2005-2005 Annual Report Draft

June 22, 2006

To: Timothy McNamara, Associate Provost for Faculty From: Allison Pingree, Director, Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching Re: The Center for Teaching Year in Review, 2005-06

The purpose of this report is to take stock of how well the CFT fulfilled its mission during 2005-06, and in so doing, to assess how it contributed to the university’s mission for teaching and learning.

The report is divided into information related to the three facets of the CFT’s mission. In order to offer both an overview and more detailed elaborations, I’ve included data summaries as well as more comprehensive lists, charts and graphs.

The exercise of stepping back and looking at the CFT’s year overall has been invaluable in helping us to see patterns, issues, accomplishments and areas of concern more clearly. Thank you for making time to process this information with me, so that we can make decisions and set priorities for the coming year.

CONTENTS

Mission of the Center for Teaching

Facet I: Consultations Consultation Participation…………………………………………………………………………………………………3 - 5 Consultation Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………………………………...5 - 9

Facet II: Programs Teaching Assistant Orientation (TAO) – Participation and Feedback…………………………………………………….9 - 12 International Teaching Assistant Orientation (ITAO) - Participation and Feedback………………………………………… 12 Teaching at Vanderbilt – Incoming Faculty Orientation (TaV) - Participation and Feedback……………………………12 - 16 Follow-up from TAO and TaV………………………………………………………………………………………….17 - 19 Workshops and Working Groups - Participation and Feedback…………………………………………………………20 - 23 Graduate Student Teaching and Professional Development Conference (GradSTEP) - Participation and Feedback……..23 -26

Facet III: Research / Resources / Dissemination / Collaboration ……………………………………………… 26 - 28 Teaching……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 6 Committee Service…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...26 Publications………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2 7 Presentations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....2 7 Conferences………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2 7 Major Project Outcomes………………………………………………………………………………………………...27 - 28

Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………29 - 31 Accomplishments…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 29 Challenges…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....2 9 Strategies & Priorities for 2006-07………………………………………………………………………………………29 - 31

2 THE MISSION OF THE VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR TEACHING

The Center for Teaching shares Vanderbilt University’s commitment to excellence in research, teaching & learning, and service. We honor this commitment by promoting teaching and learning as forms of scholarly practice—that is, as ongoing and collaborative processes of inquiry, experimentation, and reflection.

In this way, we underscore that teaching and learning as intellectual invention differ from research only in kind, not in degree and importance, and require equal attention of the community of scholars. In order to foster and sustain a culture that practices, values, and rewards university teaching and learning as vital forms of scholarship, the Center takes as its mission to:

 Promote deep understanding of teaching and learning processes by helping instructors to gather, analyze, and reflect on information about their teaching, and about their students’ learning. In turn, instructors can then develop new strategies for teaching.

 Sponsor dialogue about teaching and learning through orientations, workshops, working groups, and other programs.

 Create and disseminate research-based best practices, models, and approaches to university teaching and learning-- and facilitate access to resources that support them.

3 Facet I – Promote deep understanding of teaching and learning processes by helping both individuals and groups of instructors to gather, analyze, and reflect on information about their own teaching and their students' learning

Consultation Data – Participation:

Total Consultations by Type: Service Assistant Assoc Lecturer/ Adjunct Clinical Undergra Post Code Professor Professor Professor Instructor Prof Prof Grad d Staff Doc Ext TOTAL: Dept. 29 21 9 4 1 2 11 77 Design 1 9 4 6 3 1 1 25 Eval 3 5 3 1 1 1 14 Ext 1 3 6 10 Grant 4 2 1 1 8 Misc 2 12 7 2 13 1 37 Obs 2 3 19 24 PD 1 1 2 85 2 7 5 103 SGA 4 18 3 6 3 52 3 89 Teach 4 2 1 7 Tech 1 1 3 1 3 9 Univ 8 1 1 2 11 23 VT 2 2 60 4 1 69 SL 1 1 496 Unique Consultations by Type: Service Assistant Assoc Lecturer/ Adjunct Clinical Undergra Post Code Professor Professor Professor Instructor Prof Prof Grad d Staff Doc Ext Sum: Dept. 15 7 7 2 1 8 40 Design 1 7 3 4 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 20 Eval 3 5 3 0 1 1 1 14 Ext 0 1 2 6 9 Grant 3 2 1 1 0 7 Misc 2 11 5 2 0 9 1 30 Obs 1 3 0 10 14 PD 1 1 1 0 47 1 3 3 57 SGA 4 13 2 4 2 0 29 2 56 Teach 4 2 0 1 1 8 Tech 1 1 2 1 0 3 8 Univ 7 1 1 1 0 7 17 VT 2 2 0 29 4 1 38 SL 1 0 1 319

Unique Consultations by Type

S L 0 % V T 12 % D e p t . 13 %

U n i v 5 % D e s i g n 6 %

T e c h 3 %

T e a c h 3 % E v a l 4 %

E x t 3 %

G r a n t 2 %

S G A 18 % M i s c 9 %

O b s 4 %

P D 18 %

4 Graduate Student Consultations by Type Dept. Design 0% 3% Ext Eval 1% Grant SL 1% 0% VT 0% Misc Univ 22% 7% 0% Tech 0% Obs 7% Teach 1%

SGA 21% PD 37%

Faculty Consultations by Type SL 1%

Univ 7% Dept. 23% Tech 3%

Teach 4%

SGA 17% Design 10%

PD 2% Eval 8%

Obs 3% Ext 0% Misc 14% Grant 5%

Staff Consultations by Type

SL 0% Univ 24% Dept. 28%

Tech 11% Design 4%

Teach 0% Eval 4% Ext 7% SGA 7% Grant 0% PD 11% Obs 0% Misc 4%

5 Total Consultations by School: Service Assistant Assoc Lecturer/ Clinical Adjunct Code Professor Professor Professor Instructor Prof Prof Grad Undergrad Staff Post Doc Ext Total A&S 27 45 19 16 4 157 4 1 273 ADMIN 7 17 4 6 23 57 DIV 14 14 ENG 2 7 9 1 29 2 2 4 56 EXTR 6 6 GPC 1 2 1 9 1 1 15 LAW 4 4 MED 4 5 3 1 21 9 2 45 NURS 6 1 2 9 OWEN 9 3 2 1 15

