interest in the subject matter was stimulated, if competence improved, if students engaged in research, and if the teaching methods employed might act as a stimulus for teaching improvements elsewhere. (SA 29-31)

This theme crystallized out of nearly one-third of the points raised by UK faculty. They asked if the instructor was "aware of how/whether learning is occurring." They also listed specific learning outcomes in terms of both cognitive skills and attitudes such as:

• "students aware of issues, methods, approaches,"
• "improves student thinking skills,"
• "students can recognize, analyze complexity,"
• "ability to discern,"
• "critical thought,"
• "students' capacity to redefine issues (imagination),"
• "capacity to connect learning in one area with learning in another,"
• "insightful student questions,"
• "student's evolution as teachers of self,"
• "open-mindedness,"
• "confidence the student has in using the material learning,"
• "inspires student interest in subject matter,"
• "personal development transform vs. transmit,"
• "cultural competency,"
• "sense of civic responsibility,"
• "broad application of learning," and
• "enthusiasm for further learning."

In addition to student learning, other aspects of effective teaching that can be categorized "results" include "innovation in discipline, e.g., effective text in new area," "influence colleagues' teaching UK and elsewhere."

6. Reflective Critique

"Does the scholar critically evaluate his or her own work? Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to his or her critique? Does the scholar use evaluation to improve the quality of future work?" (SA 36)

Under this category are such items as gathering feedback from students and using this feedback to be a self-reflective practitioner.

UK faculty talked of the need for "self evaluation of achieving goals," "continuous improvement (update) of course material," of being "fresh, not stale continually learning and modifying courses as a result," "gathering student input after time," "post-graduation student feedback."

They also pointed to the possibility of "outside feedback meaning business and other organizations" as well as "industry participation."

The importance of faculty relationships as they pertain to effective teaching was underscored by the following comments:

• "peer evaluation among all disciplines,"
• "discusses teaching dilemmas with colleagues,"and
• "works with colleagues to improve syllabus development."

The discussion on October 3 went far beyond classroom competencies. Indeed, Prof. Uri Treisman's comments earlier in the morning emphasized the need to think of teaching in very broad terms, well beyond the individual "performance" in a classroom. He stressed the importance of a coherent curriculum, the need to provide mentoring and models for students, and the critical need for administrative support.

Ideas generated by the faculty reflect these concerns. The faculty underscored the importance of "access to faculty outside of class" and what this means in terms of time and commitment.

UK faculty repeatedly pointed to the need to apply what is learned in the classroom to the real world, the community. They noted the following:

• "makes material relevant,"
• "provides application of real-world utility,"
• "blurs walls between inside and outside of classroom walls,"
• "integrates students to community,"
• "connect with larger community,"
• "internship service-learning public," and
• "class to real-world."

Comments related to the promotion of university goals were articulated and include "actively teaches public (+legislators/policy makers) value of education," "contributes to ongoing definition of university's mission."

8. Administrative Support of Instruction(5)

A large number of the issues raised by UK faculty pertained to the institutional environment in which effective teaching could occur. The basic question asked was "What enables good teaching?" Answers ranged from changing the administrative/faculty culture, to more concrete suggestions: "institutional support," "institutional leadership," "support of chair and dean for teaching," "eliminate schizophrenic messages from administrators," "area committees' values," "creating/protecting teaching 'spaces,'" "fewer undergraduate students," "part of a community of teachers," "more time, faculty, financial resources," "junior faculty protected and mentored," "senior faculty involved in teaching," "adequate facilities, room, labs, computers," and "ways to support faculty in the use of technology."

Concluding Remarks

It is now up to the individual colleges and departments to take these criteria and discuss their merits as well as if and how they need to be modified by discipline-specific considerations. These departmental discussions are part of a three-year process: the first year will be spent in creating a workable definition of good teaching, the second in determining which evaluation techniques can best be used to judge these criteria, and the third in developing an appropriate reward system. The departments and the faculty in the departments are the most important elements in this process.

Endnotes

(2) Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed. Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

(3) Note that the Carnegie Foundation's model uses "Effective Presentation" as part of its schema. However, the ideas generated by the UK faculty point to the need for a concept such as "communication and interaction" which would replace the more uni-dimensional "presentation."

(4) This category is not part of the Boyer project. However, many of the issues raised by UK faculty necessitated adding a parameter that expands the concept of "teaching" from looking at one individual in a classroom to broader issues.

(5) This category is also not part of the Boyer project, but was an underlying theme in many of the faculty comments.

Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship Assessed. Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scholarship Assessed essentially begins where Scholarship Reconsidered left off. In Scholarship Reconsidered. Priorities of the Professoriate (1990), Ernest Boyer, Director of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, examines the evolving definition of scholarship in higher education. Arguing against a singular view of scholarship as research and publication , Dr. Boyer notes that the definition of scholarly work must be broadened to give scholarship a more inclusive meaning. He proposes that four general areas of endeavor be viewed and rewarded as scholarship. They include the scholarships of discovery, integration, application, and teaching. This new paradigm would recognize the full range of scholarly activity engaged in by college faculty and would create a more balanced reward. In other Carnegie Foundation publications, it has been argued that the emphasis on the "scholarship of discovery" for faculty recognition and reward can weaken a general education system for undergraduates, undervalue the prevalent activity of teaching, and diminish the overall intellectual and social environment of a college.

Initiated under the direction of Ernest Boyer prior to his death in December, 1995, Scholarship Assessed proposes standards for assessing and methods for documenting the four "types" of faculty scholarship. Predicated on the belief that we must hold all scholarly activities to the same standards, the authors ask what common features of scholarship cut across disciplines and types of scholarly activities. They gleaned such common dimensions of scholarship by examining criteria currently used in hiring practices, grant awards, student and peer evaluations, tenure and promotion decisions, and publications in university presses and scholarly journals. The authors conclude that the key to commonalities lies in the phases of the intellectual process. This process involves having 1) clear goals, 2) adequate preparation, 3) appropriate methods, 4) significant results, 5) effective presentation, and 6) reflective critique. Such standards could form the criteria for assessing all scholarship.

Documentation of scholarly activity would consist of gathering and presenting evidence that speaks to these standards. The very act of documenting can promote better scholarship through reflective practice and collegial discourse. The specific evidence in each category could vary depending on the nature of the activity being assessed. Thus, documentation of scholarship would allow an eclectic array of acceptable materials. Examples of possible forms of documentation are discussed in the book.

This publication, as well as Scholarship Reconsidered, is available in the TLC library. Each department chairperson also has a copy. If you would like a personal copy, contact Jossey-Bass Publishers at 1-800-956-7739.

Back to Main Menu

TLC Newsletters

UK Reports

Posted July 20, 1998
http://www.uky.edu/UndergraduateStudies/tlc/news/newsltr4-1.html