Learning Fellows Seminars

LEARNING FELLOWS SEMINARS:

A CASE STUDY OF A FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM USING EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY TO IMPROVE COLLEGE TEACHING

SARAH McCLUSKY de SWART

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Dr. David Kolb, Chair Dr. Diana Bilimoria Dr. Ronald Fry Dr. James Zull

Department of Organizational Behavior

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

January, 2010

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of

Sarah McClusky de Swart

Candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree*

Dr. David Kolb (Committee Chair)

Dr. Diana Bilimoria

Dr. Ronald Fry

Dr. James Zull

November 13, 2009

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein.

DEDICATION

There are many people and several major life events that have shaped my experience of writing this dissertation. The most important individuals who have helped this come to life have been my family, first, and my mentors and colleagues quickly behind. Without their love and support none of this would have been possible, or for that matter, would have had much genuine meaning. I am grateful also to the numerous professors at Case Western Reserve University who have been a part of our Learning Fellows Seminar program, who permitted me a glimpse into their professional lives, as well as graciously inviting me to try to understand their feelings and thoughts.

This paper is dedicated to those university professors around the world who continue to inspire their students, for whom learning is every bit as important as teaching. Universities have always been, and will continue to be, extremely influential within all civilized cultures. Young minds are exposed to ideas and opinions they might never have encountered before, at precisely the point of their lives when they are most impressionable. Though most spend only a few short years as students, the influence that this time can have on the rest of their lives cannot be overstated. It is for this reason I believe that we who are associated with education must never stop trying to improve what we do. Universities are resilient, enduring institutions, but what and how students learn within their walls, even if only for a short time, can change their, and our, world.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………….4

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………7

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………..8

PREFACE…………………………………………………………………. ………9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………... 13

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………. 14

GLOSSARY OF TERMS…………………………………….…………………… 15

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………….. ……... 18

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………….. 19

1.1 Research Questions……………………………………………… 21 1.2 Organization of the Dissertation………………………………… 22

CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT AND LITERATURE REVIEW…………………… 25

2.1 Context and History of Faculty Development in Teaching……. 25 2.2 Teaching/ Research Divide……………………………… ……... 33 2.3 Boyer Commission……………………………………………….. 37 2.4 Teaching and Learning Centers…………………………………. 40

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN……………... 42

3.1 Participants………………………………………………………… 44 3.2 Procedures ………………………………………………………… 47

CHAPTER 4: INTRODUCTION TO THE SEMINAR: What and Why...... 53

4.1 Case Western Reserve University: a brief history..……………… 53 4.2 University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education…. 55 4.3 President‟s Commission on Undergraduate Education and Life 57 4.4 Teaching as an isolating activity…………………………………. 60 4.5 Planning the Learning Fellows Seminar Program……………… 63 4.6 Experiential Learning…………………………………………….. 65 5

4.7 Learning Fellows Program Syllabus……………………………… 70 4.8 Individual session outline……………………………………....… 73 4.9 Evolution of the program…………………………………………. 88

CHAPTER 5: THE EXPERIENCE OF INDIVIDUAL PROFESSORS…….. 92

5.1 Review of research questions…………….. …………………….. 92 5.2 Personal and professional development…………………………. 93 5.3 Lack of support for teaching….………………………………….. 95 5.4 Sense of community…………………………………………….… 101 5.5 Sense of validation and new confidence…………………………. 105 5.6 Criticisms……….………………...……………………………….. 109 5.7 Influence on teaching practices………………………………….. 111 5.8 Specific changes in the classroom……………………….………. 113 5.9 Support in making changes………………………………………. 118 5.10 Impact on the institution…………………………………………. 120

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS………………….………………… 124

6.1 Common themes…...... 124 6.2 Implications for future research………………………………..... 129

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL & SURVEY INSTRUMENT….. 131

APPENDIX B: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD Consent Form……… 134

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………... 136

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE #1: Summary of all Learning Fellows: Schools…...... 45

TABLE #2: A & S departments represented in Table #1 ……………...………. 46

TABLE #3: Fellows interviewed…………………………………………...... 48

TABLE #4: Written survey respondents………………………………………… 49

TABLE #5: A & S departments represented in Table #3……………………… 50

TABLE #6: Utility of the program………………………..………………….….. 94

TABLE #7: Perceived lack of support for teaching……………………….……. 96

TABLE #8: People connection…………………………………...... 101

TABLE #9: Sense of validation and confidence among participants………….. 106

TABLE #10: Specific new ideas for teaching…………………………………… 114

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure #1: Illustration of coding procedure……………………………………... 51

Figure #2: Experiential Learning Cycle…….…………………………………… 68

PREFACE

I began in Case Western Reserve University‟s Weatherhead School of

Management PhD program in Organizational Behavior on the afternoon of

September 10, 2001. Approximately 15 hours later the world we knew in the United

States had changed profoundly. The news came trickling in to our classroom building, and gradually it dawned on us that something enormous and horrifying was taking place. Televisions were dragged out of storage closets, stunned people came stumbling awkwardly out of offices and classes. Like so many zombies, we stood transfixed watching the horrors playing out on the screens.

I remember desperately trying to reach my children at their school, my sister at her home in Greenwich Village, my college roommate at her office at Lehman

Brothers in the World Trade Center. That day was, as were many that followed, surreal to millions of us, both as a nation of survivors and victims. September 11 was horrifyingly real, and it launched my experience of study in a complex framework.

Thus began my PhD career. It began with a jolt, was followed four years later with a personal bombshell when a 7CM tumor with ill intent was discovered in my right breast, ten days after having had both a clean mammogram and highly sophisticated and sensitive (and again, clear) ultrasound. Having these two monumental events occur during my relatively short time of PhD study has been humbling to say the least. My hope is that this project will punctuate an enormously challenging but ultimately satisfying time in my life.

In the fall of 1999, I returned to Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) to complete an M.F.A. degree in acting that I had begun in 1981. In the intervening

years I had raised four children, and followed several of my other passions: working at my children‟s independent school, both as a sometime teacher and longtime

Board member, ultimately becoming the Board Chair. Over the years of working there, I filled many roles, and learned a great deal about young people and learning. I spent time at national conferences about learning, and continued to learn about the companion art of teaching. Over the same time period, I was heavily involved in recruiting students for my Alma Mater, Harvard. For a number of years, I was responsible for arranging the interviews of any student applying from Northeast

Ohio, and represented three states at the national admissions conferences in

Cambridge. In talking to these incredibly talented high school students, I learned what the best teachers and the best schools in our area of the country were doing to prepare their students for college and life beyond.

When I returned to CWRU in the fall of 1999, my plan was to finish my degree as an M.A. (a teaching degree), instead of the original M.F.A, traditionally a professional‟s performing degree, and use my theater background to coach professionals of all kinds to “perform” their jobs with more authority and confidence.

I intended to use the degree to begin consulting and teaching. As I worked to finish this program, though, it became obvious that my interest in learning and teaching was absolutely as important to me as my study of the theater.

It happened that my Masters‟ degree program advisor was good friends with

Dr. James Zull, then the Director of the University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education (UCITE). I began to attend events and seminars given by the center, and gradually became such a regular and enthusiastic attendee that I was invited to become UCITE‟s first officially designated intern in the fall of 2000. During that

time, I also became acquainted with one of Zull‟s good friends and colleagues, Dr.

David Kolb, professor of Organizational Behavior at CWRU‟s Weatherhead School of

Management. Kolb has written prolifically about learning and his Learning Style

Inventory continues to be an extremely influential tool for organizations around the world.

In the winter of 2000, I applied to, and was accepted into, the doctoral program in this same department. My focus of study has always been learning, and my continuing association with UCITE has resulted in a wonderfully rewarding union and unexpectedly rich source of research. Since my initial intern position, I continued to spend time and help with activities and events, eventually being hired as the center‟s Assistant Director in May of 2005. One of the happiest results this association has brought me has been the opportunity to work with the people at

UCITE, all of whom have guided and mentored me throughout this journey. I have also been extremely fortunate to be able to focus my dissertation research on one of our own faculty development programs, the Learning Fellows Seminars.

The story of this program will unfold in the account that follows, and I hope readers will be able to understand why this particular set of seminars has become so important within our center. As of this writing, we have just concluded our tenth semester offering, bringing our total number of Fellows to 166, most of whom are still working throughout the university. They represent every school and over half of the departments within the entire campus, and many continue to tell us that being a

UCITE Learning Fellow has been among their highlight experiences at the university. My hope is that this paper will illustrate and describe the program in

sufficient detail so that it might serve as a model for other universities and organizations to create a similar configuration that would suit their unique needs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to: Rob, for your love and faith, and ability to make this monumental challenge another joyful adventure; kids (Andrew, Cat, Lilly and

Christopher [and of course your delightful partners]; the rest of my family (Mom,

Dad, Mark and Barb, Joan and Ted) and beloved friends, (especially Ellen, Amy and

David, Linda, Glenn, Jonny, Jennifer, and Kathy) who have lived through ALL of this with me; my colleagues and mentors at Case, especially my committee: Dave, plus

Alice of course, whose powerhouse combination of patience and wisdom has been close to miraculous (I will miss your delightful living room!); Diana, for literally years of continued faith and guidance; Ron, for asking me what the important questions were, and for laughing about the Bitter End; Mano (truly one of the world‟s finest teachers), and Blaine, for your never-ending, unflagging, humor, patience and perhaps unwarranted confidence; and Jim, for teaching me about emotion and learning, and for taking a chance on an intern), as well as my beloved cohort of Tiger

Cubs: Bibi, Deniz, Greer, Guy, Nadia and Tim. I have learned from you all, and have been sustained and nourished by you more than you know.

Also a very grateful thank you to all of our Learning Fellows. The experience of creating and facilitating these past five years of Learning Fellows seminars has been extraordinary: I have learned how dedicated our faculty members are, and truly how important their students‟ learning is to them. I thank you all as well.

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

 CWRU Case Western Reserve University  ELT Experiential Learning Theory  LC Learning Cycle  LFS Learning Fellows Seminar  LS Learning Style  PCUEL President‟s Commission on Undergraduate Education and Life  POD Professional and Organizational Development Network  UCITE University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education

 A & S: School of Arts and Sciences  DENT: School of Dental Medicine  ENGR: School of Engineering  LAW: School of Law  MSASS: Mandell School of Applied Social Sciences  MED: School of Medicine  NURS: Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing  WSOM: Weatherhead School of Management

 PROF Professor  ASSOC Associate Professor  ASST Assistant Professor  LECT Lecturer  SR. INST Senior Instructor  INST Instructor

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

The following definitions will be used for terms and phrases within the body of this paper:

Active learning: This is a broad concept, usually denoting when students are doing something: writing, discussing, taking action of some sort; as opposed to passively receiving class material.

Alignment: The triad of course goals, instructional methods and assessments.

Classroom incivilities: The small annoyances that disrupt classes such as the instructor being late or behaving in an arrogant manner, or student behaviors such as loud talking or leaving class early.

Concept map: A diagram showing the relationships among major course ideas.

Constructivism: “We construct our sense of reality out of all the sensory input we receive, and that process begins in the crib. We see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, and we begin connecting all those sensations in our brains to build patterns of the way we think the world works.” (Bain, 2004:26)

Cooperative learning: A teaching format in which students work together in small groups on a task.

Experiential learning: A broad term which can indicate a myriad of learning opportunities, but in this paper I will be using the term solely as in David Kolb‟s work: “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience.” (Kolb, 1984:41)

Faculty development: Opportunities for faculty members to continue their professional learning throughout their careers.

Feedback – Formative: Formative feedback is given during a learning opportunity. Its purpose is to let the student know how they are doing while the topic/class/project etc. is still ongoing, so that they can learn from their successes and failures, and have an opportunity to make modifications in any areas that need improvements.

Feedback – Summative: As its name implies, this is feedback at the end of an activity or project, as a summation. This is useful primarily in evaluations.

First day: Literally, the first day of class, potentially the most important day of the semester.

Fishbowl exercise: A small group of students (as many as half the class) arrange themselves in a circle in the center of a room. This small group has a discussion while the rest of the students watch, take notes, and later ask questions or comment on what they observed.

“Idea first, name last”: In many cases, students memorize the name of a concept followed by its definition, without necessarily truly understanding the concept. This design suggests that a better method is to make sure students understand the concept thoroughly, in their own terms, before learning the given name within the particular field of study.

Journals: Reflections and communications written by students.

Learning cycle: From Kolb‟s Experiential Learning Theory, which describe a four- stage cycle that occurs when we learn. Concrete (sensory) experiences provide a basis for reflections. These reflections are assimilated into abstract concepts which produce new implications for action which can then be actively tested, which in turn create new experiences.

Learning styles: Each individual approaches learning in a unique way. Kolb has designated four distinct styles to describe how we approach learning.

Metacognition: The understanding of how we are learning, during the learning process.

Motivation – Extrinsic: A reward or punishment given from outside the learner, typically such things as “sweet carrots” (good grades) or “sharp sticks” (bad grades).

Motivation – Intrinsic: Motivation from within the learner, without external pressure, primarily because something is inherently interesting or challenging.

Prior knowledge: Whatever the learner knows from individual experience, that he/she brings with them into any new experience or learning situation.

Rubrics: An assessment tool, which lists various dimensions that will be considered for evaluation. These can be used in a matrix/ table form for grading, with the standards for each dimension spelled out clearly.

Spiraling curriculum: Rather than treating the semester as a linear progression beginning with easier topics and moving toward more difficult, this idea suggests using only a few key concepts during the entire semester. These would be introduced in simpler contexts at the beginning, and then brought back (as in a spiral) in richer and deeper contexts throughout the semester.

“Think-pair-share”: An active learning technique, used as a way to reinforce what has just happened in class: students reflect on the material, turn to a person near them, and discuss it together.

Two-minute essay: Another active learning idea – students take a few moments at the end of class to write very briefly what they thought were the main ideas of the class, and what questions they still have.

Learning Fellows Seminars: A Case Study of a Faculty Development Program Using Experiential Learning Theory to Improve College Teaching

Abstract

SARAH McCLUSKY de SWART

The purpose of this case study was to investigate the impact of a unique faculty development seminar program in teaching: the Learning Fellows Seminar at

Case Western Reserve University, a large national research university, which used

Experiential Learning Theory as its foundation.

Adopting a case study methodology, the study addressed four areas of questions, using data from five cohorts of participants from 2003 – 2005, as well as the evolution of the program over five years. The areas of focus included: how the participants reacted to the program as a whole; how it influenced their teaching practices (if at all); what factors helped or hindered making those changes; and whether any other institutional effects could be seen from the program.

All respondents found the seminar program to be of value, and consistently reported an increased awareness of a more learner-centered teaching philosophy, which led to numerous changes in their teaching practices.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Pleasure is the state of being Brought about by what you Learn. Learning is the process of Entering into the experience of this Kind of pleasure. No pleasure, no learning. No learning, no pleasure.

Song of Joy Wang Ken

Beginning in the Spring of 2003, 20 full time professors and three faculty instructors at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) came together in a small, cramped room in an administrative building slated for imminent destruction to begin the first offering of a semester-long seminar series about learning, and how this information might inform, and improve, their teaching. It was called the “Learning

Fellows Seminar” (LFS), and the faculty members were excited and eager to begin.