Unique Consultations by School: Service Assistant Assoc Lecturer/ Clinical Adjunct Code Professor Professor Professor Instructor Prof Prof Grad Undergrad Staff Post Doc Ext Total A&S 17 38 16 9 3 87 4 1 175 ADMIN 7 4 3 3 14 31 DIV 1 10 11 ENG 2 5 6 10 2 2 3 30 EXTR 6 6 GPC 1 2 1 7 1 12 LAW 2 2 MED 3 5 3 1 14 5 2 33 NURS 4 1 2 7 OWEN 5 3 2 1 11

Unique Consultations by School

OWEN 3%

NURS 2%

MED 10%

LAW 1%

GPC 4%

EXTR 2%

ENG 9% A&S 56%

DIV 3%

ADMIN 10%

Consultations – As percentage of Total Full-Time Faculty by School (source of faculty numbers: VIRG) Owen: 24% Arts & Science: 17% Engineering: 11.1% Divinity: 4.5% Law: 4.2% Peabody: 3.2% Nursing: 2.4%

Consultation Data – Evaluation

6 In May 2006, we distributed an on-line survey (similar to one sent last year) to the 230 faculty and graduate students who used our individual consultation services this year. We received 85 responses (37% response rate). Below are summaries of both the qualitative and quantitative feedback received in the survey.

Summary of Qualitative Feedback from “Evaluation of Consultation Services at the Center for Teaching” (surveymonkey)

1. What were your primary reasons for consulting with the Center for Teaching (CFT) in 2005-2006?  Planning a new course; course revision  Build teaching portfolio  Know how I was doing in the classroom as an instructor; how my students felt about the course and me  Receive feedback  Teaching philosophy statement  Advice from CFT experts  Improve teaching (including evaluations)/ poor teaching ratings / Improve student relations  Teaching certificate program / F2P2  Learn more about Vanderbilt’s practices in the classroom as a new faculty member  Curriculum and testing issues  Grant applications  Requirement of course work  Preparation before actual teaching duties begin

2. If this year was not the first time you worked with the Center for Teaching, what new insights, support, or other value (if any) did you receive in working with us THIS year?  Utilized new framework for working in groups  Reorganized my teaching portfolio  Planning my undergraduate education/mentoring programs- expanding knowledge  More meaningful feedback  Implementation of new teaching techniques/strategies  Confidence gain in ability to speak and teach  Consultations- more personal

6. Identify and rate other consultation service(s) you used this past year:  Planning for undergraduate summer research pre- and post-assessment of research students at different levels of expertise; mentoring workshops for PI’s, grad students, undergrads; raising awareness of ethical conduct  Peer review

7. To explain the ratings above, please comment on the effectiveness of your consultation(s).  Knowledgeable consultant; good listener  One-on-one meetings very helpful  Quite effective: able to learn minor details of my teaching which I wouldn’t learn elsewhere  Effective because continue to implement suggestions and reflect on teaching process and progress  Sometimes SGA results (analysis) seem to not match up with what students “think” they said  Felt CFT staff did not understand the other challenges facing faculty (science)- that is to get grant support for his/her lab and publish. Didn’t realize teaching demands fall amidst all that.

10. Please give examples of the one or two most important changes indicated in Question 9.  Asking broader questions and willingness to answer questions in the middle of a lecture or short talk  Active and interactive learning techniques  Use of Blackboard / OAK  Creating and choosing assignments that better reflect what instructor wants students to learn and that students can see value  Better examples to show students about what I am expecting from them  Revision of class discussion format, prompts, questions 7 11. How can we improve our consultation services?  Promote your services more often  I think you are overloaded. Perhaps more personnel?  Make arrangements to come to field-based settings  Multi-section SGAs should be available  Opportunity to consult with full-time staff rather than the GTFs  More specialized discussions  Pre-work or pre-questionnaire to first meeting so the consultant has a cursory view of the issues that will be presented

Summary of Quantitative Feedback from “Evaluation of Consultation Services at the Center for Teaching” (surveymonkey)

3. What topics was/were addressed during your consultation?

Consultation type

8 4. Please indicate the ways you interacted with the CFT and how helpful it was?

60 Face-to-face 50 consultation 40 30 Consultation by 20 phone 10 0 1 Consultation by 2 3 4 5 email 1 (not he lpful) - 5(extrem ely helpful)

5. Listed below are the most common INDIVIDUAL services the CFT offers; for any that you received this year please rate their effectiveness. 1 Not at All 2 3 4 5 Extremely Small Group Analysis (SGA) 1 3 1 8 22 Course design/Curriculum Design 3 0 2 3 19 Research/resources on teaching 1 1 5 12 18 Professional Development 2 0 2 6 10 Classroom observation 2 1 1 10 9 Review of student evaluations of instruction 2 0 1 7 8 Instructional technology 2 1 2 4 7 Classroom videotaping 3 0 1 6 6 Grant preparation or assessment 3 0 0 2 1 Service-learning 2 0 1 1 3 Other (please identify in #6) 2 1 0 3 3

8. To w hat extent did your consultations w ith the CFT have a m eaningful im pact on your teaching, on your students' learning, or on othe r aspects of your s cholarly/professional practice?

s 40 t

n 35 e

d 30 n

o 25 p

s 20 e

# 5 0 1 Not at all 2 3 4 5 A great deal

9 T h o u g h t m o r e a b o u t s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g 9. Indicate any changes you made as a result of your interaction with us. M o d i f i e d p r e s e n t a t i o n / d e l i v e r y t e c h n i q u e s

T r i e d a n e w t e a c h i n g t e c h n i q u e 50 M o d i f i e d s t u d e n t d i s c u s s i o n t e c h n i q u e s 45 E n c o u r a g e d m o r e a c t i v e l e a r n i n g a m o n g m y s t u d e n t s

