The History of UNC's
Center for Teaching & Learning
(1992)
Challenges, Context, and
Rationale
The University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill is a public, research university I (Carnegie Classification),
with roughly 2,400 FTE faculty, 15,000 undergraduates, and 8,400 graduate
and professional students. UNC is the flagship institution in the North
Carolina University System and it enjoys a national reputation for excellence
in research.
The challenges faced by the
Center for Teaching and Learning at UNC are similar to those at other
public research universities:
- students come from diverse
backgrounds, with varying levels of preparation;
- some students are marginalized
because of race, gender, sexual preference, or other characteristics;
- the reward system focuses
heavily on research and publication rather than teaching;
- large numbers of undergraduates
are taught by graduate teaching assistants; and
- the faculty have little
familiarity with modern teaching methods.
From the beginning, we felt
that such a wide range of challenges demanded a comprehensive approach
to their solution and required the collaboration of all elements of the
university community. Moreover, in order to have a significant and long-lasting
impact, we would need to try to change the culture of the university,
a belief system in which excellence in research is valued above all else
and good teaching is assumed to happen naturally. Over the past six years,
the Center has developed a set of programs that promote the importance
of teaching within the context of a research university and offer multiple
opportunities for instructors and students to address teaching issues.
As a new teaching center,
we had to establish our credibility and reputation by providing programs
that our constituents requested. However, to accomplish institutional
change on a large scale we also had to exercise leadership and develop
programs that we believed were necessary, even if these programs had
little support. Small teaching centers at research universities do not
usually employ such a comprehensive strategy, choosing instead to focus
their efforts on a few high-profile programs that address specific problems
identified by the administration. The danger in our approach was twofold.
First, there was a risk of
diluting our impact by trying to do too many things at once; second,
if we went to far in advance of constituents' needs, our support would
evaporate. The University's administrative structure also had implications
for our change strategy. UNC has two major divisions -- Academic Affairs
and Health Affairs -- and our services were initially restricted to
the former. Academic Affairs is dominated by the College of Arts and
Sciences, with 32 departments and the majority of undergraduate majors,
and if we had an impact on Arts and Sciences, the other schools would
follow suit. Resource limitations also made it imperative that we choose
programs and services that would have the greatest long-term impact.
Although salaries come from permanent state funds, only a small portion
of the operating budget is guaranteed from year to year.
As a result of our assessment
of the environment and the limitations of personnel and funding, we
employed two key development strategies:
- responsive program/service
design, and
- varied program/service
delivery strategies.
"Responsive design" means that
programs are targeted to the specific needs and interests of departments,
faculty members, teaching assistants, and students. "Varied Delivery"
means that programs and services are presented in a variety of ways to
appeal to the different needs and learning preferences of the target groups.
In the sections below, we describe how these strategies work in specific
program areas and how they promote institutional change.
Development Strategies
and Methods of Operation
I. Departments
When the Center was formed,
the director met individually with the department chairs in Arts and Sciences
to ask what the new Center could do for them. On the basis of these interviews
(and a faculty survey), we developed the first program objectives for
the Center. Among other things, department chairs identified training
for graduate teaching assistants as a major problem. The way the Center
responded to this request is an example of how our overall approach works.
Only five departments had
training programs in 1987, so we designed a one-day TA workshop/orientation
and a TA handbook to provide a base level introduction to the university
and to teaching. Although the program was successful and enhanced the
Center's reputation, it did not meet our criteria for institutional
change. It could not provide sufficient preparation for teaching, even
if it were expanded to several days (which would also make it prohibitively
expensive). Our goal was not for CTL to provide training for 400 new
teaching assistants every year, but to call attention to the importance
of this aspect of graduate education so that departments would be willing
to provide training and support as part of their responsibility to graduate
students.