The three instructors were from the University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education (UCITE), itself a relatively recent creation at the university, and they were equally excited about this new program, and its potential to help research faculty with their teaching.

The participant group was a diverse one in terms of both experience and teaching duties: full professors with over thirty years of experience sat next to almost- new assistant professors in their first year at the university. The group had members

from the Law School, the schools of Medicine and Management, as well as several from the College of Arts and Sciences, among others. The classes they taught ranged from enormous undergraduate survey courses to individual doctoral seminars. They came to the Learning Fellows program to be students themselves: to learn more about learning, and how that might help improve their teaching.

Among other things, the program introduced the philosophy of Experiential

Learning, the methods by which it could be implemented, and ways in which the participants could begin to add some of those methods into their classroom teaching. For almost all of the faculty members, this was their first exposure to any type of formal pedagogical instruction. As with almost every research university, they had been hired because of their particular talents within their areas of specialty, without any discussion of teaching. As one Fellow later said, “it was almost a gentlemen‟s agreement – if you knew your subject, you could obviously teach it”.

Since that initial offering in 2003, six years and eleven program semesters of

Learning Fellows have passed. We have had, as of the fall of 2009, 178 faculty members participate, representing all eight schools within CWRU, and over 40 different departments (over half the university total).

This dissertation focuses on the first nine semesters of this program as a case study. More specifically, I will trace the impact this program has had for both the individual faculty members involved, as well as for their (our) institution. My intention is to describe the design and evolution of the program, and the results we have seen since its inception. Following this description will be portions of interviews and survey responses from participants, and then an integrative summary with themes that emerged from these sources. The data gathered is through multiple

sources: structured interviews, self-reported attitudinal surveys from participants in the program; my own observations of nine semesters of sessions as a co-instructor of the program; as well as documents and materials used to support the program.

There are several facets to this investigation: the context of faculty instructional development programs nationally; the context for such programs at

CWRU; the specific university office responsible for developing and delivering the program, (UCITE), and its place as a bridge between individual faculty needs and the goals of institutional community building; and the reality of the experience for faculty member participants in their struggle to integrate the seemingly discordant and potentially antagonistic issues of teaching and individual scholarly inquiry within a research institution.

The sole focus of this study is the UCITE Learning Fellows Seminar itself, whose mission can be summarized as the following: to introduce faculty members to the principles of more learner-centered education based on Experiential Learning

Theory and the biologically based brain science of learning.

1.1 Research Questions

This inquiry focuses on the reported experience of 5 cohorts of the faculty participants in the UCITE Learning Fellows program, using the following specific questions as a guide:

A) How did the participants respond to the program as a whole? B) How did the program influence the day-to-day teaching practices and attitudes of its participants? C) Among those who did change their teaching practices, what factors contributed to those changes? What factors, if any (institutional, personal, other), provided support for such changes and what factors hindered their efforts? D) Are there any other consequent institutional effects from this program?

This exploration utilizes an “instrumental case study approach” as described by Robert Stake (Stake, 1995), in trying to “understand [the] object more than to understand how it differs from others” (Ibid, p. 47). My goal is to describe this faculty development program in such a way that it could serve as a model for any other university (or other institution). This is, as far as I have been able to determine, a unique program, in its use of Kolb‟s Experiential Learning Theory as both its focus and structural format. As such, I include extensive accounts of both the impetus for such programs nationally, and this particular program at Case Western Reserve

University.

Before tackling these specific issues, though, I will review the larger issues that were present when this program was first designed, to give the reader a broader frame of reference for both its conception and evolution.

1.2 Organization of the Dissertation

To fully characterize this unique semester-long course, this study introduces the reader to the background for both our individual campus program and other such programs nationally. Chapter 2 begins with a more detailed focus and description of current literature on faculty development in teaching. Chapter 2 concludes with a brief introduction to the work of Ernest Boyer and his work with the Carnegie

Commission, as well as examples of teaching and learning centers at various other national research universities.

After establishing this broader contextual arena, Chapter 3 describes the research design of this investigation. This includes a more detailed explanation and justification for the methodology used. A critical factor in any such faculty

development program is, of course, the people involved. I will attempt to paint a fully realized portrait of the individuals involved both as participants and facilitators, who have made our program both unique and successful, as well as the various constituencies within the university that they represent.

Chapter 4 is an elucidation of the planning and implementation of the

Learning Fellows program. First, I acquaint the reader with CWRU in more detail, with a brief history of the institution and its teaching center, UCITE. This chapter also introduces the initial impetus for developing such a program to help faculty improve their teaching. A brief description of both Experiential Learning Theory and

Zull‟s brain and learning work conclude this chapter.

Following that, I outline the seminar itself. There are full delineations of how the seminar was initially envisioned and devised (along with the underlying assumptions implicit in its design), as well as descriptions of the individual sessions within each semester. I lay these out in what I hope is a thorough, completely transferable fashion, so that other institutions could benefit from our experience, and structure similar programs for their own use. Observations of how the program has evolved over time bring this chapter to a close.

Chapter 5 brings us to the heart of this investigation: the experience of the participants through their own words, and my interpretation of how these experiences answer the initial research questions central to this thesis. Such programs can truly be called effective if there are some unambiguous, positive changes that result in faculty behaviors that benefit teaching effectiveness and the development of a more collegial community.

Chapter 6 concludes the dissertation with a discussion of the results as related in Chapter 5. I also offer suggestions for implications of this work, and ideas for future research.

CHAPTER 2 CONTEXT AND LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Context and History of Faculty Development

First, a working definition: the phrase “faculty development” encompasses a broad range of activities, depending upon the institution, and its mission. It has been broadly defined (Bland et al, 1990, pp. 298-328), to include “any and all assistance to faculty to help them fulfill their many and varied roles”. The POD (Professional

Organizational Development Network) website offers the following (my emphasis added) more extensive characterization:

Faculty Development refers to those programs which focus on the individual faculty member. The most common focus for programs of this type is the faculty member as a teacher. Faculty development specialists provide consultation on teaching, including class organization, evaluation of students, in-class presentation skills, questioning and all aspects of design and presentation. They also advise faculty on other aspects of teacher/student interaction, such as advising, tutoring, discipline policies and administration.

A second frequent focus of such programs is the faculty member as a scholar and professional. These programs offer assistance in career planning, professional development in scholarly skills such as grant writing, publishing, committee work, administrative work, supervisory skills, and a wide range of other activities expected of faculty.

A third area on which faculty development programs focus is the faculty member as a person. This includes wellness management, interpersonal skills, stress and time management, assertiveness development and a host of other programs which address the individual's well-being.

While not all faculty development programs include all these areas, most of them have as their philosophy the faculty member as the driving force behind the institution; therefore, assisting that person to be as productive as possible will make the entire institution more productive. (/1/2009POD,http://www.podnetwork.org/)

Faculty development is certainly not a new topic within university life. Its history can be traced as far back as 1810 (Eble & McKeachie, 1985), when the sabbatical leave began at Harvard University. Colleges and universities have embraced faculty development as an effective path to support what is arguably their greatest resource: their faculty. Indeed, a commitment to faculty seems of almost unparalleled importance, as Meacham and Ludwig say,

The faculty are the most enduring and valuable resource that any institution has. Creating and sustaining a sense of shared educational purpose and zeal for teaching among the faculty is of paramount importance in times of change and fiscal stringency. Faculty who regularly share personal and intellectual effort can become energized members of the college or university community. Their commitment to each other and to the institution increases. Students who are well- taught are more likely to persevere to graduation and do well in their lives after their degree. Satisfied students are good alumni. Viewed this way, faculty development, done well, is not a luxury but a necessity as higher education faces the 21st century. (Meacham and Ludwig, 1997)

Faculty development programs can produce “strengthened faculty morale and vitality, improved teaching performance, enhanced research motivation and productivity, and increased job satisfaction and work commitment” (Kang & Miller, p. 3). High claims indeed. And these claims are hardly alone:

Effective professional development programs engender an atmosphere of excitement, intellectual stimulation and collegiality. They bring about an innovative and exhilarating culture. They invite invigorating partnerships. They generate faculty enthusiasm, and there is a “trickle-down” effect: an energized faculty leads to energized students. Intellectual stimulation is infectious. (Friedman, p.1)

In a recent (2006) review of both the history and the anticipated future of faculty development, Sorcinelli and co-authors attest again to the critically prominent position the faculty hold:

At the heart of the university or college are its faculty members – the men and women who devote their lives to the research, teaching, and service missions of higher education institutions. Many would agree that the quality of a university or college, though influenced by numerous factors, is related most closely to the work of the faculty. Their expertise, commitment, energy, and creativity directly shape the experiences of students, the nature of research, and the impact of the institution on the broader community. (Sorcinelli, xiii)

The focus of these development programs nationwide (and worldwide) is as varied as the colleges themselves. At CWRU the official language describing faculty support is fairly vague: the University‟s official policy (see http://www.case.edu/artsci/forms/Policy%20-%20Faculty%20Development.pdf) declares, “to fulfill their potential and to make maximum contribution to the excellence of the college, faculty members should be provided with certain professional resources throughout their career” (Ibid.).

It would seem intuitive that communities devoted to scholarship and education would embrace development programs of all kinds, to provide at least some of these “professional resources”, and at CWRU this has certainly been the case. Along with extensive guidelines for the hiring and mentoring of faculty, and an exhaustive process for promotion and tenure, the university also boasts a learning center, (UCITE), devoted to teaching and innovation in education, which I will describe later in this paper.

Since our case study at hand deals primarily with introducing faculty to ideas about how people learn, specifically through Experiential Learning, with concomitant implications from those for improving teaching, a review of the pertinent literature leads us in several directions: faculty development in instruction improvement, generally through “teaching and learning centers”; the experience of

faculty exposed to such programs; and the use of Experiential Learning in these programs.

The literature base of faculty development as a whole is massive: there are thousands of articles and books written each year, including a specific journal devoted to the topic (see Journal of Faculty Development). Many deal with the vast array of programs available under this topic (see for example, Gullatt and Weaver,

1997; Kang and Miller, 2000; King and Lawler, 2003; Menges, 1985; Meyers et al,

2007; or Pittas, 2000) and include inventories of contemporary practices in such areas as sabbaticals, instructional grants, peer review, class observation, workshops, conferences and evaluation, while others deal more specifically with the improvement of teaching (see, for example, Zahorski, 2002; or Frost and Teodorescu,

2001).

Faculty development specifically in teaching also has a thorough and rich literature, though surprisingly little has been written about using learning theory to help improve teaching at research universities. As stated previously, the field has much to offer in many other topics of interest to faculty: balancing career expectations through research, service and teaching; navigating the potentially treacherous waters of tenure and promotion; departmental politics, as well as working with colleagues.

Descriptions of curriculum development from national teaching and learning centers also yield fairly substantive information, though again, the literature has surprisingly little about the experience of faculty members through their own eyes; and though the body of literature on Experiential Learning is rich and varied, there is little information about its use in this particular approach to faculty instruction.

However, Experiential Learning literature does yield a vast array of topics concerning the use of ELT as a curricular enhancement within college courses, and the ways in which this theory has enriched many distinct curricula over the last almost forty years. Currently the central repository worldwide is the Kolbs‟ own website, (http://www.learningfromexperience.com/), which houses a massive research library (as of this writing, there are more than 2200 articles in the bibliography dated from 1971 – 2005, and over 300 which date from 2006 – 2009), along with other reference and networking tools.

Several discipline areas seem to have had prominent entrants into the use of

ELT within their curricula, specifically in engineering, management and medical education programs. Several examples of programs using ELT in Engineering include: a 2003 faculty training program for Civil and Mechanical engineering at

West Point called “A model for teaching faculty how to teach” (Welch, 2003); Prince

& Felder‟s 2006 discussion of teaching and learning methods within engineering; as well as a 1991 monograph of a relatively early Brigham Young University program

“Teaching Through the Cycle” (see Hurt & Williamson, 1991), which embraced both

ELT and Learning Styles as important facets of its program design.

There have been other major works describing the use of ELT in higher education, the most significant being several examples of the Kolbs‟ own work in management education: see, for instance, their review of the use of ELT in various more diverse academic disciplines, Kolb & Kolb (2006), or an examination of how the use of ELT could inform and improve management education, “Experiential

Learning Theory: A Dynamic, Holistic Approach to Management Learning,

Education and Development” (Kolb & Kolb, 2008).

Other topics that have been included in this body of literature include learning in teams (see Kayes et al, 2005; or Borredon et al, 2007), as well as reviews and projections for management learning (see for example, Kayes, 2002; or Kolb et al,

2000). Broader topics within higher education have included the social- emotional challenges that can accompany the introduction of ELT into classrooms (Hickcox,

2002; or Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2006), as well as many articles concerning learning style preferences (see, for instance, Border, 2007; Hadfield, 2006; Kneale et al, 2006;

Salter et al, 2006; and Sharp, 2006).

The use of ELT in medical education has garnered a lot of attention over the past decade, primarily because of its combination of both theoretical and practical within its curriculum (see Jones, 2007; Mann et al, 2007; McNeil et al, 2006;

Moohanna et al, 2007; Phitayakorn et al, 2007; Regan-Smith et al, 2007; Ridley, 2007; and Steinert et al, 2006).

There have also been an impressive numbers of articles stressing the need for more reflection within a teaching career, most notably Wenger‟s “Communities of

Practice” (1999); Palmer‟s “The Courage to Teach: (most recent edition, 2007), or

Weimer‟s “Developing Learner-Centered Teaching” (2009).

Over time, and particularly over the last forty years, the face and shape of faculty development as a whole has shifted dramatically, primarily as the needs of colleges and universities have shifted. As Robert Boice (a psychologist, faculty developer and longtime educator) has described,

Until recently, faculty development entailed little more than sabbaticals, travel funds, newsletter and inspirational workshops…But changes in academe have necessitated changes in faculty development. Campuses face problems of an aging and entrenched Professoriate, of a struggle to do more 30

with less, and of shifting emphases to research and publication. Not long ago, faculty development was defined as the part-time endeavor of administrators who invited workshop speakers and awarded funds or leaves. Now, it requires specialists with skills in working with colleagues on processes including departmental chairing, recruitment, retention, mentoring, research, scholarship, writing and teaching. (Boice, 1989, p. 97)

Boice goes on to describe the last four decades of faculty development in roughly four stages: the so-called “Formative Era” (1960‟s), in which many early programs were “unplanned and ineffective”. Most, if not all of these programs were in response to a public cry for improved teaching. Boice calls the following decade the “Golden Era” (1970‟s) of faculty development. Many colleges and universities were realizing the necessity of such programs and teaching centers blossomed across the country. Alstete (2000) also refers to this time as one of increased interest in teaching as a set of skills and competencies.

This era also saw the birth of a national group of faculty developers, the

Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD), founded in 1974. This is a still vigorous and flourishing organization devoted to the

“support and services for its members through publications, conferences, consulting and networking…and to fulfill an advocacy role, nationally, seeking to inform and persuade educational leaders of the value of faculty, instructional, and organizational development in institutions of higher learning” (http://www.podnetwork.org). Its members include faculty development professionals, administrators, faculty, and consultants, among others.