40 R e d e s i g n e d a s s e s s m e n t ( t e s t i n g , g r a d i n g , e t c . ) m e t h o d s / m a t e r i a l s

t 35 G a i n e d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t e a c h i n g - r e l a t e d r e s o u r c e s a t

n V a n d e r b i l t e R e d e s i g n e d c o u r s e s y l l a b u s d 30 n

o I m p l e m e n t e d / c h a n g e d m e t h o d s o f c o l l e c t i n g a n d u s i n g

p 25 s t u d e n t f e e d b a c k a b o u t m y t e a c h i n g s I m p l e m e n t e d t e c h n i q u e s t o m a k e c l a s s r o o m m o r e e

r i n c l u s i v e 20 f B e c a m e m o r e s c h o l a r l y a b o u t m y t e a c h i n g / d e s i g n e d a n d o

i m p l e m e n t e d a s t u d y o f m y t e a c h i n g

# 15 M o d i f i e d m a t e r i a l s i n m y t e a c h i n g p o r t f o l i o

10 U s e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e c h n o l o g y a d i f f e r e n t a m o u n t o r i n a n e w w a y 5 R e v i s e d m y a p p r o a c h t o / v i e w s o n g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t 0 A d v o c a t e d f o r c u r r i c u l a r c h a n g e s Changes made as a result of CFT interaction O t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y ) A d a p t e d m y a p p r o a c h t o a c a d e m i c l e a d e r s h i p

E n r i c h e d m y g r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h e d u c a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s

Facet 2 – Cultivate dialogue about teaching and learning through orientations, workshops, working groups, and other programs.

Teaching Assistant Orientation (TAO) prepares graduate students to assume their teaching duties with confidence by engaging them in interactive sessions about teaching methods and resources.

TAO 2005: Attendance by Department (total participation = 181

0 ...... t . . i s n h y y i y y s h y s y i h r v & E g g R C D D O r r t g g g

c c c c s a h c g g c g c t n n n i . A i i i a n n o D n D H O P l M p o o o e s t S S S s l s l l n m i E E E L E E g E H m o G H e r s M B l & . s o a o y o . & l i r n i s o i . . p e m a o a t & h h p p h p v i i l H c r n o v c e E r Y S l c o i c G m P S n i o r o h m e B C h e A y l e t e S C h t c o E h r S s C h t E a P M a P E C n P C E M A

10 TAO 2005: Participation by School (total participation = 181)

Medicine, 1, 1% Arts & Science Peabody, 12, Divinity / GDR 7% Engineering Owen, 1, 1% Ow en Engineering, 45, Peabody 24% Medicine

Arts & Science, 107, 58% Divinity / GDR, 16, 9%

1. Which aspect of TAO do you think will help you the most 3. I now have a better sense about how to succeed as a as you prepare for and assume your teaching duties? TA at Vanderbilt.

Strongly Agree s

t 60 Agree n

e 50 d

n 40 Neutral o

p 30 TAO components s

e 20 Disagree r

f 10 o Strongly Disagree # 0 Plenary Disciplinary Practice Focus Teaching 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Session # of respondents

2. Which aspect of TAO do you think will help you the 4. I am now more familiar with campus resources and least as you prepare for and assume your teaching policies related to teaching. duties? Strongly Agree 100 s

t Agree

n 80 e d

n 60 Neutral

o TAO components p

e Disagree r

f 20 o Strongly Disagree # 0 Plenary Disciplinary Practice 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Focus Session Teaching # of respondents

11 5. I learned about a variety of teaching strategies that I 6.The practice teaching session helped m e to identify m y think will be useful to me when I teach. teaching strengths as w ell as areas for further im provem ent.

Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Neutral Neutral Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 # of respondents 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 # of respondents

Most helpful aspect of TAO  48.1% of SurveyMonkey respondents identified the disciplinary focus session as the most helpful aspect of TAO; the most common reasons for selecting this aspect as the most helpful include the following: o focused discussion among people with similar experiences o realistic (as opposed to theoretical) information, practical application, concrete advice o chance to discuss departmental expectations of TAs, actual duties and responsibilities o value of working with near peer with more experience  43.3% identified the practice teaching as the most helpful aspect of TAO; the most common reasons for selecting this aspect as the most helpful include the following: o helpful feedback o good prep for what to expect o chance to evaluate teaching skills o confidence building in smaller, more intimate setting

Least helpful aspect of TAO  83% of respondents identified the plenary as the least helpful aspect of TAO; the most common reasons for selecting this aspect as the least helpful include the following: o too broad; not specific enough o too “kindergartenish” o too much time for activities o too many/too much buzz words, fluff, educational jargon o mix of disciplines not effective

Selected “food for thought” comments  “[…] we are more interested in learning what our jobs will be like and how to do them effectively than with what current educational theory calls its methods.”  “[…] having training before all TAs know their assignments and have met with their assigned prof to go over duties and preferences makes it rather a pointless two days. I went in with no questions because I didn’t yet know what I needed to ask. I’m sure I’ll have a much better idea in a week or two.”  “I did not think that me understanding ‘what a TA means’ is helpful. I need to know how to do it, not WHY you do it.”

Initial recommendations for TAO 2006 on the basis of TAO 2005 feedback  Eliminate plenary or change its focus and scope  If the latter, make sure to acknowledge those teaching their own course and focus on resources—several respondents identified knowing about resources as the most important thing they learned at TAO  Focus on the practical rather than the theoretical  Push departments to make TA assignments before TAO  Have an advanced practice teaching session (if possible)

12 Disciplinary focus sessions (DFS)  95% of respondents said their DFS leader was very prepared; 81% said their DFS leader was helpful; 89% said their DFS leader was enthusiastic  Qualitative comments were overwhelmingly positive, but a couple of respondents indicated that they would have preferred a DFS leader from their discipline

International Teaching Assistant Orientation (ITAO)

ITAO 2005: Attendance by Department (total participation = 40

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

ITAO 2005: Participation by School (total participation = 40)

Peabody, 1, 3% Arts & Science Owen, 1, 3% Engineering Ow en Peabody

Engineering, 17, Arts & Science, 42% 21, 52%

Teaching At Vanderbilt: An Orientation for Incoming Faculty

We set the following goals for this year’s Teaching at Vanderbilt (TaV) new faculty orientation.  Convey to new faculty that teaching is important and supported at Vanderbilt.  Frame teaching as a scholarly activity integrated into Vanderbilt faculty life  Establish personal contact between each new faculty member and at least one Center senior staff member  Inform new faculty of the Center’s resources and services

13 We made some significant changes to Teaching at Vanderbilt (TaV) this year. Instead of having one four-hour orientation, we decided to hold two identical two-hour orientations, one on August 19th and one on August 23rd. This was done to make TaV more accessible to new faculty because attendance would take less time (2 hours rather than 4) and because two identical sessions would be offered so individuals could choose the date/time that is more convenient.