By constantly advocating
better training, seeking out faculty members and graduate students interested
in starting programs, providing materials for TA training, and supporting
individual initiatives for training, the Center has managed to increase
the number of department-based programs from five to thirteen in the
past five years. In addition, this effort included the publication of
a booklet, "TAs and Professors as a Teaching Team: A Faculty Guide to
TA Training and Supervision," that was sent to every faculty member
at UNC. This booklet suggests approaches through which supervisors can
help TAs learn from their work assignments and also provides models
for department-based programs.
At the institutional level,
the CTL staff worked with the Graduate School on revising the graduate
program evaluation guidelines, which now require departments to document
how they prepare graduate students for TA duties. The TA program illustrates
the principle of responding to an expressed need while simultaneously
trying to change the institutional culture surrounding that need.
The evaluation of teaching
has always been a problem for schools and departments, since there is
no university-wide evaluation instrument. The Center staff advocates
rigorous and systematic assessment of teaching performance, and departments
often request Center help in designing teaching questionnaires. This
year we are developing comprehensive teaching evaluation programs for
use in the promotion-tenure process of two professional schools. These
programs include peer observations, teaching portfolios, and student
questionnaires. Currently, Center staff are also working on a pilot
program for student outcomes assessment which may serve as a model for
the entire University.
In 1987, we asked each department
chair to select a faculty member to serve as a liaison to the Center.
We met with these "departmental representatives" in small groups over
many weeks to explain CTL's services and to explore ways we could respond
to the needs of their departments. These faculty members became conduits
for information from CTL to the departments and vice-versa, but equally
important, they formed a "volunteer corps" that has helped the Center
with many different programs.
For example, they assist
in the design of workshops and seminars, lead workshop sessions, review
drafts of documents before publication, and volunteer to pilot-test
evaluation instruments and survey questionnaires in their classrooms.
Perhaps one of their most valuable contributions to the Center's goals
is their advocacy, in faculty meetings and on committees, of the importance
of teaching. Several of them have commented that they are more likely
to speak out on the subject because they know the Center supports them.
II. Faculty Members
Faculty
Focused programs are designed
to encourage faculty members to revitalize their teaching and restructure
their courses to emphasize critical thinking and active learning. To change
the way college teachers think about teaching and learning requires individualized
attention. Workshops and seminars can pique interest and raise awareness
about special concerns, but research shows that they have little long-term
impact on behavioral change. Consequently, most staff time is devoted
to working with instructors one-on-one.
Last year, the staff provided
consultations to 263 faculty members and 133 graduate teaching assistants.
These encounters ranged from short-term problem-solving sessions to
regular meetings extending over one or two semesters. Long-term consultations
generally involve Comprehensive Course Development, which we feel is
one of the Center's most important programs. This program involves working
intensively with teachers who are trying to design new courses or redesign
old ones.
Although we send "Course
Development Proposal Forms" to all faculty members annually, a teacher
may request the service independently. Typically, the consultant first
spends time with the instructor discussing his/her teaching philosophy,
exploring the possibilities for innovations, and identifying constraints
imposed by the curriculum, the department, or the students. The consultant
then helps the teacher develop learning outcomes for the course, decide
how those outcomes will be evaluated, and potential teaching strategies
for achieving the goals. The instructor may bring various materials,
readings, and sample test questions to the weekly meetings for examination
and discussion. The consultant tries to build feedback mechanisms into
the plan, designed to monitor student progress, evaluate teaching effectiveness,
and identify course problems. If media materials are needed for the
course, the Center staff will help locate commercial items or produce
original materials in-house. Computer applications, including multimedia
and spreadsheet templates (for course management, grading, etc.) are
also part of the service.
At the end of the development
process, the teacher has a complete course package that includes the
syllabus, readings, textbooks, tests, and audiovisual materials, all
designed to accomplish specific learning outcomes. The course development
process also affords many opportunities for training the teacher in
new techniques. Teaching critical thinking and higher-order intellectual
skills not only assumes a course design directed toward those outcomes,
but also requires active learning strategies, and most teachers need
training in these techniques. Also, new themes and educational emphases
can be incorporated into the course as a product of these consultations.