Boice calls the late 1970‟s and early 1980‟s a time of “Disillusionment”. As an interesting and ironic result of the previous era‟s “prejudice against measurement and analysis” (Boice p. 98), a national study by J. Centra in 1978 (Centra, pp. 151- 31

152) found hundreds of programs which primarily awarded teaching prizes, and which few found to be effective. The problem at this point seemed to be a lack of effective and comparable measurement and analysis tools.

Boice calls his final decades (the mid 1980‟s and beyond) those of “Renewal”.

During this era, faculty programs became “broader, more realistically based….including instructional assistance programs that specify deficits in teaching skills and measure improvements” (Boice, p.98). Several reports at a national level from the late 80‟s urged improvements specifically in undergraduate education

(Boyer, 1987; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education, 1984).

The 1990‟s saw a sea change in academic work which had profound implications for faculty development: it was during this time (Austin, 2002) that students‟ learning became the focus in the classroom, as opposed to faculty teaching.

There was also, according to McKeachie (2005) enormous growth in the use of various technologies as classroom aids: presentation tools such as PowerPoint, web sites, online courses as well as the proliferation of electronic mail.

In addition, assessment both of learning and teaching reached a zenith of sorts (Bourne, Gates, & Cofer, 2000; Ewell, 2001; Stassen & Sorcinelli, 2001). At the present writing, technology and assessment continue to attract the attention of faculty developers, but teaching effectiveness seems to still be at the forefront of faculty programs, though it is clearly only one of many.

2.2 The Teaching/ Research Divide

University teaching, especially within research universities, has for decades been at its worst a thorn is the side of scholars and educators, and at its best, a challenge. Since the early 1990‟s, literally thousands of scholars and educators have tackled the multitude of issues surrounding deficiencies in higher education: teaching versus research, balancing teaching and research, or valuing teaching at research universities (see, for example: Salamon, 2003; Martinez & Wolverton, 2009;

Serow et al, 2002; or Steinert et al, 2006). Even Harvard University recently (May,

2007) established a task force devoted to investigating ways to improve undergraduate teaching. A recent New York Times article outlines some of the commonly heard themes and frustrations:

“You‟d be stupid if you came to Harvard for the teaching,” said Mr. Billings, who will graduate this spring and then go to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. “You go to a liberal arts college for the teaching. You come to Harvard to be around some of the greatest minds on earth.”

“And that is pretty much how the thinking has gone here at Harvard for several decades. As one of the world‟s most renowned research universities, Harvard is where academic superstars are continually expected to revolutionize their fields of knowledge. Cutting-edge research is emphasized, and recognized with tangible rewards: tenure, money, prestige, prizes, fame.

But now, with strong support from the university‟s interim president, Derek Bok, nine prominent professors are leading an effort to rethink the culture of undergraduate teaching and learning. Headed by Theda Skocpol, a social scientist, the group has issued a report calling for sweeping institutional change, including continuing evaluation and assessment of teaching and learning, and a proposal that teaching be weighed equally with contributions to research in annual salary adjustments.

“It‟s about the pursuit of excellence in teaching,” said Professor Skocpol, the dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. “We need to put our money where our mouth is. We can‟t just mention excellent teachers occasionally. We have to notice and reward their efforts consistently.” (New York Times, May 10, 2007)

When universities set out to hire the finest scholars for their faculty, they pay great attention to the rigor of candidates‟ research, their rich C.V‟s and publication records, and their overall fit into the university‟s and department‟s needs. Though the balance between scholarship and teaching is not a focus, the topic of teaching skill itself is, unfortunately, rarely broached. The skills of improvising in the classroom, of establishing the most conducive learning environment are not skills that generally concern college teachers.

The divide between the respect afforded research and that given to teaching is another common issue:

It is a given that faculty are expected to develop as researchers during their research careers. Accomplishment in this area is determined over time by the number and size of obtained research grants, the number and quality of publications, the number of graduate students supervised, and the recognition of work by prominent researchers in the discipline or field. Research universities, in particular, tend to place greatest weight on this type of accomplishment when evaluating academic performance. In contrast, achievements related to teaching and its development, are often accorded less weight. (Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004, p.20)

It has also been suggested that teaching and research, while both critical endeavors in higher education, may in fact be uncorrelated activities (Milton, 1976):

Some good researchers are good teachers; some good researchers are poor teachers; some poor researchers are good teachers; some poor researchers are poor teachers; the majority of both are mediocre but in different combinations and ways. (Eble, p.22)

Unfortunately, many feel there is little market for improving college teaching

(Boice, 1996). The correlation between time in the classroom and income appears to many to be negative: the important part of being a college teacher is doing research.

As Derek Bok lamented more than 20 years ago, in 1986, “apprehensive about educational research and skeptical of its validity, faculties give the work of teaching such a low priority and status that their skepticism becomes self-fulfilling” (Bok, p.67). And the problem has not righted itself in the intervening time: “obviously the name of the game is research and the supposed prestige that it produces for a school, which forces participants to spend the vast majority of their time on research”, commented Sperber in 2005 (Hersh & Merrow, p.138). As Saroyan and Amundsen

(2004) also recently wrote,

It is a given that faculty are expected to develop as researchers during their university careers. Accomplishment in this area is determined over time by number and size of research grants, the number and quality of publications, the number of graduate students supervised, and the recognition of work by prominent researchers in the discipline or field. Research universities, in particular, tend to place greatest weight on this type of accomplishment when evaluating academic performance. In contrast, achievements related to teaching and its development are often accorded less weight…Some professors worry that even if they wish to be innovative in their teaching, their investment in doing so may harm other aspects of their academic life (Houseman, 1997). (Saroyan & Amundsen, p.20)

Many issues surrounding teaching in the college setting have also garnered little attention on a broad scale: though vast amounts of information are now instantly available for both instructors and students through the Internet, methods and settings for that education seem to be remarkably similar to those of the past.

At the heart of these issues lies a simple problem: teaching appears to be a deceptively simple activity. Many, because they have personal experience of it, think 35

they know what teaching is, and what learning is, and every year articles and books abound with a multitude of debatable opinions about how to improve education as a whole. However, an essential issue remains: even in what has become without question a technology and information rich society, the act of teaching itself hasn‟t changed very much in the last few hundred years.

Plop a medieval peasant down in a modern dairy farm and he would recognize nothing but the cows. A physician of the 13th century would run screaming from a modern operating room. Galileo could only gape and mutter touring NASA‟s Johnson Space Center. But a 15th century teacher from the University of Paris would feel right at home in a Berkeley classroom. Think of where we would be if agriculture had never improved – or transportation, manufacturing, communication or science. Isn‟t it strange that teaching does not? Sometimes we say that those who can do and those who can‟t, teach. What kind of activity is this that we say is important but don‟t try to improve, that we declare is among the highest of human callings but rarely reward, and that we simultaneously celebrate and ridicule? (Spence, p. 12)

Even within our own university, truly a knowledge based organization, the notion of spending time, energy and resources on improving teaching is not one that has been universally valued. The practice of research trumps all, is highly prized and well supported. Teaching is not generally viewed as a skill as important in the community as which journals and grants are the most prestigious for the given institution (and how to help the university‟s ranking on the U.S. News and World

Report issue on college rankings) or learning to navigate the political atmosphere of the tenure process.

The formal training required in course organization, classroom management techniques, interpersonal communication, testing and grading appears minimal at best. The evaluation of the teaching that occurs in the classroom is left, in large part,

to only the students involved. The students themselves are given the opportunity, at the end of each semester, to judge how well each teacher performed. This traditional method of evaluation is certainly not without its detractors:

If members of another profession – say surgeons – were like college teachers, they would perform in isolation without apprenticeships, learning to cut and sew by trial and error. They would know anatomy but be ignorant of biology. They would hold colloquia discussing incision tips and suture innovations. To demonstrate the quality of their work, they would ask surviving patients to fill out bubble sheet questionnaires with items like: “Does the surgeon demonstrate a commanding knowledge of his field? Is the surgeon well organized? Does she show respect for patients?” No one would look at survival rates. (Spence, p. 14)

In addition to other concerns about having students judge the value teaching, the typical evaluation forms that students are asked to complete include items that cannot evaluate higher level teaching methods. These are generally overt actions associated with lecturing, such as the instructor‟s preparation or clarity of presentation. “A good part of teaching involves thinking, problem-solving, and decision making, all of which are unobservable processes” add Saroyan & Amundsen

(2004).

2.3 Boyer Commission Report: Wider Criticism of University Teaching

It was during the late 1970‟s and early 1980‟s (Boice‟s so-called “Era of

Disillusionment”) that public and media criticism of university teaching began ttake shape. Much of this criticism surrounded the idea that university professors, while highly paid, did not in fact spend much of their time teaching. The main focus of their academic efforts was on their research, and lower level assistants and teaching fellows actually taught students. Several highly visible reports, such as one on CBS‟

“60 Minutes” television program, and along with a several critical exposes with provocative titles such as “ProfScam” (Sykes, 1988), “Imposers in the Temple”

(Anderson, 1992), and “How Professors Play the Cat Guarding the Cream” (Huber,

1992) added to the controversy.

Adding to the more generalized discontent, came the original publication in

1987of what is considered to be an extremely influential piece within the last several decades of educational literature. Although written almost 20 years ago, the work of

Ernest Boyer and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1987,

1990) is still reverberating within university culture and on campuses across the country.

This report helped stimulate thinking and national debate about teaching, specifically at research universities. In what became arguably the greatest challenge and inspiration to research universities, “Reinventing undergraduate education: a blueprint for America‟s research universities” (1998), Boyer (then President of the

Carnegie Foundation, an independent research center on education, founded by

Andrew Carnegie in 1905) and his commission investigated what was described as the “unequal status” that existed between research and teaching in some top research universities across the country. Their conclusions were harsh, and advocated new approaches in many aspects of university life, from lecture courses to the concept of tenure:

In the higher education system in the United States, the research universities have played a leading role: the country‟s 125 research universities make up only 3% of the total number of institutions of higher learning, yet they confer 32% of the baccalaureate degrees, and 56% of the baccalaureates earned by recent recipients of science and engineering doctorates (1991 – 1995). Their graduates fill the legislatures and board rooms of 38

the country, write the books we read, treat our ailments, litigate our issues, develop our new they have furnished the cultural, intellectual, economic and political leadership of the nation. Nevertheless, the research universities have too often failed, and continue to fail, their undergraduate populations. (Boyer Commission report, p.2)

They went on to condemn further,

Tuition income from undergraduates is one of the major sources of university income, helping to support research programs and graduate education, but the students paying the tuition get, in all too many cases, less than their money‟s worth… Recruitment materials display proudly the world famous professors, the splendid facilities and the groundbreaking research that goes on within them, but thousands of students graduate without ever seeing the world-famous professors or tasting genuine research. Some of their instructors are likely to be badly trained or even untrained teaching assistants who are groping their way toward a teaching technique; some others may be tenured drones who deliver set lectures from yellowed notes, making no effort to engage the bored minds of the students in front of them. (Ibid, p. 3)

And the Boyer commission report was hardly alone. As Don Haviland

(Program Coordinator for the Center for Excellence in Teaching, the University of

Southern California) states in his article, “Leading Change in the Research

University”:

“since the 1990‟s, calls have come for the greater accountability of these [research] institutions…Professors are seen (accurately or not) as using ..money to study esoteric questions of little use to societal needs, and focusing on their own scholarship to the exclusion of the millions of undergraduates who pass before them..research universities are seen as neglecting their undergraduate education mission, both in the quality of the instruction and in the utility of the outcomes produced. (University of Southern California website, 2000)

2.4 Teaching and Learning Centers

Following these and other inflammatory reports, including widespread student dissatisfaction, many universities developed more sophisticated methods of helping professors strengthen their teaching, whether at teaching colleges or research universities.

As with CWRU, universities and colleges across the country had found themselves faced with the challenge of introducing teaching improvement to an already overly busy faculty. Over the past thirty years, learning centers specifically focused on teaching issues have emerged to meet this growing need:

As we approach the…anniversary of perhaps the first formal learning and teaching center, (LTC), the University of Michigan‟s Center for Research and teaching, …it is timely to both celebrate and examine the role of such centers in educational reform…A quick review of the mission statements and histories …reveals a complexity of goals specific to each institution. The shared thread is a strong commitment to enhancing learning and teaching excellence…. We can celebrate about a three-hundred-fold increase in LTC‟s [Learning and Teaching Centers] in the past thirty years. Arguably, the two most significant contributions LTC‟s can make to educational reform are (1) maintaining high-visibility, high-credibility, campus wide conversation focused on forward-looking learning and teaching and (2) providing quality support for all teachers, from beginning instructors to experienced, highly regarded faculty members. (Singer, p. 59)

Although university teaching centers seem relatively common these days (a quick internet search shows hundreds in existence), they are relatively recent creations. The first in the country, the University of Michigan‟s Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, was founded in 1962, and perhaps the best known nationally is the Derek Bok Center, which was founded at Harvard University in

1975, to “coordinate activities aimed at helping those who teach at Harvard to improve their teaching”.

After the establishment of this first formal center at Michigan in 1962, the next major event in the evolution of teaching centers was a series of gifts made by the

Danforth Foundation in 1975. This institution was established in 1927, as a private, independent foundation dedicated to support and advance education, primarily in the St. Louis region, but whose reach extends across the U.S. and internationally.

These Danforth grants were given to five institutions: Empire State College of the State University of New York, Harvard, Northwestern, Spelman and Stanford. Of these five, Harvard (whose original Harvard-Danforth Center for Teaching and

Learning became the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning), Northwestern and Stanford all created centers which remain active to this day.

While some include facilities for research and evaluation of instructional systems, others provide computer network access and on-campus faculty programs, and still others are primarily responsible for organizing and supporting ongoing recognition programs for faculty. Many support an array of initiatives including instructional grants, workshops and discussion groups, classroom observation and other efforts that enable instructors to consider adaptations to their teaching (see, for example, Weimer, 1990, or Travis, 1996).

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

At this point I would like to turn to the approach used to assemble and compile the relevant material collected for this inquiry. This chapter chronicles the sources of data, the methods I employed to document supporting content elements, as well as specific profiles of the participants who took part in this study.

By definition (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995; and Yin, 2008 among others), a case study refers to the collection and presentation of detailed information about a particular small group or program, frequently including the accounts of the subjects involved. A form of qualitative descriptive research, the case study looks intensely at an individual or small participant pool, drawing conclusions only about that specific program or group and only in that distinct context. Researchers do not focus on the discovery of universal, generalizable truths, nor do they typically look for cause and effect relationships; instead, emphasis is placed on exploration and description.

Case studies of educational programs (Merriam, 1998) are often used as models for other institutions, and commonly give extensive background information in order to give comprehensive and adequate context for the reader.

I have followed the “instrumental case study” structure as described by Stake

(1995), Lincoln and Guba (1985), and others (see, for instance Merriam, 1998; or several works by Yin: 1993, 1994 and 2003). As Stake has characterized it, a case study is “expected to catch the complexity of a single case” (Stake, 1995). The aim is to

“thoroughly understand” (Ibid., p.9). As such, it rests securely within the larger parameters of qualitative research, itself an “umbrella concept covering several forms

of inquiry that help us understand the meaning of social phenomena with as little disruption of the natural setting as possible” (Merriam, 1998).