Last year, 77 new faculty were invited to TAV and 37 (48%) of them attended. This year, 84 new faculty were invited to TaV and 64 (76%) of them attended, indicating that the new format did indeed make TaV more accessible to new faculty. Each of the CFT’s assistant directors sent emails to the new faculty in their liaison areas, and these more personal invitations likely contributed to the high attendance number, as online pre-registrations for the event spiked shortly after these emails were sent out. It is also notable that of the new faculty who pre-registered online for TaV, every one of them attended the event; there were zero no-shows for TaV this year.

On the other hand, although 90% of the invited assistant professors attended and 80% of the invited associate professors attended, only 36% of the invited professors attended. Next year, we might consider ways to make TaV more attractive to full professors.

Each session featured opening remarks by Allison, a PowerPoint presentation by Associate Provost for Faculty Tim McNamara focusing on the role of teaching in the promotion and tenure process, roundtable lunch discussions with experienced faculty guests, and a PowerPoint presentation by Allison on the CFT’s programs and services. This structure worked well, in general. The new faculty had many questions about teaching at Vanderbilt. We had intended that the roundtable lunch discussions be the primary forum for these questions, but as it happened, many of these questions were raised during Tim and Allison’s presentations. Next year, we should better plan opportunities for new faculty to ask questions.

Creating an invitation list for TaV was no small task. The CFT is apparently the only unit on campus that assembles a list all new faculty at Vanderbilt. We assembled our list by contacting each department’s administrative assistant and asking for information on new faculty. We supplemented these department lists with a list of new faculty obtained from University Central. Unfortunately, this list was not entirely complete. Assembling the entire list of new faculty in time to invite them to TaV was a challenge. Next year, we might have each Assistant Director verify the AA-generated lists of new faculty with their liaison department chairs during the summer.

We held the sessions over lunch at the University Club. The only problem that occurred at the venue was the lack of an Internet connection. Allison had intended to show the CFT’s new web site live via her laptop, but was unable to do so because of connection problems. Otherwise, the University Club was an excellent venue, and their staff was very helpful.

The fact that lunch was served during the sessions, however, was a problem. On the first day, for instance, no one began eating their salads until Tim began his presentation. As attendees finished their salads during Tim’s talk, the University Club wait staff cleared salad plates and brought out main dishes. This was fairly distracting during Tim’s talk. The wait staff cleared the main dishes during the roundtable discussions, but this was not as distracting given the general noise level in the room. If we keep this format next year, we should better plan the integration of lunch into the proceedings.

Our goal of framing teaching as a scholarly activity was to be met during the roundtable lunch discussions with experienced faculty. We invited a total of 12 such faculty and assigned one to each table of new faculty at the orientations. At one point, we had hoped to have two experienced faculty at each table, but the number of attendees made this difficult. Starting the invitation process earlier would likely help next year.

The experienced faculty were asked to address the questions “What is it like to teach Vanderbilt students?” and “In what ways do you view teaching as a scholarly activity?” Allison attempted to frame the “scholarly activity” question at the start of the roundtable discussions (teaching as community property, inquiry-experimentation-reflection), but apparently the faculty answered the question on their own terms. This worked out well enough, since conversation flowed well at all the tables.

However, of the 25 TaV participants who completed the online feedback survey, only 59% “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement “The event helped me deepen my understanding of the ways in which teaching is a scholarly activity.”

14 Next year we might consider other ways to address the goal of framing teaching as a scholarly activity. Asking the experienced faculty to tell about a time they changed their teaching practice might surface the inquiry-experimentation- reflection cycle better. Alternately, we might have one experienced faculty share his or her thoughts on teaching as a scholarly practice with the large group in addition to what we did this year. Preparing one faculty member to answer that question well would be more manageable than preparing a dozen faculty members.

TaV participants were given in their packet of materials a card by which they could indicate their interest in a teaching consultation with a CFT staff member. The chart below shows how many TaV attendees met with a CFT consultant during the Fall 2005 semester as a result of contacts made at TaV.

Number of TaV attendees 64 Number of TaV attendees who turned in follow-up cards 18 Number of TaV attendees who met with a CFT consultant during the Fall 2005 semester as a 11 result of follow-up cards Number of TaV attendees who met with a CFT consultant during the Fall 2005 semester 7 without turning in a follow-up card Total number of TaV attendees who met with a CFT consultant during the Fall 2005 semester 18 (28% of total TaV attendees)

Following is a summary of the answers given by the new faculty attendees to the free response questions on the online feedback survey. The numbers in parentheses indicate the frequency of response.

1. What was most valuable to you about this event? Finding out about the work and resources of the CFT (12) Meeting and hearing from experienced faculty (12) Hearing from administration about the importance of teaching (5) Meeting other new faculty (5) Information on teaching resources (3) Getting to know the “norms” of teaching at Vanderbilt (2) Being welcomed to the Vanderbilt teaching community Learning about the promotion and tenure process (2) Good impression of the CFT Meeting CFT staff Handouts on teaching resources and Vanderbilt students Seeing Gordon Gee interact with senior faculty

2. How could the event have been more useful to you? Meeting faculty from my college (2) Less going on at once: presentations, discussions, lunch (2) More time for roundtable discussions (2) Less attention to the tenure and promotion process (2) Include attention to creating effective classroom environments Better audio in the back of the room Hold orientation in the winter for faculty joining mid-year More experienced faculty members per table More attention to the tenure and promotion process Omit the large group introductions Less talk from experienced faculty More time for open questions Include interaction between tables Include CFT “success stories” More practical information (where to register for OAK, etc.)