For example, teachers may
not be aware of the opportunities for infusing multicultural themes
into a course, or may not recognize the need to modify teaching techniques
to include a diverse student body. Similarly, a consultant can provide
ways to integrate experiential learning or "internationalize" standard
courses. The consultative process does not end when the course design
is completed. The instructor can return periodically to report on the
progress of the course or ask for help in solving problems that arise
with the course or the teaching technique being used. The consultant
may observe the teacher or videotape the class for critical analysis
and feedback.
Finally, the consultant can
help interpret student evaluations of the course and suggest ways to
improve the design or make the teaching more effective. New faculty
members find that these consultations provide the kind of detailed teaching
advice they need in their first years of teaching, and experienced professors
report that they have found new energy and satisfaction in teaching
after working intensively with Center consultants.
Other faculty-focused programs
include open seminars on special teaching issues (e.g., critical thinking,
using case studies, teaching large classes) and workshops designed for
instructors in specific departments. Center staff have also designed
a comprehensive program for the development and support of new faculty
members which in under consideration for initiation next year. This
program will include a new faculty orientation, intensive workshops
(on teaching, research opportunities, writing, and multiculturalism),
and a mentoring system.
III. Graduate Teaching
Assistants
Developing TAs as teaching professionals
is the goal of the Center's TA-focused programs. Individual consultations
are particularly important for the career development of teaching assistants.
Graduate TAs from departments that have no training program often need
a crash course in college teaching, and frequently this must occur at
the same time they are teaching a course. The consultant must balance
the needs of the undergraduates in a TA's class with the need of the TA
to succeed in graduate school. Some TAs become so enamored of teaching
that they spend more time and energy on it than they can afford, and the
consultant must be sensitive to this situation when it arises.
Similarly, junior faculty
members are trying to develop their teaching skills at the same time
they are required to produce sufficient research to win tenure in the
department. The consultant has a responsibility to help the faculty
member balance these competing demands and support him/her in this critical
stage of the academic career. Often, consultants provide letters of
recommendation (regarding teaching skills) for graduate students on
the job market or for junior faculty members in the tenure process.
The annual campus-wide orientation
for TAs is intended to give them an introduction to the job and the
kinds of students they will be teaching. The participants are divided
into small, discipline-related groups, each led by a faculty member
and an experienced TA, in which they discuss issues such as student
motivation, what to do the first day of class, and institutional regulations
regarding teaching. The discussion agenda is followed by all groups,
but the leaders provide a department-specific perspective on the issues.
One session is devoted exclusively to the exploration of multicultural
issues that can affect teaching.
The Center also provides
department-based workshops in diversity training for TAs. Up to sixteen
departments per semester are visited by a multicultural team of graduate
students and undergraduates who lead discussions on problems that they
have experienced and how TAs can be sensitive to the needs of their
diverse students.
IV. Students
As a rule, we try to include
graduate and undergraduate students in faculty workshops so their perspective
on teaching and learning can be represented and taken into account. We
have found that their participation is particularly important in workshops
on topics such as teaching in disciplines with a high non-persistence
of majors and panel discussions on diversity and multiculturalism.
In 1990, the senior class
showed their support of the Center's work by pledging their class gift
as an endowment for CTL. The funds will become available in 1995 and
will be used to support a "CTL Fellows" program. Fellows will be chosen
from the ranks of master teachers, outstanding TAs and students and
given an opportunity to work at the Center for a semester on special
projects related to teaching and learning.
The service-learning program
is another example of Center-student collaboration. In 1990, a small
group of students created a task force to investigate methods of combining
traditional classroom learning with active community involvement. They
organized themselves as the "a.p.p.l.e.s." (Assisting People in Planning
Learning Experiences in Service). In a survey of the faculty, 150 professors
indicated an interest in developing service components to their courses,
and six participated in a pilot program in spring, 1991. Two CTL staff
members worked with the a.p.p.l.e.s. students to help them develop the
program, and the Center became the institutional home for the organization
in 1991.