Stake has defined what he calls “more or less special characteristics” (Stake, p.47) of the case study, which serve our purposes well:

First, it is holistic. I have included facets of the program that describe our intentions in its design, as well as how those aspects were received by the participants. As Stake also said, “we try hard to understand how the actors, the people being studied, see things…..the qualitative case researcher tries to preserve the multiple realities, the different and even contradictory views of what is happening” (Ibid., p.12).

Secondly, it is empirical. I have included observations by the participants, as well as those of the facilitators (including myself). I have included large numbers of direct quotes to give the reader a sense of the individuals responding.

Thirdly, it is clearly interpretive, as qualitative analysis provides: “we emphasize placing an interpreter in the field to observe the workings of the case, who records objectively what is happening but simultaneously examines its meaning and redirects observation to refine or substantiate those meanings” (Ibid., p.9). As both a facilitator and observer, my role has been not only to help shape and present the program, but also to interpret the self-described experiences of the faculty.

Case Western Reserve University‟s Learning Fellows Seminar includes, at this writing, 11 one-semester sessions (over six years) of a unique educational program.

As one would hope and assume, as we have continued offering the program, we have discerned which pieces worked better than others, and have tried to refine its structure and content.

Over the course of five years, beginning prior to our first semester‟s offering in the Spring of 2003, and concluding after our ninth offering in the Spring of 2008, I collected data from multiple sources.

3.1 Participants

This examination offers information from those varied data collection streams: in-depth interviews with 35 participants of the first three cohorts (at that point there had been 59 Fellows in total); written survey responses from 39 of the first five cohorts‟ participants (the total at that point was 99); direct observation of the entire program (154 participants total) during all nine semesters of sessions; as well as a review of various articles and documentation from the program as a whole. Over the course of the five years of seminar data included in this study, I maintained meticulous notes, and chronicled every session within each semester.

The Fellows who participated in the interviews and the survey were all volunteers. There were 23 faculty members who were interviewed only, 27 who completed the survey only, and an additional 12 who both interviewed and completed the survey, resulting in a total participation of 62 individuals of the total 99 Fellows at that point in time (or 62.6%).

The 62 faculty members who participated in the interviews and surveys include representatives from all eight schools of the university (Arts and Sciences,

Dentistry, Engineering, Law, Medicine, Social Work, Nursing and Management).

They belong to 24 departments, and include all levels of position and experience from senior Professors with more than 40 years of experience to new Instructors and

Lecturers with less than one. The ratio in our sample is male 59%: female 41%. Their

classes range from introductory lecture classes to 500 level graduate seminars, and include labs, summer courses and one-on-one resident training. The tables below include more elaboration.

At the conclusion of this data collection, we had 154 participants in the

Learning Fellows program. (The gender ratio in this whole group has been male

51%: female 49%). Our initial few semesters had 20 participants each, and were held during both semesters of the year from 2003 through the fall of 2005. In the spring of

2006, because of budget constraints, the seminar was offered only during the spring semester each year. [Due to a generous donation, however, beginning in the fall of

2009 we will again be able to offer the seminar during both semesters of the academic year]

The following table illustrates the distribution of the total 154 Fellows. For a key to the Schools‟ and Title abbreviations, please see the complete list of abbreviations on p.13.

TABLE #1: Summary of All Learning Fellows (N = 154)

School Title Total

PROF ASSOC ASSTL LECT

A & S 13 20 22 8 63

DENT 1 4 4 9

ENGR 4 4 10 18

LAW 3 3 5 1 12

MSASS 2 1 1 2 6

MED 2 4 10 16

NURS 1 4 11 2 18

WSOM 4 8 12

Total 26 44 71 13 154

Of the total 154, 78 (or 51%), have been men, 76 (or 49%), women. Since a large proportion (N= 63, or 41% of the total) of our Fellows have been faculty members from the School of Arts and Sciences, I have included a breakdown of the departments they represent:

TABLE#2: Arts & Sciences Departments represented in total number of Fellows

(table #1)

Department Title Total PROF ASSOC ASST LECT Art History 2 2 Biology 2 2 1 3 8 Chemistry 1 1 Classics 1 1 Communication 1 1

SciencesEnglish 3 1 5 2 11 Geology 1 1 2 History 1 2 3 Mathematics 1 1 Modern Languages 1 7 2 1 11 Music 1 2 3 Philosophy 1 1

Physics 4 1 5 Political Science 1 3 4 Psychology 1 1 2 4 Religion 2 1 3 Sociology 1 1 Theater 1 1 Total 13 20 22 8 63

In the sense that these were all volunteers, it could be reasoned that this was not, by some measures, a random sample. Indeed, those faculty members who were interested enough to apply to the Learning Fellows Seminar program were not a random sample of the university faculty population. These were clearly faculty who were already interested in teaching, and those who offered to interview, or complete the survey, could be described as enthusiasts as well. But my impression is that the respondents were completely genuine in their remarks, both positive and negative, and that the information is of tremendous value, for this as well as similar programs at other universities.

3.2 Procedures

This case study also includes data gathered from a set of interviews conducted between the summer of 2003 and the fall of 2005. I requested interviews from members of the first 3 cohorts (totaling 59), and 35 agreed (representing 59%). I interviewed the willing participants both at the conclusion of their participating semester, and also at the beginning of the following semester as possible. The

interview format is included in the Appendices, and includes both structured and unstructured elements, with scripted questions as well as more open-ended questions.

The interviews were informal events, typically held at the faculty member‟s office or other location of their choice. Each interview took approximately one to one and a half hours. I decided to forego recording devices, and instead take extensive notes, in order to create as comfortable and informal an environment as possible.

This resulted from a serendipitous discovery during one of my first interviews: the batteries failed on my recorder, and I was forced to continue with my handwritten notes alone. As if on cue, the interviewee became livelier, more animated and more intense in her descriptions and discussion. From that point on, I left my recording device at home, and used only written notes.

The following table represents the distribution of Fellows who were interviewed for this case study:

TABLE #3: Fellows Interviewed (N = 35)

School Title Total PROF ASSOC ASST LECT A & S 3 3 3 3 12 DENT 1 1 2 ENGR 1 1 2 LAW 2 2 1 5 MSASS 0 MED 1 2 2 5 NURS 1 2 3 WSOM 2 4 6 Total 7 11 14 3 35

The interview and written survey both included questions about the Fellows‟ previous exposure to teaching improvement opportunities; what effect they felt this particular program had had, if any; any specific changes they had made as a result of being a Fellow; and what support, or lack of support, they might have had in making those changes. I also asked for their general feelings about the program as a whole: which topics they felt were more useful than others, as well as what we might change to improve the program in the future.

The online survey instrument was sent to all Fellows who had completed the program (99) in the fall of 2005. Of those 99, 39 responded (39.4%).

TABLE #4: Written Survey Respondents (N = 39)

School Title Total PROF ASSOC ASST LECT

A & S 4 5 3 1 13 DENT 3 1 4 ENGR 1 1 2 4 LAW 2 1 3 MSASS 1 1 2 MED 2 2 2 6 NURS 3 3 6 WSOM 1 1 Total 8 15 14 2 39

Again, because a large number of these participants were faculty from the school of Arts and Sciences, I have included a breakdown of the departments they represent:

TABLE #5: A & S Departments represented in Table #4 above (N = 13)

Department Total PROF ASSOC ASST LECT Art History 1 1 Biology 1 1 2 English 1 1 2 History 1 1 Mathematics 1 1 Modern Languages 2 2 Music 1 1 Psychology 1 1 2 Physics 1 1 Total 4 5 3 1 13

Following the data collection, the interviews, surveys and notes were transcribed and compiled, and then separated into relevant topic areas. I used a well established technique known as coding for the qualitative data (see, for example,

Ritchie and Lewis, 2003; Ryan and Bernard, 2003a; or Strauss, Anselm & Corbin,

1990). This approach essentially enables the researcher to distill potentially massive quantities of information into categories, allowing us to make sense of what we see, and eventually allowing patterns to emerge.

The initial coding exercise involved separating the assembled chronicle of materials into large categories, with quite general topic areas. Keeping my original

research questions in mind, I reviewed this collection of information for key,

pertinent terms and expressions, and sorted these components into more specific

classifications. I then repeated this process, and with each iteration I was able to

form fewer, more substantial categories, with many of the original sub-categories

being subsumed in the process. Finally, these groupings allowed me to summarize

the accumulated information and present it in light of my primary research

questions. Below is a graphic display of this exercise:

FIGURE #1: Coding Procedure

Data Analysis Thematic Categories Data Analysis Data Key Terms

Final Categories

Before presenting the results of this data collection in Chapter 5, I would like to turn at this point to some of the events that led to the evolution of UCITE and the

Learning Fellows Seminars. The next chapter begins with a brief portrait of Case 51

Western Reserve University, and then presents some of the particular circumstances that led to the Learning Fellows Seminar development.

CHAPTER 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE SEMINAR: What and Why?

4.1 Case Western Reserve University: a brief history

The university we know in 2009 as Case Western Reserve University is actually an amalgam of a dizzying array of previously separate institutions. Though over the past 180 years some parts of these combinations have been created, merged, and in some cases ultimately abandoned, the university has virtually always had science at its core. After a few precarious years in its infancy, one of CWRU‟s early presidents, Henry Lawrence Hitchcock, encouraged the school toward a more focused study of the sciences. After settling the school‟s finances and stabilizing its economics, Hitchcock brought one of the most prominent chemists of the time,

Edward W. Morley, whose work is said to have laid the foundation for Albert

Einstein‟s later work in relativity to become part of the faculty

(http://www.case.edu/visit/about html).

CWRU takes its name from various identities: the Case School of Applied

Science, later known as the Case Institute of Technology, which was originally founded in 1826 and named in honor of one of its early benefactors, a prominent

Clevelander named Leonard Case, Jr. Case endowed the early Engineering school to establish a school of “pure science”. A second school, Western Reserve College

(which had traditionally had the Humanities at its base), moved to what is now known as the University Circle area in the late 1880‟s. After being neighbors for over

80 years, the two schools formally federated in 1967 (Ibid.), and a marriage of both convenience and purpose was forged.

The university‟s own current website has this “at a glance description”: 53

[CWRU] is located in Cleveland‟s University Circle, the 500- acre, park-like home of more than 40 cultural, medical, educational, religious, and social service institutions. The only independent, research-oriented university in a region bounded by Pittsburgh and Rochester on the east, Nashville on the south, and Chicago on the west, Case Western Reserve holds membership in the Association of American Universities…(http://www.cwru.edu/president/cir/glance.ht ml)

In 1881 the enrollment of Western Reserve College totaled 16, and the tuition was $100. In the fall of 2007, the tuition was considerably higher, and the enrollment numbered almost 10,000, with about 40% of those undergraduate, and the remaining graduate and professional students. Its full time faculty (again, from the fall of 2007) was over 2600, the endowment valued at more than $1.8 billion, and the total external support for research was over $400 million. The university website boasts of a $1 billion impact on the Cleveland regional economy (http://case.edu/community/).

Case Western Reserve University is consistently ranked among the nation‟s top 50 undergraduate colleges, and was recently (August 2009) rated Ohio‟s top school among the nation‟s premier national universities by U.S. News & World

Report, for the 14th consecutive year (http://blog.case.edu/case- news/2009/08/17/rankings). The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching classification (this report, prepared by the Carnegie Foundation, has categorized all accredited degree-granting colleges and universities in the country since 1973 and was most recently updated in July of 2008) refers to Case Western

Reserve University as a “Research University - Very High Research Activity”. The

Carnegie classifications take into account numerous factors, including number and types of degrees awarded, and annual amount of research dollars awarded.

“Very High Research Activity” is a relatively new designation, following the

Carnegie Foundation‟s significantly redesigned classifications during 2005 and 2006.

CWRU‟s original ranking (out of approximately 4000 institutions within the United

States) was as a “Research 1” university, including it among those which:

…offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, are committed to graduate education through the doctorate, and give high priority to research. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year. In addition, they receive annually $40 million or more in federal support. (Carnegie Foundation website: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/ classifications/)

Though Case Western Reserve University has undergone leadership challenges over the past few years (there have been six university Presidents over the past nine years, of which two were interim), the mission and vision have remained true to its research heart. In its published vision statement, CWRU calls itself “a great research university”, whose mission includes the following:

As an educational institution dedicated to leadership in teaching and learning, we seek to transform all learners – faculty and staff as well as students – and support their personal growth and mentorship throughout their lives…Case Western Reserve University strives to create a unique synergy among our education, research, and service missions, which we view as inseparable. (http://www.case.edu/president/vision.htm)

4.2 University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education

Since its founding, UCITE‟s goals have remained consistent: to support faculty in ways that will enhance student learning, and “to encourage growth of a campus culture which highly values teaching and scholarship”

(http://www.case.edu/provost/UCITE /index.html). On its website, its mission is stated simply,

UCITE (The University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education) is dedicated to working with the faculty and students at Case to create an enriching and rewarding learning experience for everyone. (Ibid.)

UCITE has also had some more challenging goals in its early years: since the university no longer had a school of Education(the School of Education closed in

1945, and its successor, the Department of Education, closed in 1979), there were no clearly defined areas of pedagogical expertise on the campus.

According to UCITE‟s founding director, James Zull (CWRU Professor of

Biology and Biochemistry), part of UCITE‟s original mission was to establish a practical center with leaders and mentors who were specifically not scholars of education, but were scholars and faculty members from within the university. Zull has been a well respected member of CWRU‟s faculty since 1966, who combines his own scholarship in learning with his practices in teaching. His status as a “legitimate scholar” lent both visibility and credibility to UCITE‟s mission.

Zull has spent over 25 years studying biology, and in more recent years he has shifted his focus to the study of the brain and how learning occurs physiologically, and how this might inform teaching. His interest in learning led to a collaboration with another well known CWRU scholar, David Kolb (Professor of Organizational

Behavior since 1976), a expert in the field of learning, best known for his writings on

Experiential Learning and its applications in education and industry.

Using Zull‟s progress in the exploding field of neuroscience, combined with his increased knowledge about Experiential Learning‟s “Learning Cycle” from his colleague Kolb, Zull published a very well regarded book, The Art of Changing the

Brain, in 2002. This book became a fundamental text to seminars on learning within

UCITE, and continues to inform faculty with its accessible, thoroughly scientific, explanations and examples of learning and the brain.

Zull‟s book elucidates a biological basis for learning, that mirrors the cycle of learning at the heart of Kolb‟s Experiential Learning Theory. Helping faculty think of their teaching as “changing the brain” has become a fundamental part of

UCITE‟s introduction to more learner-centered classrooms.

As with many other university teaching centers, UCITE offers a variety of means of support to faculty members, ranging from weekly open seminars on general topics such as classroom management and course design, to individual class observations and discussions with students. Faculty and staff members are often called upon to showcase technological advances within the university, in addition to those seminars designed and facilitated by UCITE staff.

4.3 President‟s Commission on Undergraduate Education and Life (PCUEL)

CWRU embraced its own mission of education to undergraduates in an ambitious fashion in the late 1990‟s. The President at that time, David Auston

(University President from July 1999 – April 2001) commissioned a group, called the

President‟s Commission on Undergraduate Education and Life, or “PCUEL”, to investigate ways to improve the experience of undergraduates. In writing their report, the team sought ideas from a huge range of interested parties: current students and their parents; faculty, staff and administrators; and over 25,000 alumni.