3. Other comments or suggestions about the event? Good job, thank you (5) 15 Appreciated the visit by the Chancellor (2) Perhaps a concentrated presentation of materials before lunch followed by a lunch program without an explicit agenda Are CFT liaisons spread too thinly? Are there backlogs for CFT services? Director’s enthusiasm for teaching was impressive More concrete examples of how people work with the CFT The sense of community was nice Provost Office comments were not helpful More practical

TaV 2005 - Invited / Attended by Rank

45 40 40 36 35 30 25 Invites 20 Attendees 11 11 15 9 9 10 6 6 5 3 4 4 5 2 2 0

TaV - 2005- Invited / Attended by School

70 60 60 48 50 40 Invites 30 Attendees 20 9 7 10 5 4 4 4 1 3 1 1 1 0 0

16 The event familiarized me with the Center for Teaching's resources and services.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

17 The event provided useful insights into the role of teaching at Vanderbilt.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

The event helped me deepen my understanding of the ways in which teaching is a scholarly activity.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

I am likely to participate in Center for Teaching programs or utilize the CFT's services in the coming year.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

18 TAO and TAV follow-up – consultation

TAO Attendees with CFT follow-up TAO attendees with CFT follow-up (by school and service type) (by service type and school) 30 Medicine 25 CON MISC 14 20 12 Owen Instances of 10 Participation 15 Peabody Instances of 8 CON OBS 10 Participation 6 Engineering 5 4 2 Divinity 0 0 CON SGA Arts and Science

CON VT Type of Service School

TaV attendees with CFT follow-up (by school and service type)

30 25 CON GRANT 20 CON UNIV Instances of CON DESIGN Participation 15 10 CON DEPT 5 CON MISC 0 CON OBS CON SGA CON VT

School

19 TaV attendees with CFT follow-up (by service type and school)

12 Medicine

10 Owen 8 Instances of Peabody Participation 6 Engineering 4 2 Divinity

0 Arts and Science

Type of Service

Workshops and Working Groups

2005-06 Workshop Total Participation 300 250 250 n o i

t 200 a

p 135 i 150 c i t r 100 83 a

P 46 43 42 50 2523 28 3623 25 6 2 0

# instances of participation # unique individuals Status

20 Staff/Admin Participation by School Prof Student 120 Grad Student Post-doc 100 Non-tenured Tenure-track s l

a Tenured

u 80 d i v i d n i

e 60 u q i n u f

School

21 2005-06 Working Groups- Total Participation

35 s t

a 25 # instances of p i participation

c 20 i t

r 15 # unique individuals a 10 P

Status

Working Group Participation by School and Status

18 16 14 Staff/Admin 12 # unique 10 Grad Student individuals 8 Post-doc 6 4 Non-tenured 2 Tenure-track 0 Tenured

School

Fall 2005 Workshops & Working Groups – Summary (Spring 2006 Summary following)

Participant feedback -- Workshops Participants like:  Discipline specific content/discussion (CATs, Discussion Leading, Writing in the Classroom, Grading, Teaching Graduate Students, Teaching in American Classroom, Teaching Statements)  Hands-on, concrete information and demonstrations (CATs, CRS, Discussion Leading, Teaching Graduate Students, Teaching Portfolios, Teaching Statements, Students We Teach)

22  Hand-outs (CATs, Discussion Leading, Teaching in American Classroom, Teaching Lab Classes, Teaching Portfolios, Teaching Statements, Students We Teach)  Sharing with others, the workshop atmosphere, community aspect of the workshops (CRS, Discussion Leading, Writing in the Classroom, Teaching Graduate Students, Teaching Lab Classes)

What participants don’t like, and other comments / suggestions to note:  Would have preferred a smaller group (Discussion Leading, Writing in the Classroom)  Workshop length o 60 minutes would have been enough time (CRS, Grading, Teaching Portfolios) o 50 minutes was not enough (Teaching in American Classroom) o 80 minutes was not long enough (Teaching Graduate Students) o could have been 2 hours (Teaching in American Classroom, Teaching Statements)  Confusion over targeted audience, i.e., new vs. experienced teachers (Grading), or International or American TAs (Teaching in American Classroom)  12:10-1:30 as an inconvenient time (Tufte)  Appreciate lunch being served during 12:10-1:30 time (Tufte), found food distracting (Teaching in American Classroom)

Participant feedback -- Working Groups (does not include comments from faculty or grad student Course Design groups) Participants like:  Feedback from peers on materials (Professional Development) Participants don’t like:  Inconsistent attendance of some participants (Professional Development)

“What worked well / not” notes from facilitators:  The classroom response system (CRS) workshop was added mid-semester, yet we had a good turnout (about 18 participants). That was due, in part, to Derek advertising the workshop on the newly created CRS Users Group listserv. This kind of targeted publicity seems effective.  Susan and Derek made a last-minute change to the venue of the Teaching Portfolios workshop from Calhoun 117 to the Garland computer lab. The instructor’s computer station there was difficult to deal with, but otherwise the venue worked well. They took advantage of the lab by having all the participants look at teaching portfolios available online.  Derek found recruiting panelists for the Teaching Graduate Students CoT difficult. In the future, when recruiting faculty panelists, give the faculty members at least a month (preferably more time) lead time. This would also possibly allow us to use the panelist names in our publicity, which could go a long way to attracting faculty participants (as occurred during Michael Bess’ Art of Teaching series from 2002-03).  Ideas for future sessions generated during the Teaching Graduate Students CoT: o Teaching students at different levels in the same class – of experience, maturity, cognitive development o Teaching first-year graduate students – helping them make the transition from undergraduate to graduate studies o Shaping the academic culture of a graduate program – looking at the expectations faculty and graduate students have for graduate education, with attention to affective aspects of graduate education o Preparing graduate students for a variety of careers – alternative academic careers and non-academic careers  Derek found out during the Teaching in the American Classroom CoT that Sarratt 116 is a very noisy room during lunch time, particularly in the back of the room. Avoid at all costs.