When faculty volunteer for
the program, they meet with CTL staff members to develop ways to integrate
the service-learning component into their courses (for course credit).
This process often follows the "Comprehensive Course Development" model
described above. CTL's involvement helps give the program academic credibility
and a strong pedagogical foundation. To date, seventeen courses have
been offered as service-learning courses. The UNC student body demonstrated
their support of the Program by voting to increase student fees $0.90
per semester to fund a permanent full-time staff position to coordinate
the program. The student attorney is the only other position at UNC
funded in this way.
The North Carolina Community
Action Scholars Program (NC-CASP) is another example of collaboration
between CTL, faculty members, students, and the community. NC-CASP is
a community service-learning internship program which was developed
as a summer component of the a.p.p.l.e.s. program. Students in a.p.p.l.e.s.
initiated the idea for a program that would bring together the needs
of North Carolina communities, the skills and interests of students,
and the academic resources of the university. Students secured a $25,000
grant to implement the program, and CTL staff worked with these students
to develop the program's structure and implementation strategies.
CTL staff also provided the
link between the interns and faculty members who would guide students
in their community-based projects. In the first year of the program,
thirteen interns were placed in public or non-profit organizations and
eight UNC professors collaborated with the program. Interns worked on
community issues such as housing, day care, education, community development
and advocacy. Their projects included a community-based youth program,
background research for child care legislation, a statewide needs assessment
survey (with statistical results and recommendations), a manual and
database for a system for recruiting and linking volunteers with twenty-eight
nonprofit organizations, a Spanish translation service for a rural court
system, and a computerized loan application for a nonprofit development
bank.
Impact of CTL Programs
Perhaps the most compelling
evidence of the Center's impact on institutional culture is provided by
statistics on participation in our programs and services. In 1987-1988,
CTL's first year of operation, 444 instructors participated in its programs,
using our services 616 times. By the 1989-1990 school year, the number
of participants had grown to 1,196 and the number of uses to 2,158. In
1991-1992, 1,542 instructors used CTL services 4,044 times. (Counting
faculty and TAs, the entire Academic Affairs Division has 2,300 instructors.)
The impact of the Center
seems to have reached the students as well. As far as we have been able
to determine, the 1990 Senior Class gift for a Center endowment fund
is the only example of direct student support for a teaching center
anywhere in the nation. In addition, last year the student body voted
to increase their fees by 90 cents to support the a.p.p.l.e.s. Program
Requests by schools and departments
for assistance on important issues is evidence of a broad institutional
impact. For example, recently CTL staff have assisted curriculum committees
in English, History, Psychology, and Communications Studies and served
on faculty committees developing promotion-tenure criteria for the School
of Business Administration, the School of Education, the School of Dentistry,
and the Institute of Government.
At the institutional level,
changes in the environment for teaching are also apparent. The number
of teaching awards was increased as a result of CTL advocacy (and the
staff developed a more systematic selection process). The Center has
been asked to assist UNC's Self-Study Committee in their work for re-accreditation
with the Southern Association of Schools and Colleges. CTL's reputation
in Academic Affairs resulted in a demand for our services from Health
Affairs, and this year we extended programs to selected schools in that
division of the university. The Center's support by the university administration
has increased and expanded regularly, and this year we have been allotted
a position for a new teaching consultant.
Beyond the campus, the CTL
has had an impact statewide and has become a model for other teaching
centers in the area. Recently, Duke University created a Center for
Teaching and Learning after close collaboration with Center staff, and
North Carolina State University has sent several delegations to UNC
to study the Center as a prototype for their own. Center staff were
also consulted on the establishment of teaching centers or programs
at UNC-Wilmington, Indiana University at Terre Haute, and Virginia Tech.
The Center was also suggested as a model for similar programs in a 1992
study by the North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research, "How
Do Universities in the UNC System Identify and Reward Good Teaching?"
Finally, the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure for the UNC University
System has requested the Center's help in developing guidelines for
assessing teaching on all sixteen UNC campuses.
|