They looked to other universities for models, and studied the Boyer Commission‟s

1987 report, calling it a “seminal document for the Commission”, one whose words the group “took to heart”. CWRU website,

http://case.edu/pubs/cwrumag/winter2002/departments/homepages/stories/repo rt.shtml).

This team presented their analysis, called “Education Through Experience: A

White Paper” to the Interim President James Wagner in the fall of 2001. Its findings in some respects were bleak: though considered a leading research university as measured in funding dollars, fully 28% of recent graduates were unhappy, and a remarkable 44% would not recommend the university to others (PCUEL White

Paper, p. 10).

Though there were many factors contributing to this, the sense that “faculty are not dedicated to undergraduate education” (Ibid.) was certainly an important issue. In response to this, a more concerted effort to introduce “experiential education” into the curriculum at large was suggested.

Experiential education is a broad rubric under which all disciplines can enhance their students‟ life-long learning within a particular subject. It is based on educational research proving that students learn best, fastest, and with the most personal investment when they are active participants and contributors to their own learning process…Experiential education creates a format where the professor provides the classroom atmosphere, classroom exercises, and expertise necessary for the student to be an active learner, discovering and internalizing the skills of the professor‟s discipline. (Ibid., p.17) with the most personal investment when they are active participants and contributors to their own learning process…Experiential education creates a forprofessor discovering and internalizing the skills of the professor‟s discipline. (Ibid p.17)discovering and internalizing the skills of the professor‟s discipline. (Ibid p.17) One could certainly take issue with several statements from the above quote, such as “educational research proving [my emphasis added] that students learn best…”. There is, of course, a wide range of opinion about what kinds of conclusions educational research can possibly prove. And experiential learning is, as the report declares, a “broad rubric”. But notwithstanding these issues, the result was impressive: following the publication of this paper, the commission issued what was

essentially a challenge to the university as a whole, to create a “new” way of teaching, with a student-centered approach at the heart of it:

The difference between the pedagogical status quo and what the Commission recommends is that this approach to teaching…should become ubiquitous, and that the spirit of this approach should pervade not just all our courses but the way we structure an education. This does not mean that a professor will never get up in front of a class and present content to teach skills. It does mean that professors should first consider whether or not this is the optimum way for students in the course to learn that content and develop those skills. It also means that everybody, from individual course instructors to department faculties, to the faculties of the undergraduate schools and colleges will need to access how they provide the experiences which enable active learning. (Ibid., p.18) faculties, to the faculties of the undergraduate schools and colleges will need to access how they provide the experiences which enable active learning.(Ibid, p.18) faculties, to the faculties of the undergraduate schools and colleges will need to access how they provide the experiences which enable active learning.(Ibid, p.18) Though this report garnered a mixed reception throughout the campus, several of the top administrators of the university were quite enthusiastic about the recommendations, and approached the UCITE office with ideas to implement some of these concepts on a larger scale throughout the university.

In the fall of 2002, the newly installed University President Edward Hundert expressed his own support in his inaugural address: “We‟re going to focus all of our collective talent, attention and resources on a vision – a vision that starts with a commitment to experiential learning with rigorous scholarship in undergraduate, graduate and professional education programs to produce educated learners – educated learners who are awake to new possibilities.” (CWRU Campus News

2003:2)

But the essential question remained, “If experiential learning is critical to the success of our students, how can more faculty members become familiar with experiential learning?” Several ideas were initially proposed, including intense sabbatical periods during which members could learn newer, more creative methods 59

to incorporate experiential learning into their classes. After deciding this approach

was too narrow (the cost of removing faculty from their teaching responsibilities

would by itself be prohibitive, and only a limited number would be able to participate

each semester), a compromise was suggested, and the Learning Fellows Seminars

were born.

Its directors would be Zull, the founding Director of UCITE, and Mano

Singham (Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Physics), then its

Associate Director, along with the author of this study as program assistant. The

program would be offered weekly, during the lunch hour, and would include a

stipend to the participants, to be used for academic purposes at their discretion.

The intended purpose of these seminars was to promote learning throughout

the university by introducing faculty members to a more “learner- centered”

approach to their teaching, including a specific focus on experiential learning. In

order to promote this new way of teaching, with students at the center, Experiential

Learning methodology itself, as described by Kolb, would be used to help faculty

develop their teaching skills, and introduce them to current theories in learning and

practices in teaching. Faculty members would be at the center of the seminars, as

students themselves, with their own experience the foundation.

4.4 Teaching as an isolating activity

Passion, hope, doubt, fear, exhilaration, weariness, colleagueship, loneliness, glorious defeat, hollow victories – how can one begin to capture the reality of teaching in a single word or phrase? The truth is that teaching is frequently a gloriously messy pursuit in which surprise, shock and risk are endemic. Teaching is the equivalent of white water rafting. Periods of apparent calm are interspersed with sudden frenetic turbulence….In the midst of teaching, teachers make a 60

dazzlingly quick series of judgments about what to do next…These intuitive and immediate judgments are based not only on calmly reasoned discussions but on viscerally felt, “gut” instincts concerning which actions best fit certain situations. They are informed by recollections of similar situations…This process occurs almost simultaneously so that reflection is perceived as concurrent with action. It is acting mindfully or acting thinkfully. (Brookfield, p. 2)

Throughout much of the literature on teaching it is suggested that teaching, by its very nature, is an isolated, and isolating, experience. Within the purview of the classroom there are certain established rules and codes of behavior. One such code is that colleagues generally do not “intrude” on each other‟s classroom spaces.

Classrooms are traditionally sacred places, where only registered students and teachers are expected to be. Each instructor has the benefit of autonomy, but also the detriment of isolation, as two sides of the same coin.

Because of the insularity of the classroom environment, teachers are separated from their peers when they are involved in many of their tasks. Peer evaluation, itself a controversial topic, is nonetheless highly viewed in some academic circles (Kumaravadivelu, 1995), though it is neither widespread nor viewed by many as particularly popular (Hernandez, A.E., & Schmidt, S. J. (1995).

Occasionally, a faculty member will call upon a colleague, or on a center such as UCITE to come and evaluate the teaching environment, and the activities within the individual classroom. But more frequently, only the students in the classroom are actually giving evaluative data.

The difficulty here is that teachers rarely compare notes: what works in one classroom may work in another, but the tradition of autonomy, translated into complete self-reliance, has established an environment where even the best teachers

would appear insecure if they asked for outside help. Coupled with this is the reliance within this university on other measures (other than teaching evaluations of any kind) for the promotion and tenure process.

Faculty members of CWRU are truly involved in a community of practice as

Wenger (1998) defines it: they are members of the same university community; individuals engaged in similar activities, held by the same cyclical schedules and obligations; philosophically, they are committed to lifelong learning and a quest for knowledge. They approach their subjects with curiosity, passion and energy. They are engaged mutually, though individually, in quests for particular knowledge within their fields. They are deeply committed to the scholarly practice of academic engagement.

And though the classrooms themselves are separate, the goals and mechanical tasks of the teaching schedule are well established, with a certain degree of rigidity, born of the time constraints of the school calendar. There are curricula to design, syllabi to write, texts to select, methods of both instruction and student assessment to be designed. But the notion of sharing ideas about what actually happens in the practice of teaching, is neither popular nor well supported.

Most college teachers work within contexts that are clearly defined by the pursuit of particular curricular objectives…in their belief that no one does exactly what they do, in precisely the manner in which they do it, they decide they have little in common with teachers in other settings or content areas. They claim to be teaching bodies of knowledge, particular skills, or required subject matter and declare that their only purpose is to develop these in students. That more separates them from other teachers than unites them and that what they do has little impact beyond their particular educational enclaves. (Brookfield, p.17)

In another of Ernest Boyer‟s works, “Scholarship Reconsidered, Priorities of the Professoriate” (Boyer, 1990), also considered a groundbreaking work in the study of university teaching, the author challenges college faculties to use their visionary capacity to enlarge and embolden the mission of professors, and to develop communities of scholars as part of that mission:

Professors, to be fully effective, cannot work continuously in isolation. It is toward a shared vision of intellectual and social possibilities – a community of scholars – that the four dimensions of academic endeavors should lead. In the end, scholarship at its best should bring faculty together…A campus wide, collaborative effort around teaching would be mutually enriching…in the application of knowledge, the complex social and economic and political problems of our time increasingly require a team approach…In such a system, the discovery of knowledge, the integration of knowledge, the application of knowledge, and great teaching would be fully honored, powerfully reinforcing each other…A true community of scholarship will emerge – one that is not only more collaborative, but more creative too. (Boyer, 1990, p. 80)

UCITE embraced this notion of “community of scholars”, and established

the Learning Fellows Seminar with that collaborative effort in mind.

4.5 Planning the Learning Fellows Seminar

According to Singham, the program‟s initial design was similar to those of the

regular, weekly UCITE programs:

“When we planned it, the thought was to replicate the best of the weekly UCITE programs. We‟ve been able to touch on key ideas, but there are different people at each session –we‟ve never been able to present a coherent sequence to the same group of people. We wanted a diverse group, that would bring different points of view, but that could also go out into the university as missionaries. We needed to develop a critical mass. The university is already very well situated to have a really good teaching mission – we already have good students and excellent teachers.” 63

Zull added, “We thought it would be best to have a continuation, an enlargement of what we were already doing. People are interested in how they learn; the subject is a natural one, and we already have a terrific environment. We knew it would be better to bring them together, the same group of people, to continue the discussions. And we thought one 90 minute session each week would allow us to do that.”

The program was based on these ideals. When we first discussed the size and

format of the group, several ideas were considered. Because we had been given a

fixed budget, we were sensitive to the relatively high cost of some of the proposals,

and the number of 20 participants for each semester was submitted and approved by

the Provost‟s office. We then needed to decide if these 20 participants would meet

once during the week, in one large session, or in separate meetings with fewer

participants in each.

The literature on group development would suggest that 20 is rather a large

number to best facilitate group learning (see, for example, Druskat, 2000, 2001). With

that in mind, we considered having two sessions each week, each with ten members.

But this too had its problems, given that in any single week there might be one or

more participants unable to attend. We decided to compromise the size of the group,

in favor of the larger, single weekly session, with the hope that the diversity of the

group would outweigh any less optimal results concerning its size.

From over 60 applicants, 20 original Learning Fellows were chosen: 9 women

and 11 men, representing 14 different departments from 6 different colleges within

the university. The participants were selected relatively randomly, with diversity from

throughout the university as the primary category for selection. Tenure,

departmental position, teaching experience and gender were secondary factors for membership in this first semester‟s group.

In our website posting, the semester was described as follows:

Class meetings will consist of a mixture of the following features: discussions of the philosophy of experiential learning, the methods by which it can be implemented, the course structure that needs to be put in place, the teaching methods that lend themselves to meeting the goals, cooperative learning, assessment methods, learning theory, course alignment, student motivation, development of general teaching and class management skills, dealing with ethical issues, and the gender and ethnicity implications of teaching strategies. (http://www.case.edu/provost/UCITE/)

From their experience of leading the UCITE seminars for a number of years,

Zull and Singham felt there were a variety of topics that should be covered in order to create this “new” way of teaching, with a learner centered approach at its heart, such as prior knowledge, how people learn, and the variety of ways we approach learning.

But one of the primary goals of the program was to give our participants their own experience of experiential learning, and so the session format was designed to quite literally mimic the Learning Cycle of Experiential Learning itself.

4.6 Experiential Learning

Kolb‟s Experiential Learning model was drawn from several fundamental educational principles and intellectual origins, primarily those of John Dewey, Kurt

Lewin and Jean Piaget (Kolb, 1984). In its essence, this model shifts the focus from that of the teacher‟s teaching, to that of the student‟s learning. In this model, the learner‟s subjective experience is of critical importance to the learning process

(indeed real learning begins with the learner), and the student moves squarely to the

center of the event.

Within this model are also several other important underlying premises: just

as students are at the center of the experience, the role for faculty of necessity moves

deliberately off-center, and becomes subsequently more one of a coach, or facilitator.

The professor becomes a mentor, guide, and co-learner with his or her students. This

role shift is subtle, and can be somewhat frustrating for both sides, as students

(sometimes uncomfortably) feel more of the responsibility for learning on their own

shoulders, and instructors sense some of their previously held “control” ebbing

away.

But at its best, Experiential Learning prepares students not only for deeper

learning, but for lifelong learning, by presenting information in ways that fully

embrace the students‟ own prior understandings and life experience. Since the

individual‟s experience resides at its core, the learning becomes more personal, and

more tightly held. It is learning that is consequently more profound, and more deeply

sustained.

Zull‟s brain and learning work also suggests that Kolb‟s Experiential

Learning theory mirrors the biological processes of learning within the brain itself

(Zull, 2002). As Zull describes the cycle of the learning process, the prior knowledge of the learner can be described as existing literally within the neuronal networks of the brain itself, and as a result, cannot be easily shifted or dismissed. Incoming experience shapes and changes that existing knowledge by modifying and augmenting those previously existing networks, but not by replacing them. As Zull

describes the physiological processes at work, the biological basis for learning becomes clear.

Within Kolb‟s definition of Experiential Learning, there is also a cycle

described, which again would appear to align with the biological pathway of

learning as described by Zull in the brain. In describing the Experiential Learning

cycle in a very simple fashion, it is suggested that there are four separate stages: an

immediate or sensory experience (called “Concrete Experience”) occurs; this

provides personal observations or reflection, anchoring the experience (known as

“Reflective Observation”). The individual then takes these observations and

reflections, and assimilates them into concepts and relationships, (“Abstract

Conceptualization”), which then produce new implications for action which can be

actively tested, (“Active Experimentation”), which in turn creates new experience.

(See Figure #2)

The timetable for this sequence can vary tremendously: in some senses, we

are constantly going through this cycle on a moment-to-moment basis, as we absorb

and decipher information and experiences. It can also be argued that this same cycle

can occur over hours, days, or even months, as we come to understand and learn new

concepts and create new ideas. Nor should we assume a tidy directional orbit here:

the four-stage cycle is not precise, nor is it universally sequential. Many actions

within the brain are virtually simultaneous, and reflection long after a sensory

experience can lead to new concepts.

These four stages are also reflected in four Learning Styles, or Preferences,

which are used to designate where in this cycle of learning we find ourselves most

comfortable when beginning to learn something new: do we prefer to learn by

“feeling”, by “watching”, by “thinking”, or by “doing”? Kolb has created a relatively short survey to determine how individuals find themselves approaching the learning of something new (the Learning Style Inventory), and in which one of the four dominant quadrants they typically begin.

Kolb‟s theory presents two dimensions: one in how we perceive (or to use

Kolb‟s term “grasp”) information or experiences, and the second in how we then process (or “transform”) that information or experience. If we think of this as two axes: at opposite ends of the vertical axes for perception are whether individuals perceive a new experience by feeling (or sensing) their way through the experience, or whether they prefer to perceive by actively manipulating ideas or using conceptual models. On the horizontal axes are the two polarities for processing new information, namely whether individuals prefer to watch and observe, or become actively involved and engaged. FIGURE #2 below displays this process:

The Experiential Learning Cycle

CONCRETE

EXPERIENCE GRASP

ACTIVE

TRANSFORM EXPERIENCE REFLECTIVE EXPERIENCE EXPERIMENTATION OBSERVATION

ABSTRACT CONCEPTUALIZATION

Concrete Experience

As we (Zull, Singham and I) began to design the Learning Fellows Seminars, this cycle of learning was incorporated in a coherent sequence for each session within the semester. In a quite literal sense, the seminar itself represented a version of the Learning Cycle. This happens both within the individual seminars themselves, and also over the program‟s fourteen weeks‟ duration over the course of the semester.