Informal conversations about what worked well / not / suggestions:  Jeff Johnston’s conversation on 12/16 with Davon Ferrara about lack of any response to his e-Bulletins. Are other Teaching Affiliates also experiencing this response? How can we be more effective at attracting first year TAs to our programs?

Spring 2006 workshops – summary

23 Participant feedback -- Workshops Participants like:  Hearing ideas from others; opportunities to hear other perspectives on the issues  Getting a variety of useful materials, actual/concrete examples in hard copy and electronic form, references for more resources  The variety of approaches, disciplines, and platforms represented  Networking with individuals in similar positions  Information from experts; firsthand experience; knowledgeable panelists and presenters  Learning new strategies, practical suggestions  Review of the pertinent literature  What participants don’t like, and other comments / suggestions to note:  More background material and information, literature about the topic, materials to take home; more background information prior to the session  More faculty members present  More practical, real-world information that deals with the realities  Longer sessions/discussions; more time  More concrete, detailed examples; hard copies  Clear outline of what the panel will address or how the session will work  Smaller workshop groupings  More specialized discussions for particular disciplines  More participant involvement in the discussions  Cross-disciplinary approaches  Capsule summaries of the research/articles

This session got me thinking in new or different ways about ______(mark one with an X):

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral Total Agree

Strongly Agree

0 10 20 30 40

I learned things in this session that I think will be useful to me about ______(mark one with an X):

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral Total Agree

Strongly Agree

0 10 20 30 40

24 TAO attendees with workshop/working group follow-up

18 s l

a 16 u 14 d Grad. Student - workshop i v

i 12 follow up (post-TAO) (unique d individuals) n 10 i

e 8 Grad. Student - working u

q 6 group follow up (post-TAO) i

n 4 (unique individuals) u

# 2 0 A&S Divinity Engin. Peab. Owen Med School

TaV attendees with workshop/working group follow-up

12 10 Non-tenured - working group 8 follow-up (pos t-TaV) # attendees 6 Non-tenured - works hop follow- up (pos t-TaV) 4 Tenure-track - working group 2 follow up (post-TaV) Tenure-track - workshop follow up 0 (pos t-TaV)

School

GradSTEP 2006

GradSTEP 2006 - Attendance by School

50 39 40

d 29 e

d 30 n e t t 20

# 7 10 4 2 0 A r t s & S c i e n c e s E n g i n e e r i n g B i o m e d i c a l D i v i n i t y O w e n P e a b o d y S c i e n c e / M e d i c i n e

School

25 A & S Attendance at GradSTEP 2006

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

BioMedical Attendance at GradSTEP 2006 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 BioMedical

26 GradSTEP participants who attended TAO

7 6 s t

n 5 a p

i 4 c i t 3 r a

Department

GradSTEP 2006

Summary of Qualitative Feedback

GradSTEP 2006, “Making Learning Happen” succeeded as conference to support students across the campus’s discipline in their current teaching and learning environments while asking them to imagine and plan for teaching careers focused on student learning. The GTFs designed the conference around an evocative and descriptive title that would thematically organize the individual sessions. Our sessions were designed to be generally applicable while providing topics in discrete sessions to address discipline-specific topics. We then chose a plenary speaker, Dennis Jacobs, who could serve the goal of talking about teaching and learning through an engaging and cross-disciplinary plenary talk.

Participant feedback from Survey Monkey:

Participants indicated that they understood and engaged with the theme for the conference:  Lots of information about how to teach, not just how to convey information to students. Also, the diverse backgrounds of the attendees and lecturers provide exposure to new ways of thinking about teaching and communicating.  GradSTEP is an excellent way to gain an introduction to teaching and learning and also a terrific way to enhance the teaching and learning skills one has already acquired.  GradSTEP was a great opportunity to think and talk in a very focused way about teaching and learning. In particular, it was most refreshing to engage with students outside my department about issues that are important to us all. There was a lot of variety in the workshops, and definitely something for everybody regardless of their discipline or progress to completion of degree.

Participants benefited from the organization of the sessions and environment of the conference:  A good chance to get to know TA's in other departments and share ideas.  A great opportunity to learn about and reflect on teaching in a one-day series of workshops.  This GradSTEP was absolutely terrific. I have been to GradSTEP the past 2 years, and this year far surpassed last years GradSTEP. The planning was great and it was well executed. The plenary address was interesting and enriching. The workshop leaders were all superb, and it showed that the directors worked hard to pick the best to lead the workshops.  Keep up the good work. At least in my case, you are filling a major gap in my doctoral preparations for the teaching part of becoming a professor.

What participants don’t like, and other comments / suggestions to note: Participants noted that they wanted more time in the sessions: 27  I actually think some of the sessions could have been longer. I usually don't think this but I really enjoyed the sessions.  Most of the sessions were very valuable - but I might have preferred a smaller number of session with more time to focus on specific issues. In particular, the "Scholarship of Teaching and Learning" session was fascinating - and most influenced my thinking on teaching - but I felt as thought we barely scratched the surface.  Fewer workshops, more in-depth.

Some participants had difficulty having their specific disciplinary needs met at an interdisciplinary conference:  If for some workshops there had been more input on the facilitators part. difficult to apply in language classes  I have never taught before, and was hoping to find it more suited for people with no teaching experience. The work shop I attended seemed to be more suitable for people who have already taught before. I was looking for something that would help me to prepare to teach, face a classroom audience etc. Would appreciate if I could be informed about workshops more in line with that. But nevertheless, it was a good exposure and I enjoyed it, esp. the lecture by the key note speaker.  It seems that students in the humanities and students in the sciences have vastly different teaching experiences here at Vanderbilt. While both of the sessions I attended attempted to bridge that gap, it would be useful to identify sessions geared toward grad students teaching their own syllabi.  Because so much emphasis was placed on the kind of classroom in the sciences - and the experiences of TAs in the sciences - I found it a little difficult to glean information useful in humanities classrooms that are graduate- student instructed. I feel like having a greater variety of facilitators from different areas of the university - or, at the very least, clear descriptions of what kind of emphasis (TA over TF, hard science over humanities) each workshop had - would have aided in the selection workshops that would be more beneficial for me.