During each individual session, there are mini “lectures” given by the facilitators. Conversations concerning individual experiences are invited, and small group discussion follows (in this conversational format, both reflection and idea generation can occur. See for example, Baker, Jensen and Kolb, 2002). Following these, the ideas that are generated are “tested” within the group at large.

This cycle follows for the semester as a whole as well: during each week, the participants “experience” through the readings and discussions. Journal entries invite reflection, while the ideas concerning their own classes are actively created and potentially tested.

We begin each session with the participants (faculty members who are now seminar students) having immediate, sensory experiences both within the weekly seminar, and during the week on their own through outside reading and writing assignments. These Concrete Experiences include various activities, such as watching a topical video, having a group discussion (in either small groups or in the plenary) about weekly readings, their previous experiences or personal writing. The

Reflective Observation occurs both during the seminars themselves, and in their written online weekly journals. These reflections in turn allow them to think about,

and create their own new designs and models for topics of discussion (through

Active Conceptualization), and then test their ideas in their classrooms and with colleagues (Active Experimentation).

One of the participants later remarked,

Upon reflection, I‟m amazed at how often the class set-up really modeled what you “taught”.

At the conclusion of every semester, we ask for ideas for improvement, and try to incorporate these as possible into the following, and subsequent, semesters, so that the cycle of learning can continue.

The following section delineates the curriculum of the Learning Fellows

Program. For those wishing to skip this very detailed explication, the segment following is a discussion of the evolution of the program.

4.7 Learning Fellows Program Syllabus

The subject matter is structured in order to allow each participant‟s learning to occur, just as they have arranged their own individual classes. Based on their years of teaching UCITE seminars, Zull and Singham had a fairly good sense of the areas they felt were critically important. Using these as a guide, we divided the semester into three sections: Key Ideas and Principles, Practical Applications, and

Assessment. While these topics have changed over time, the fundamental issues and ideas have not. Later in this chapter, I describe the evolution of the program design, and bring it up to date in its most recent form.

Within each of these larger topic areas, we assigned 4 or 5 more specific topics. These are outlined below:

Part I – Key Ideas and principles.

1. Prior knowledge; construction of understanding

2. Metacognition; helping the learner become aware of her own learning

3. The four pillars of human learning: perception, reflection, creation, action

4. The foundation for these pillars: emotion and motivation

5. Diversity of learners; gifts, preferences, boredom, temperament

Part II – Practical applications

6. Creating a motivating environment (learning cycle/ first impressions)

7. The lecture

8. The discussion seminar

9. Creating expert learners (reading and writing)

10. Cooperative learning

11. Books, laboratories and other resources

Part III – Assessment

12. What does it mean to assess learning?

13. Aligning learning goals and strategies with assessment

14. Open discussion and conclusions

Our philosophy behind the program design was to remain faithful to its core ideas and foundation, but also to be flexible to the interests and wishes of each semester‟s diversity of participants. As we planned our first series in the Spring of

2003, our goal was to combine discussions about learning and its biological basis, with the lived experience of the Learning Cycle. We wanted to include practical applications of the theoretical ideas, and have a common ground for participants to share their own previous experiences.

The sharing of ideas was both a practical, and theoretical concept: as Kolb states in his essay, Learning and Conversation, “when people from different neighborhoods…enter and sustain conversations with each other…they begin to hear the commonality of their concerns and learn from their different experiences and expectations” (Baker, Jensen and Kolb, 2002).

This seems especially true for teachers, particularly for college instructors who generally have little, if any, classroom training (where those concerns might be expected to surface), and rarely visit one another‟s classes. In a recent article in the

Phi Delta Kappan (June 2008), Steve Gardiner urges teachers to share with each other:

For the good of the profession, they should share their stories….When they deny their colleagues access to reliable, valuable and direct sources of information. Classroom teachers test, modify and clarify lessons every day in the most important research lab we have…Teachers need to share their ideas, their strategies, their successes and their enthusiasm with each other (p.76). have…Teachers need to share their ideas, their strategies, their successes and their enthusiasm with one another (p.76) modify and clarify lessons every day in the most impor have…Teachers need to share their ideas, their strategies, their successes and their enthusiasm with one another (p.76)

Our offering of the program to the faculty community has always described it as an opportunity to “explore ideas [on learning] and how those ideas can be applied

in the classroom to improve teaching”. Our design took into account the facilitators‟ preferences and ideas about which topics were important to address. But even from the first day of the first semester, we used the topic ideas as focal “jumping off” points within the group: asking each member to give us specific ideas about topics they were particularly interested in, or what areas we might additionally address.

Time is allotted during every semester for Fellows to share their ideas, and their experiences, either as a whole, or in smaller configurations, so that they might benefit from the diversity of interests and opinions within the cohort.

In addition to the weekly journal question which asks for general comments about the program, we also request specific feedback at the end of each semester, in order to make modifications to the program. We have used these suggestions to refine and add what we felt were improvements, while still holding true to the original design. Some of these have been more content driven, and others have been more in terms of style. We have attempted since the first semester to accommodate and add these ideas during subsequent semesters.

4.8 Individual Session Outline

Our first semester, in the Spring of 2003, brought 20 individuals to a relatively small room in a makeshift conference room, in a building on campus (then home to the UCITE offices) soon to be razed. It was not particularly comfortable, and the participants at opposite ends of the table were unable to see each other completely.

But it was functional, and our inaugural participants were enthusiastic and engaged.

The first day of our original session began with brief introductions around the table, and then immediately into a worksheet activity for our participants. It asked three questions:

1. Please write a brief statement in your beliefs about how people learn. 2. Give an example of this idea from your own learning (or teaching) experience. 3. What is the greatest barrier to student learning in your experience?

For our first few semesters, we began the group discussion by presenting a word to the group, “FLABMONK”, and asked our Fellows to contemplate what the word might mean. After a few moments, Zull made some comments about the process that occurs when we encounter an unfamiliar word:

“To understand the meaning of this word, you have two options: (1) turn to authority, such as a dictionary, or another person; (2) postulate a meaning based on your prior knowledge. Actually these are the same. If you choose the first, you will read words that you already understand, and assemble a meaning using your prior knowledge of the grammar of the language. If you choose the second, you simply rely on your memory of meanings for flab, and monk, and then create a possible meaning based on the images that the combination brings up. Those images come from your past experience. ” (Jim Zull, January 14, 2003)

These first few activities gave us the central discussion points for the initial, and also the subsequent, sessions. We began with the participant responses to the prompts on the worksheet: what their thoughts were about how people learn, examples of this from their own experiences, and barriers that they thought might exist to block student understanding. In using the combination of concrete and reflective experiences (by writing, listening to Zull‟s comments and thinking about them) plus conceptualizing and testing (by creating their own new thoughts and

discussing these with others), we were creating the first of what would be many, many cycles through Experiential Learning.

We began with where they were starting, with their ideas about the topic:

“What are your beliefs about how people learn?” We then showed a short video entitled, “A Private Universe”. The makers of this film interviewed students and faculty members at Harvard University, asking them to describe how the various seasons occur on Earth, as well as the phases of the moon. Despite having numerous science classes throughout their academic careers, the majority were unable to answer the question correctly. Most used the “defensible” proposition that the Earth felt warmer when it was closer to the sun: therefore, summer occurred when the

Earth‟s orbit took it closest to the sun. They also tended to explain the moon‟s phases in terms only of eclipses.

The film goes on to interview high school students in a nearby Cambridge school, and their science teacher, and asks them to explain their answers to more detailed questions about both the seasons and the phases of the moon. Again, even those students at the top of the class had multilayered, idiosyncratic, nonscientific explanations about both the seasons and the moon that differed little from the

Harvard students and faculty.

The film‟s conclusion is that each of us lives within a “Private Universe” of created knowledge, which may or may not be factually correct. We associate meaning, and thus create personal understanding (knowledge), from our individual experience. Our experience of the sun teaches us of its heat; our more vague

memories of learning about the Earth‟s orbit remind us that the Earth travels closer to and then farther away from the sun. So the conclusion we draw comes from our experience.

From this introduction to the notion of prior knowledge at the first session, we move in the subsequent sessions to further discussions in more depth: what the concept of prior knowledge means to our Fellows; how to ascertain what their students‟ existing knowledge in their subject areas might be; and finally what strategies they might use after finding out about these previously, and potentially strongly, held ideas.

Another idea that figures prominently at the beginning of our program is that our prior experience can shape our understanding of language in fundamental ways: when we hear or read words, for instance, our associations with those words give us individual meanings which may or may not be exactly what the speaker or writer has intended. We use a children‟s story, “Fish is Fish” (Lionni, 1970) to help illustrate this challenge. This is a tale of two friends, a small fish and a young frog. When the frog returns to the pond after a long absence he tells the fish of all the worldly marvels he has seen, and describes some of them to the fish. As the frog is describing birds he has seen “who have wings, and two legs, and many many colors”, the little fish visualizes large, beautifully feathered fish flying through the air. As the frog tells of cows, who “have four legs, horns, eat grass, and carry pink bags of milk”, the fish again pictures in his mind an enormous fish, with legs, horns, and udders holding a mouthful of grass. We use this story in the seminar as a beautifully simple

illustration that whatever we hear or experience is filtered through the lens of all of our previous experience: it is unique to each of us, and can be remarkably robust.

We begin the seminar program with this concept of “prior knowledge” as both a barrier to student learning (in that these robustly held convictions are not easily shifted), and an opportunity for teachers, to help their students in the construction of new knowledge. Our first sessions to this day include discussions of this concept, and typically include both the “Private Universe” film and “Fish is

Fish”. We have found that they provoke animated discussion, and provide entertaining, often provocative common concrete experiences for us to start the seminar.

Following prior knowledge the next few weeks include discussions of Kolb‟s

Learning Cycle in depth, including discussions of how they themselves might interpret the terms used, and what some practical examples might be of “concrete experience” or “reflection” (see also Svinicki and Dixon, 1987, for excellent examples in various disciplines) for them to use in their courses.

We use King and Kitchener‟s theories of Reflective Judgment (King and

Kitchener, 1994), as well to give ideas about where their students might be in terms of their intellectual development. King and Kitchener have studied thousands of students from high school through graduate school, and have mapped out descriptive stages of where those students lie, in terms of their ability to think critically: to question information and form evidence based judgments about what they are studying. Since within each semester‟s group we have Fellows who teach

undergraduates from freshmen through seniors, as well as those who teach graduate students and postdoctoral students in the professional schools, we need to examine where they might expect their own students to be, and how they might approach students of differing capacity to think critically.

We discuss Kolb‟s Learning Styles, or Preferences, and each Fellow takes an online version of Kolb‟s Learning Style Inventory to see where their own preferences might be as they themselves approach new topics. We take that opportunity to map out on a large sheet of paper, for all to see, exactly where in the four quadrants our participants find themselves.

This inventory has occasionally been controversial within the group, and has sometimes prompted energetic discussions about its usefulness or validity. The main point of this exercise is certainly not to categorize or label our group members, but to illustrate the diversity within our own group, and to remind them of the differences among their students, and between them and their students. We have had 154

Fellows, (from 46 departments) complete this inventory, and all four quadrants have been populated. We try to stress the usefulness of the four spaces by adding that

“wherever the Fellows are, roughly ¾ of their students are in the other three”, and that their teaching strategies need to take into account these learning differences.

We are careful at all times to present opportunities for further investigation for those who are interested (in this and all topics), but I have found that in virtually every semester, with only one or two exceptions (of 154 total) that by the fourth or fifth week, our Fellows are no longer asking for supporting data for every topic

presented, indeed for any topic presented. My belief is that by this time, there has been general trust established by, and in, the facilitators. From the first day, we take great care to create a motivating and caring environment. Later in the semester we specifically outline the factors that have shown to help in this process. I will discuss these factors later in this chapter.

We devote a good deal of time to discussions of “constructive alignment”. As described by John Biggs (2003), an educator whose writings about student learning we use extensively, there are two important aspects to constructive alignment: the constructive aspect refers to the students creating their own meaning through relevant learning activities. Meaning is not simply transmitted from teacher to learner, but is a construction within the learner.

Alignment refers to what the teacher does, in setting up an appropriate environment for support in learning the intended outcomes, as well as making sure that the other aspects of the teaching process, the teaching methods used and the assessments, are in alignment with the intended outcomes. The concept of alignment brings together these three elements of a course: (1) the course goals; (2) the teaching methods, which should provide students with opportunities to meet those goals; and (3) the assessments chosen, which should in turn reflect the students‟ progress towards those goals.

We spend time on each of these three areas, including a lively introduction to thinking about narrowing and defining the first in our triangle: the goals for a course.

In the fall of 2005, we added in an additional video to our seminar: a former Saturday

Night Live character from the 1980‟s known as Father Guido Sarducci, discussing his

“Five Minute University” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO8x8eoU3L4). In this new university, instead of spending the typical four years on topics that students rarely remember, he will spend only five minutes in total, and teach only those few phrases and concepts that they are likely to retain five years later (“Economics?

Supply and demand. Business? Business is, you buy something, and you sell it for more”).

This is a very funny, but provocative video, and inevitably results in groaning laughter from the room. It seems a humorous way to introduce another piece of our message: that “covering the content” is not usually sufficient in promoting any deep learning. Students can memorize facts and information, but to genuinely understand material at a deeper level, they must make it their own, and to do that they must embrace it: talk about it, think about it, and integrate it with their own ideas. In other words, use the aforementioned Learning Cycle to gain deep, rather than surface, understanding.

For students to recall information beyond the end of the semester, it can be much more successful to limit the number of general topics to those truly core concepts that faculty want students to retain, and understand beyond a surface level.

Identifying these key concepts can be tricky, and can often take time, and at least several iterations. We use a process called “concept mapping” (a technique originally developed by Joseph Novak at Cornell in the 1970‟s, but also discussed by Biggs), which is essentially a diagram (using boxes and arrows) showing the relationship between different core ideas.

We have often heard complaints in our UCITE office that students understand facts and information in isolation, without understanding how they are related in some larger way. This exercise of mapping a course can be a challenge, but it can also force the teacher to truly isolate the core concepts, and to establish

(for themselves, and also for students) how those concepts interrelate.

Following our discussions of key course goals, we explore the second part of our alignment triad: how to use different teaching methods, and when they are most appropriate. The two types we spend the most time on are lecturing, with its challenges and opportunities, and discussion, with its own pluses and minuses. We present articles, and have small group discussions on various ways to improve both

(see, for instance, Johnson, Johnson and Smith, (1998) pp. 5:1 – 5:9, McKeachie,

(2005) pp. 9. 44 – 83, or Neff and Weimer, (2002) pp. 9 - 17).

For our focus on lectures, I use some of my theatrical background and introduce the concepts of body language (eye contact, facial expressions and gestures), using more of the physical space of the room, and utilizing one‟s voice more engagingly. We present data illustrating how quickly human attention wanders

(see, for example, Tomorrow‟s Professor, March, 2006, http://amps- tools.mit.edu/tomprofblog archives/2006/03/704_activity _br.html), which indicate that more effective lectures must bring in active elements for students, both to focus their attention, and to help them understand and retain information.

Lectures are very efficient in delivering information to many students, or for clarifying challenging material. Delivered well, lectures can be extremely useful, and

can provide valuable help to students in processing or understanding class materials.

But there are significant barriers to deep learning in lectures: there is an implicit assumption in lectures that all material can be absorbed by all students at the same pace, that students have developed productive methods of note taking, and will understand the material in the way the instructor intends.

Improving discussions is also a topic where we spend a good deal of time, since many faculty members on our campus spend much of their time with smaller numbers of students. This session also includes information about helping students improve their reading skills. Guiding students to become better, more efficient readers is a part of this topic, since lack of preparation before class can have drastic effects on class discussions. We discuss various ideas and tactics, such as dividing up the reading among the students, and having each responsible for explaining their portion or leading the discussion. We bring in again the notion of differences in

Learning Style, and the influence that can have on how students prepare for class, and participate in discussions.

Our work continues with the concept of alignment, following our focus on goals and teaching methods, by discussing the third component of the triad: assessments. Michael Scriven coined the terms “formative” and “summative” assessments in 1967 (Scriven, pp.39 – 83) and stressed the different functions of each type. Again we bring in theorist John Biggs, who suggests that formative assessment is most useful during the course of the semester, when students can profit from it, and gain practice towards the achievement of the learning goals for the class.

Formative assessments are offered while the student is in the process of learning, and are used to provide feedback to students on how they are progressing toward the goals of the class. Their purpose is to enhance learning, by emphasizing and communicating the student‟s current strengths and areas where more development is needed. This can be done by students themselves, in reviewing their own work; in pairs or peer groups; or by the instructor. Since there is not a grade at stake, the atmosphere is less threatening, and students have nothing to lose by demonstrating their understanding of the topic, or lack of it.

Summative assessments, however, as their name suggests, evaluate a “final” performance of some kind against a predetermined set of outcomes, and it is in the learner‟s benefit to demonstrate as much knowledge as possible, since there will be negative consequences associated with less than 100% performance. These kinds of assessments do not stress learning, or progress, but give an evaluation only. They are certainly useful in establishing where on a scale the student‟s performance has occurred, but it gives the student little chance to learn from his performance, and frequently these measures do not align with the actual goals of the course. (An old joke refers to this situation: “yes, that professor really covered everything. Whatever he didn‟t cover during class, he covered on the final exam”.)

As part of our assessment discussion, we explore the use of rubrics as tools for establishing clear evaluation criteria. A rubric is a helpful assessment tool that lists criteria for a piece of student work. Rubrics can help instructors be more consistent and objective in grading, as well as help students to clarify precisely what will be assessed. Rubrics typically share three common characteristics: they focus on a

stated objective, they use a range to rate performance, and they contain specific characteristics in levels indicating the degree to which a standard has been met

(Pickett & Dodge, 2001). We have found that many of our Fellows use these extensively to clarify and outline their expectations for their students.

Early in the semester we also tackle the idea of motivation. According to

Biggs, motivation is a “product of good teaching, and not its prerequisite” (Biggs, p.

13). We discuss ideas about intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards, using a chapter from

Alfie Kohn‟s Punished by Rewards (Kohn, p. 198) as a conversation starter. Zull also used this opportunity to spiral back the concepts of the Learning Cycle, and to inject the idea of the learner‟s emotion into motivation: how learning can be affected by the emotional reactions of the student:

The great strength of the learning cycle is that it engages all the major cortical functions of the human brain: sensory, integrative (analytical), integrative (creative), and motor. It turns out that all these parts of the cortex are also wired to the emotion regions of the brain. Thus, it is not surprising that when a learner goes through the cycle, she will engage a wide range of emotional connections. These connections will naturally be related to the interests and desires of the learner. (Zull, March 4, 2003)

Kohn‟s “three C‟s” of motivation are introduced next: choice, collaboration, and content (from Kohn, as quoted in a Pintrich article in Teaching Professor, 2004), as other ways to think about student motivation. Choice means students should participate in making decisions about what they do within the class setting.

Collaboration means they should be able to work together in effective teams. Content refers to the course‟s material and tasks. "To do a good job, people need a good job to do" (Kohn, 1993, p. 189). Pintrich‟s research indicates that when students have

more active participation in the design of the course, their engagement is much more significant.

Some examples of practical ways of doing this: asking for student input at the beginning of the semester for topic suggestions for projects, giving students some flexibility and choice about assignments or evaluation criteria, and allowing them to work together. As for the content, it should be of interest to the students. Even if students are skeptical as to the worth of a particular class, it is up to the instructor to make the material interesting, and create interest.

Using collaborative groups in the classroom is another of our program‟s main focus areas. We use them frequently ourselves during the course of the seminar, and many Fellows have commented that these were their favorite settings of the semester. To further demonstrate the value of group work, we divide our Fellows into several smaller groups, and use a classic experiential activity from Organizational

Behavior called “The Desert Survival Exercise” (The Desert Survival Situation™ by

J. Clayton Lafferty and Patrick Eady with Alonzo W. Pond, 1970).

This role-play exercise sets up the following scene for the participants: their airplane has crashed somewhere far off course in the vast desert, and in order to survive, they must work together and decide which of fifteen items that have fallen with them will be the most useful for survival. The activity requires that the group members individually rank order the items, and then come to a consensus on the items‟ relative importance (the “correct” answers are established by survival experts).

The desert exercise invariably delights some and infuriates others, but in the end, the value of working with others in groups is difficult to dispute. We present data (national data, from the exercise itself) suggesting that 75% – 80% of the participants‟ group scores (their consensus votes) are typically higher than the individual scores: more input from a group = better decisions, in a highly simplistic sense. There are, of course, those 20% - 25% whose scores individually are higher, giving us a different discussion point for all: why were some correct voices in the group not persuasive to the rest? And why did some of the clearly wrong opinions prevail? What can that teach each of us about how we interact in groups, and why some voices might not be heard as clearly as others?

One of the more frequent complaints from the first few semesters of our program was that, just as in their classes, our seminar itself had several dominant voices. Part of this issue was resolved (a serendipitous event, but actually because of budget constraints) when in the Spring of 2006, we were forced to have only about a dozen Fellows each semester of the program, instead of our previous 20. The smaller group immediately felt more intimate, and comments about the group size evaporated. Another element that Singham brought in (an idea he had used in one of his own seminar classes) was that of “talkers versus listeners”.

Early in the semester, we asked each Fellow to self identify as either a talker or a listener when they were in group situations. We then separated the two groups and asked them to discuss what might be advantages to their own, as well as to the other style. We also asked if there were any things about their style that they believed the other did not understand. This sparked some very interesting introspection and

discussion. Many of our Fellows have gone on to use this effectively in their own classes, particularly where discussion is an important component.

During one semester, as a result of these discussions, one of our Fellows brought in a ball of yarn to illustrate the idea of dominant voices. The yarn began its travels with the place of the first person to speak, who held onto one end of the entire ball. As each new voice came into the conversation, the yarn was tossed to that person, who held onto a piece for the rest of the session. As the string criss-crossed the conference table, it gave us a truly graphic representation of dominant voices

(though an artificial setup to be sure), as several individuals clearly ended the session with yards of yarn, and others had virtually none. Following this exercise, some of our Fellows vowed instantly to become listeners.

As Singham had done with his undergraduate seminar students, we discussed as a group how we might both encourage the quieter voices, and make sure there were other opportunities (such as journals, or posting comments on Blackboard) for all to voice their ideas, as well as persuade, primarily through increased awareness, the dominant voices to surrender some of their time.

We conclude each semester‟s seminar by asking each Fellow in turn to give a short presentation about an idea they have learned from the seminar, and have either already put into action, or plan to add to a course in the future. These are invariably satisfying sessions, as literally all of our Fellows discuss at least one, if not more, changes they plan to include in their teaching.

4.9 Evolution and Changes to the Program:

The program has developed gradually from the Spring of 2003 until the current semester, and includes improvements to many of our individual sessions, with updated resources and more varied readings. We have tried to incorporate the summary comments from our participants as to the substance, and direction of the sessions. Some of these changes have more superficial (such as providing reusable name tents instead of new nametags each week), while others have been more substantial.

We have used a very similar format from our first semester offering through the ninth, with minor changes each session according to the interests of our Fellows.

Some topics have received slightly more attention during some semesters, and some slightly less. We have tried to maintain as flexible a schedule as possible, in order to both accommodate their concerns, and to model this as an option in their own classes. We schedule in several open sessions at the end of the semester to revisit topics, or discuss new ones that Fellows may not have felt we covered to their satisfaction previously.

The main modifications to our program have been in the people involved, on both sides of the seminars: after ten years as UCITE‟s director, Zull stepped away from the leadership of UCITE in the Spring of 2004 in order to devote more time to his lively research and teaching schedule, though he attends many of our sessions and his book is still our mainstay “text”. Singham became the UCITE Director later that summer and I was named UCITE‟s Assistant Director in the spring of 2005. And

as previously mentioned (because of budget constraints), the number of each seminar‟s Fellows shifted from 20 to about 12 (we have had two semesters with 11, one with 13, the others all with 12).

The most significant additional adjustments we made in the program itself, other than in the size of the participant group, has been in how we gently re- structured the very first day of each semester. We based these changes on both a large body of research on first impressions (see, for example, Ambady and Rosenthal,

1993; Gladwell, 2005; or Gross Davis, 1993), and a similar body reflecting how quickly those first impressions in the classroom can affect the establishment of a congenial and motivating learning environment (see for example, Boice, 2000; or McKeachie,

1999). The first day‟s activities can also contribute to the way the rest of the semester will proceed and in how students perceive, and work conscientiously for, their instructor.

Beginning with Ambady and Rosenthal‟s work on first impressions, and complementing these with Boice‟s extensive work on “classroom incivilities” (those occurrences in the classroom that can be potentially disruptive), we took extreme care in how we began our first sessions. We made sure all of the preparations were finished, and were waiting in the room to chat with our new Fellows as they arrived.

Instead of taking a relatively short amount of time for group introductions, as we had during the first several semesters, we added in a longer time to hear biographical information from each Fellow, including more of their personal activities and interests outside of the university.

To accomplish this, we hand out a half-page form that we have printed with some options for them to fill out to assist in their sharing of information. By asking them to write these down first, and making sure everyone had completed them, we avoid the dreaded “not listening to the others while I am thinking of my own response” so common in such group environments. These categories include such things as “original hometown”, “favorite movie, book or food”, “music in your car this morning”, and my personal favorite, the “LKBIF”, or Little Known But

Interesting Fact, and then invite each new Fellow to speak in turn about whichever categories they wish.

We are also careful to follow Boice‟s advice and admonitions concerning our own body language and verbal messages: simple things such as smiling, maintaining eye contact, and using positive, encouraging language can help establish a more nurturing, caring atmosphere (which also affects more successful learning, according to Boice) than one in which the instructor or the session seems rushed, there is little eye contact, and the tones of voice of the instructor are considered arrogant or aloof.

The benefits from spending this extra time on introductions cannot be overstated: by taking more time at the beginning of the class in establishing a more welcoming community, the atmosphere in the room can be significantly improved.

Connections are discovered, people begin to relax and laugh, and this beginning frequently has become the basis for new friendships, as participants find similar interests (and even, in one case, that two of our Fellows had attended the same high school, at the same time, in Texas).

The next section of the case study presents data taken from interviews held during 2003, 2004 and 2005, plus the results of the written online surveys sent to all of the Fellows in 2005. I first present the most frequently seen themes in graphical form, and then illustrate these, using comments from the participants to support and substantiate these designated themes. The voices of the participants are also constructive examples of the multiplicity and diversity of experience among the participants.

CHAPTER 5

THE EXPERIENCE OF INDIVIDUAL PROFESSORS

5.1 Review of Research Questions

At this point we come to the heart of this case study: what was the impact of

this program on the participants, and on their institution? In order to frame this

section of the study, let us revisit the original research questions, which guided this

investigation:

A) “How did the participants respond to the program as a whole?”

B) “How did the program influence the day-to-day teaching practices and attitudes of its participants?”

C) “Among those who did change their teaching practices, what factors contributed to those changes? What factors, if any (institutional, personal, other), provided support for such changes? What factors hindered their efforts?”

D) “Are there any other consequent institutional effects from this program?”

This chapter includes a detailed consideration of each of these four areas of

research questions. As I address the original guiding questions in turn, and recount

the participant responses, I also include additional data sources (session

observations, personal discussions, journal responses etc.) in conjunction, and try to

capture the expressions of the participants through direct quotation whenever

possible. The first part (5.2 – 5.5) of this chapter discusses in more detail the positive

responses from participants. Section 5.6 characterizes the reported criticisms of the

program.

A) “How did the participants respond to the program as a whole?”

The first of my guiding questions is quite broad, and the responses were

equally so. A quick answer, though, to this question is: extremely positively. Virtually

100% of the participants in this study found the program useful, and even those who

were critical of individual characteristics were still positive overall, and would

recommend it to others. At this point it might be useful to display these results

graphically, and then discuss the individual elements in turn. I have separated the

responses to the first guiding research question into several smaller categories by

theme, with illustrative quotations from the participants. Wherever appropriate, I

also describe any factors that were common, such as university title (rank) or school.

I have enveloped the positive responses under the title “Personal and Professional

Development” in order to adequately represent the number of themes that emerged.

5.2 Personal and Professional Development

The themes that emerged in this area include three major components: the utility of the seminar; its creation of a valuable sense of community, as well as a sense of validation for those who had felt little support for teaching; and finally a new sense of empowerment and confidence for many of the participants. These responses also highlighted a number of dissatisfactions that many participants expressed. I will address these for each category presented below.

“Utility of LF program” (as seen in Table #6 below) essentially means whether the participants found the program useful or helpful, and whether they would recommend it to others. This was by far the closest to unanimous reaction to

the program: close to 100% of the case study participants felt positively about the program, with no differences seen between rank, school or gender.

TABLE #6: Evaluation of Learning Fellow Seminar by participants (N = 62),

“Utility of Program” (Numbers within table represent percentages of times theme was mentioned. For these and the tables that follow I have combined response numbers from Lecturers and Instructors since the total number was low.)

N = 15 26 28 5 LF Evaluation PROF ASSOC ASST LECT Utility of LF 93% 100% 100% 100% Program

Of the 62 participants in this study, only one was less than completely

enthusiastic about the program. And of the total number of Fellows thus far, only a

handful have ever been exposed to any pedagogical training. As one of our more

junior Fellows stated, his only previous pedagogical training, like many of his

colleagues, was an afternoon many years ago when he first became a Teaching

Assistant at another university. His frustrations with the expectation that teaching

“would just come”, reflect those of his fellow seminar participants.

“I found it really useful to just talk about teaching – just to be aware of what you‟re doing. I have to say, I found it shocking how no one has any ideas about pedagogically the best ways to teach. You never get any guidance – you‟re just supposed to pick it up by doing it. We tend to talk about the curriculum, but never how to best teach it. And that‟s ridiculous – anyone knows that the best athletes are not necessarily the best coaches – but somehow in teaching we forget that.”