GradSTEP was generally perceived as a discrete event rather than one event in the larger schedule of programs at the CFT.  The particular seminars I attended would have been helpful as replacements for the workshops I was required to attend when I began teaching. However, you should be prepared to extrapolate a great deal in order to make some of the content apply to your experiences, as GradSTEP seemed to privilege the hard and social sciences, and its facilitators were more prepared to discuss the politics of TAing for a full professor as opposed to guiding you in teaching a class of your own design.  I would really like to attend teaching sessions that would lead to a teaching diploma. If the Center for Teaching could provide these, it would be extremely valuable for my career.

Facet 3 – Create and disseminate research-based best practices, models, and approaches to university teaching and learning—and facilitate access to resources that support them.

Teaching at Vanderbilt:  French 201 – French Composition and Grammar, Fall 2005 (Patricia)  Math 216: Introduction to Probability and Statistics for Engineers, Spring 2006 (Derek)  Fall 2006: “The Earth’s Oceans in the Global Environment,” First Year Writing Seminar in department of Earth and Environmental Sciences (Jeff)  Music, Religion and the South: An Interdisciplinary Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,” sponsored by the Center for the Study of Religion and Culture (Allison, with Greg Barz)  Teaching Practicum, Fall 2005 & Spring 2006 (Patricia)  Math Teaching Skills seminar for first-year graduate students (Derek, with JoAnn Staples)  Faculty advisor to the French Hall at McTyeire (Patricia)

Committee Service at Vanderbilt:  Search Committee - Director of Organizational Learning, Vanderbilt Medical Center (weekly July-December 2005)  Pre-Clinical Course Directors (monthly)  Emphasis Education Area (bi-weekly); Emphasis Planning (bi-weekly)  Clinical Transaction Projects (monthly) 28  Graduate Student Professional and Personal Development Collaborative (monthly)  Learning Sciences Institute Advisory Board (semester / year)  Quality Enhancement Plan (for re-accreditation)  American Studies Program Committee  LSI Ad Hoc Committee - STEM White paper  Learning Center Review Committee (bi-weekly meetings November 2005 - February 2006)  Department of Mathematics Curriculum Review Committee.

Conference / Invited Presentations  “Toward a Scholarship of Teaching & Learning in Educational Development,” POD Annual Conference, Professional and Organizational Development in Higher Education (Allison, with P. Felten, A. Kalish and K. Plank)  “After the Humanistic Tradition: How We Teach What We Teach” – seminar at ACLA Annual Meeting (Patricia, with K. Stanton)  “Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say: Teaching Writing in a Foreign Language” – ACLA paper (Patricia)  “Lectures that Motivate Learning” - Professional Development Workshop, Volunteer State Community College (Patricia)  “Teaching Languages: What's In It For Me?” - Workshop for Graduate Students at Yale University (Patricia)  “Developing Near Peer Mentors in STEM Disciplines”, POD Annual Conference, Professional and Organizational Development in Higher Education (Jeff, with P. Felten)  “Learner Centered Course Design,” Seattle University (Jeff)

Conferences Attended:  Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network Conference. October 27-30, 2005. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Cognitive-Affective Learning and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Oxford College, Emory University. March 24, 2006  American Comparative Literature Association (ACLA) Annual Conference, March 23-25, 2006, Princeton University.  Teaching Professor Conference, May 19-21, 2006, Nashville, TN  Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL) Network Meeting. May 23-24, 2006. Madison, WI  Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) Institute. June 8-10, 2006. Chicago, IL  To Think and Act Like a Scientist, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Texas Tech University, February 10-11, Lubbock, TX.

Publications:  Practice What We Preach: Transforming the TA Orientation (Jeff, Patricia, Allison, with P. Felten), To Improve the Academy, Vol. 24, 2006.  Editorial Board / reviews for Innovations in Higher Education (Allison)  Conference proposal review for 2006 POD Annual Conference (Derek and Jeff)

Major Project and Collaboration Outcomes  Liaison / University Relations o Vanderbilt joined the CIRTL Network o Community of Scholars, a program funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) designed to introduce undergraduate students to research in the biological sciences. Responsibilities include the qualitative assessment of student learning (procedural and conceptual), and leading the mentor training for the program. o Learning Commons Project Team - worked with personnel from the university library and the College of Arts and Science Deans office to develop initial plans for Center for Academic Life.

29 o DGS liaison lunches / getting departments to invite to TAO; lunches / meetings with deans and chairs o Partnerships with Library, Writing Studio, Ctr. for Ethics, Ctr. for Study of Religion & Culture, Curb Center o “Experiments in Teaching” – new feature in Vanderbilt Register to begin summer 2006 o Article on Teaching Certificate Program – Vanderbilt Register o Helped launch GSPPD  CFT Library o Archiving / cleaning / organizing o translating to digital o on-line resources  File and Space Management Project Team o New carpet, paint, and furniture for most offices and public areas in Calhoun 007, 114, and 116 (in process)  GTF and Teaching Affiliate Recruitment o Richest candidate pool, particularly in STEM disciplines, in recent years  Public Face of the CFT o New brochure (begun in 2004-2005; completed in 2005-2006) o New design for CFT web site (begun in 2004-2005; completed in 2005-2006)  Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) o 2 ideas for QEP (information literacy and undergraduate research) were retained for further consideration by committee; proposals for both submitted by committee to Provost Nick Zeppos for further consideration  ITAP o Continued improvements to program, including communication with departments, record keeping, and codification of how we move people out of the program who will no longer benefit from remaining in ITAP o Streamlining of CFT involvement with ITAP to focus on teaching role of graduate students along with support for centralized funding for English Language Center (ELC) o Handing off to ELC of primary responsibility for 1) hiring, training, and managing student consultants (to be called language partners and teaching partners in the future) & 2) scheduling English classes for ITAs o Heightened awareness of key Vanderbilt administrators about current role of CFT in working with ITAs and the possibility of a narrower role in the future aligned with CFT mission

 TAO 2005 o Successful training of GTFs and Teaching Affiliates; 95% of participants responding to feedback form said their disciplinary focus session leader was very prepared for focus sessions in TAO 2005 o Reconfiguration of TAO to include a cross-disciplinary plenary session (not particularly well received) and practice teaching sessions in the disciplines (very well received)  Web Site / Teaching Guides: o Completion of a major revision of the design and organization of the CFT web site in Fall 2006, including a significant increase in the number of quality of teaching guides on a variety of teaching issues, including: Teaching Problem Solving, Cheating & Plagiarism, Gathering Feedback from Students, Teaching in the Laboratory Setting, Teaching Portfolios, the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Classroom Response Systems, Student Evaluations, Grading Student Work, Diversity and Inclusive Teaching.  Teaching Certificate: o New conceptual framework for the CFT's new Teaching Certificate. Design and implementation of electronic portfolio component; prototype Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Working Group.  Classroom Response Systems: o Designed and faciliated efforts to support the use of classroom response systems ("clickers") at Vanderbilt: . organizing two workshops . starting a listserv 30 . writing a teaching guide and bibliography on the effectiveness of such systems . consulting with faculty interested in using the systems . coordinating the borrowing a CFT-owned system by interested faculty . organizing a "teaching visit" in which faculty observe a host faculty member using a system in the classroom . convening a gathering of faculty and support staff to discuss options for organizing efforts to support faculty (logistically, technically, and pedagogically) using these systems.  CFT Staff o Assistant Director search: recruited Derek Bruff o Pay raise to GTFs

CONCLUSIONS / BIG PICTURE

Accomplishments

 TAO more streamlined / less front-loaded; follow up with workshops; this year, give a bit more substance

 GradSTEP – less about professional development – focus just on teaching; didn’t hurt attendance – our best total number and show-up rate!

 ITAP – more consolidated – focus on teaching; language over to ELC (e.g., language/teaching partners, etc.)

 Transformation of Teaching Certificate Program – successful transition, with the creation of the Graduate Student Professional and Personal Development (GSPPD) collaborative

 Refurbishment of CFT space – a great success

 Upgrading position / hiring new Administrative Assistant I

Challenges . Staff Stress and Burnout o We have too much on our plate / we take on too much o Don’t have enough time to do good work o Information & communications overload . Unsatisfactory Return on Investment o Too many programs, especially workshops (involving lots of effort/energy), with low attendance  Length of time to make decisions o Quicker decision means more time to work o Need to define different kinds of decisions and who makes them  Graduate Student Funding Changes o Recruiting Graduate Teaching Fellows is getting harder and harder because they have alternative funding  Some pockets of overmanagement / redundancy / role confusion o Administrative roles and distinctions – the purple chart o GradStep – GTF vs. directorate  Lack of videotape and live observations o CFT uniquely qualified & positioned - they are great tools o How to help faculty and TAs overcome trepidation / see benefits?  Under-connected Schools o GPC, Blair, Law, Nursing – low participation

31 o Although it has a high percentage, Owen has more potential  Professional Development for Grad Students and Post-Docs o Is this out of scope for CFT? . IGS/RA Language Deficiencies o Is this out of scope for CFT? o Wasting CFT time on future RAs who will not teach

Strategies and Priorities for 2006-07

Preserve time to do our best work  Set boundaries and scope – and stick to them  Do Less – Not More! –Better  Use CFT’s Existing Resources E.g.: website modules, videotape & live observations, Joyce’s new skill-set, keen new office space  Leverage our strong connections – CFT’s best resource

Making decisions faster:  Not everyone needs to be in on every phase of every decision, and people gravitate to their depth based on a number of factors. o Responsibility – the do-er o Authority – the decision-maker o Consulting – subject matter expert o Informed – in the loop

Mindful, boundaried involvement with strategic VU developments:  Vanderbilt Visions / Commons o Course Design – Patricia: Framework, Goals, Consistency, Readings, Questions o Training & Facilitation – Allison: 20 facilitators, meta-trainers o CFT to help with logistics on these groups for just the summer--NOT CFT’s Mission  CIRTL – involved and supportive, but not in charge  Center for Academic Life / Library: collaborate on information literacy, joint programming

Walk the Talk  Honor life outside work  Teamwork & support  Plan for and support Carolyn’s maternity leave

Program Refinement, not Revision  Nurture success of TAV, TAO, Teaching Certificate  Evolutionary tweaks

Partnering . Distinguish and decide on what type of partnership for what kind of work / issue: o Workshop Co-Sponsors, e.g. Shared Clients; Working Groups; Co-writing Course . Delegate to GTFs? . What deserves this time and resource investment? . An opportunity for CFT to model the “right” behavior and work to hand off responsibility to partner o Consultants . Share CFT expertise in professional development – GSPPD, Ethics, e.g. . CFT as the hub for professional development – consulting, brokering, gathering information o Emergent Opportunities

32 . Large-scope projects – VU Visions, CIRTL (?), e.g. . Emphasize the teaching component . Determine where CFT fits in the project, and how it can best influence the shape of the program

Re-establish Advisory Committee to Help Set Priorities and Boundaries . Purpose: advocates and advisors o Guidance to CFT . fine tuning . local knowledge . provide a range of information from practical to strategic o Promotion: champions in their depts., centers, etc. . Structure o 12 members: one from each school, three from Arts & Sciences, two from Engineering o Prospect criteria: . Friends of CFT: Clients, panelists who know us; affinity thinkers/centers/depts. o Term: two years . Responsibilities o One committee meeting per semester o Sub-committee and ad hoc working group work for specific topics o Join in the summer planning retreat o The first committee plots the course for future committees

Our Teaching  Make connections / emphathize with clients  More integral, less added-on responsibility

Summary statement from our strategic planning consultant, Jody Lentz: “The CFT in many ways is a victim of its own success – good programs not only executed well, but revised and improved this year. The success of TAV, TAO and Teaching Certificate created more demand for the Center’s expertise, but stretched the staff more than hoped, which leads to… burnout – the inevitable outcome of successful, hard-working professionals who can not or will not say ‘no.’ It requires making some hard choices about programs and how to invest your time, but it’s the only way to enable everyone to have the time to do their best work. It also means a more intentional celebration of success, closure and moving forward.”