“I feel much better about myself as a teacher and that makes me happier in my career overall. Until I took UCITE, I had been dreading teaching another big, required course, because I 94

felt that my last experience doing so had been so negative. But after the UCITE course, I actually looked forward to the course and the opportunity to implement the new ideas I had come up with.”

“My love of learning was enhanced – I like to teach and teach well – it‟s great to have the time and the feedback of UCITE and peers to develop ideas and test them out.”

For another of our Fellows, the challenge lay in navigating one of the older schools within the university as a newcomer, and the long held traditions of teaching methods and beliefs:

“Coming in from the outside was challenging – very exciting, but mostly challenging. At this university they recruit researchers, not teachers. There‟s actually no experience required in teaching at all – the expectation is that if you know your subject, you‟ll be able to teach it. It‟s pretty much a baptism by fire. I tried to remember what I liked as a student – you want them to come, to stay interested, and to enjoy being there. As a new person it was easy to have your confidence rattled…it‟s very unsettling to talk to rooms full of sleeping people.”

5.3 Lack of support for teaching

A powerful theme that emerged from this data is one of a culture that does not value teaching at CWRU. In many cases, faculty spoke not only of little ongoing support, but also of active discouragement from colleagues and Department Chairs for spending time on their teaching. Various factors of this result are significant to point out: unlike almost all of the other results in this chapter, this theme was expressed by Associate and Assistant Professors only; almost entirely from three of the university‟s professional schools: the School of Medicine, the School of Nursing, and the School of Management; and unlike any other result in this study, was

expressed with large differences of gender: 66% of the respondents who reported a lack of support for teaching were women (and in our participant sample, women represent only 41%).

TABLE #7: Perceived lack of support in teaching (N = 62)

N = 15 26 28 5

Perceived PROF ASSOC ASST LECT lack of teaching support A & S 0% 13% 17% 0% DENT 0% 0% 0% 0% ENGR 0% 0% 0% 0% LAW 0% 50% 0% 0% MED 0% 50% 50% 0% MSASS 0% 0% 0% 0% NURS 0% 50% 67% 0% WSOM 0% 0% 80% 0%

Even notwithstanding that the total number within each school is not large in this table, the trend that it indicates is significant. However, we must also consider that these results are from the first few cohorts of the program. In the semesters that have followed, I have sensed much less bitterness among participants concerning the lack of support. Whether the most anguished faculty members were the first to sign up for the program, or whether there are other factors at play, (such as the subsequent effects of this program) remains to be studied.

Certainly, there are many factors that establish a culture against teaching, but clearly those factors are more evident in some schools. For many, the Learning 96

Fellows Seminar provided faculty members with a community that respected the art of teaching, as well as one that held the belief that student learning should be at the center of the university‟s practices.

Another of our Fellows, Professor C., had in fact had previous pedagogical

training. She was aware of experiential learning, and had tried to incorporate some of

its central themes into her own work. But her frustration came from within her

department, and within her college.

“There is such a de-emphasis on teaching here, and I found myself so frustrated! You know, you can get horrendous evaluations here, and still get tenure. The thing I was most grateful for was the respect for teaching I felt in the seminar [Learning Fellows] – not only should I bring it back into my work, but I can‟t pretend it‟s not important to me.”

Following her semester as a Learning fellow, Professor C. wrote a multi- page

document, sharing some of her ideas with some department colleagues. These were

not only practical ideas that she had generated from the semester, but also addressed

some concerns she felt about going forward within their department. Without

addressing these concerns, she felt, the students would continue to receive less than

they could, or should.

“It was important for me to train other people – there are several of us teaching this first year curriculum, and I thought it was important to share some of these ideas.”

Another of the relatively junior faculty members (Professor Y.) also expressed frustration with the expectation that “teaching would just come”. Although he is in what he calls a “supportive” department, he also finds that within the university as a whole, there is a widespread attitude that teaching is not critical, and that student learning is not a subject for focus.

“Research is still primary in every sense, and the teaching part of it simply isn‟t discussed…I find academicians to be pretty self-absorbed – it‟s hard to make them think about the other people in the room – that it‟s really about the student being in the center of the room, and not them. Faculty also tend to think their class, their subject is the most important thing the student could possibly be taking, so it‟s hard to even have them think about the bigger environment. And there‟s also this pressure to cover content – I mean this might be the only class [in this subject area] they ever take – in their lives! That kind of thinking can be a real burden.”

Having taught in several of the professional schools within the university,

Professor Y. had firsthand knowledge and experience of many common teaching

methods used in each. Most, he found deplorable:

“It really makes you feel sorry for the students. I found the [ ] School pedagogically bankrupt – these young people forced to participate, forced into this teaching method that really doesn‟t teach – it simply keeps the professor in control of the subject. The [ ] School also seems to be in various stages of disarray – their teaching methods haven‟t changed in fifty years, and their profession is completely, utterly changed! And their students are nothing like them – their students are not like the people who become professors!”

Taking part in the Learning Fellows Seminar program gave Professor Y. a

sense of both the correctness of his intuitive beliefs about teaching, and also support

that he wasn‟t alone in those beliefs.

“It was good to find out what was going on in different parts of the university – we tend to stay pretty isolated within our individual departments. It was also nice to have the luxury of the reflection time – to step back and really look at what we were doing and why.”

For several of our Fellows, the community became almost a lifeline. For some, the frustration of being in a department that was not supportive of teaching was overwhelming:

“I am very grateful for this opportunity. The Learning Fellows gave me a new stimulating community at CWRU. Without it, I think I would have left the university. I continue to regularly attend UCITE sessions to continue my learning and discussions.” “The program also provided me with support for my beliefs in the value of teaching and the manner of teaching that are not supported by my school – probably the biggest benefit of the program to me. Support was the key – it was provided by UCITE and the other Fellows. I had only minimal support from [my school].” “I‟ve felt the continued lack of support, particularly in my administration, for placing any value on teaching. Even greater lack of support is placed on the value for promotion. Basically good teaching really doesn‟t count.”

As with several other participants, Professor M.‟s department was not always supportive when it concerned the amount of time she was spending in preparing for classes, and the results that garnered.

“In my department, they think it‟s great if I get high evaluations [from students]. But as soon as that sentence is said, it‟s „OK, now get back to your research‟. I‟ve actually been told that getting a 4.8 means I‟m „spending too much time teaching‟. In some ways you are „at risk‟ to be labeled a teacher. It is really hard to balance.”

For Professor U., UCITE and the Learning Fellows Seminar program had a profound impact. Within her own department, it seems, teaching was not only viewed as unnecessary, it was viewed with suspicion:

“I knew that if I won teaching awards that it wouldn‟t help me with promotion – only my grants would be taken into consideration. And I knew my [Department] Chair wasn‟t supportive, and that I was really on my own.”

As with many of her colleagues, Professor U. was not in what she felt was a supportive department, with encouraging colleagues around her. Over time, as she

felt more and more distance from her department, she felt more and more affinity to

those in the Learning Fellows group.

“UCITE was like an oasis for me. It was the only place where I felt there were people who understood how important teaching was, who knew that we have to be here for the students.”

Another Fellow expressed a similar view:

“The lack of value for teaching often deflates me a bit. I‟m frustrated by it as well, but I‟ve learned not to discuss teaching for any great length of time with those faculty who don‟t value it.”

One of our junior Fellows on the tenure track felt this pressure acutely. As with so many other Learning Fellows, she too felt a lack of support for teaching within the university as a whole.

“I found it [the seminars] very helpful. In a research intensive university like this, especially if you‟re on a tenure track, the advice you get over and over is, „don‟t spend a lot of your time teaching – do your research and your grant writing. But it‟s still hard when you walk in there [the classroom]. There are those 35 faces waiting for you to teach them something – and they‟ve paid good money for this and they expect a good class! I guess too, I‟ve never been happy with „it‟s good enough‟ – I found you can spare the time, even if it‟s just at lunch, to spend some time thinking about your teaching.”

For Professor S., that pressure was also intense:

“I was told to be careful – that if I spent too much time on my teaching that it would take time away from my research (and that, after all, was the important part of my job). People say over and over that teaching doesn‟t help get tenure. That‟s another frustration – it helps my life, but not my career. I actually fear good evaluations, because I‟ll be told to back off. I also found out that in certain faculties, if your evaluations are too high, you‟re accused of being too easy. And I knew from UCITE that good teaching has nothing to do with making it easy. I‟ve also been told that every hour I spend with my students is an hour away from something else – namely my

100

research. And I‟m actually lucky – I‟m in a more student- centered department – at least they have good intentions.”

5.4 Sense of community

TABLE #8: People connection (N = 62)

N = 15 26 28 5 LF Evaluation PROF ASSOC ASST LECT People 87% 77% 82% 100% connection

The “people connection” was something, again, which many of the participants spoke of, particularly in relation to the supportive environment they felt on a campus that did not universally value teaching. There were many other aspects to this as well, from the sharing of ideas, to the creation of new networks for collaboration. Among this group, there were slight differences noted between various ranks, but those were spread evenly across schools.

Even the full Professors who were initially the most skeptical felt that connections they made were highly positive, while the younger faculty members valued them even more highly. From this group, the participants who felt the most strongly about the “lack of teaching support” were those who felt this sense of community most keenly. Again, as with our previous table, these comments came from members of all schools, and at all levels. For the most senior members, the joy of connecting came from being seen as sage advisors, while for the more junior faculty (and here I am referring to Associate Professors down to Instructors as well), their positive reactions came from both a sense of relief that there were “others who

101

cared about teaching” to the simple sensation of having friendly colleagues to turn to in their chosen careers.

Professor Y. was one of many of our participants who spoke highly of the opportunity to meet with other members of the campus community, and form relationships with colleagues they might not have met under other circumstances.

“I have appreciated the constant reminder of the importance of teaching – most of all, the opportunity to interact on a regular basis – and come to know on a personal level – colleagues from other areas of the University. Even if this were the sole benefit of the LF semester, I‟d count the investment of funds for the Learning Fellows program to one of the best allocation of resources in this year‟s budget, and one that promised to provide an enormous return in the long run.”

“It was great to meet so many other people from different parts of the university. What I loved was finding out that there are some common pressures throughout the university that have nothing to do with my department or my school. It also gave me a lot of support – what drew me in was the continuity, the structure, the process itself.”

The sense of a new community was one that was noted by many,

“We all tend to be so isolated – there‟s no official mechanism to provide feedback. There are some faculty gatherings, but usually it‟s done much more “I think the most valuable part...was the chance to talk to other faculty and [the facilitators] about ideas for teaching. We are all so busy that generating new ideas for teaching often gets pushed down the priority list…I really enjoyed hearing the stories from others about how they put their classes together.”

“One of my favorite aspects of this experience was the interaction and discussion with professors from different fields. We still greet each other each time we meet, and it was helpful to understand where they are coming from, and how different and similar our fields are. I think we helped one another in our discussions, both in conceptual understanding of the principles reviewed, and regarding the implementation of them with students. A very positive experience.”

102

For Professor H., one of our more senior Fellows, as with others, the diversity

of the group was very important.

“It was great to meet people from so many different cultures within the university. It gave me some perspective on our school! We tend to get so isolated within our little corners – we really never peek outside. It was also really stimulating to have so many different folks there, all with different ideas. Everyone could stimulate others‟ thinking.”

For Professor R., the camaraderie was vital,

“I loved the war stories, the talking shop, especially from the other schools. There are really quite different contexts from within the university.”

And for others, the new community became a new context for collaboration:

“I genuinely enjoyed getting to know the other people – hearing what they‟re doing over there in the [ ] and [ ] schools. The voices around the table were truly sane, sensible and caring voices. And it‟s so valuable – to have this large collection of acquaintances from around the university. It helps you in oblique ways – we‟re small enough here, now you‟ve got people you can go to for advice.”

“I think meeting people from across the campus will also make me more likely to interact with faculty from other schools/ disciplines, perhaps inviting them as guest speakers or to exchange ideas. It seems like an obvious thing to do, but I think actually meeting and interacting with colleagues from other disciplines will make me more likely to reach out and collaborate.”

This “sense of community”, as well as opportunities for new professional partnerships, seemed to touch even one of the most senior Fellows:

“I am more excited about teaching than ever before. The experience of congregating with my fellow faculty in this program has opened up the university to me and I now have many new friends I see and interact with. Actually, it was probably this program that got [ ] and me together to design a new course this past fall, by virtue of our being LF‟s together in the same semester.”

103

For Professor M., the collegiality of the Learning Fellows group was

critical to her learning:

“The whole thing was great. The diversity of the group – the fact that there were people from every corner of the university, that I would never have met under any other circumstances, and the fact that we got to be together every week for an entire semester – that helped build trust and understanding, I think. The experiential approach of the seminars themselves – that was what I really enjoyed.”

That sense of isolation pervaded through many of the participant responses, both in their everyday lives on the campus and in their classrooms:

“It was great to get to know all these other people from all over the campus. I have to admit, I never even cross Euclid Avenue! I mean, I park here, I work here, I never move beyond our little ivory tower! I literally go to the other side of campus once or twice, that‟s it. And even the small group work – I never liked that in college, but in our seminar it worked. I really appreciated the variety.”

During the seminars themselves, participants would share their own

frustrations, their own experiences,

“Hearing how other people had faced exactly the same issues I was facing made me feel much less alone – I now had all these ideas to draw from, others‟ experience to draw from, other examples to use. It was also great to do the group activities – to have those experiences in real time with the other members.”

As with the strongly felt sense of community, another commonly expressed feeling among our participants was one of gratitude. Just as many of our Fellows

104

related that they felt little support for teaching within their departments, the UCITE

Learning Fellows Seminar program gave them both a sense of belonging, and of justification. Being a Learning Fellow had not only given them practical skills, but also a seriousness of purpose, and a genuine community. Many felt supported, and almost all expressed satisfaction in meeting other members of the university community.

5.5 Sense of validation and new confidence

The next theme that emerged was one of validation, and newly felt confidence, both as individuals, but especially as teachers within this research university context. The word “validated” appeared in different forms (“justified”,

“supported”, “finally felt I wasn‟t crazy”), but all indicated the same sense. This was expressed not only in terms of previous feelings of isolation in caring about teaching, but also in the kind of teaching that was important. This will also emerge in section

5.7, concerning specific changes made to their teaching practices.

The “new confidence” here related to the participants‟ sense that they could try new things, both within their classrooms and outside of them.

TABLE #9: Sense of validation and confidence among participants (N = 62)

N = 15 26 28 5

105

LF Evaluation PROF ASSOC ASST LECT

Validation 7% 23% 32% 20%

Confidence to 7% 23% 29% 100% try new things

My sense in interpreting this table, and in reviewing anecdotal evidence, is that the Professors and most of the Associate Professors involved are all at a high enough level (in terms of their situations at the university) that this seminar had less overall affect on their sense of being “validated”. This did not hold true as much for

Assistant Professors, who were more likely to voice their sense of justification.

Lecturers and Instructors, I believe, are not elevated (i.e. powerful) enough in the university system to either truly feel that sense, or feel they could speak of it. For their confidence to try new things, however, there was a remarkable difference, with the younger faculty members expressing a significantly higher sense of confidence.

“I‟m already pretty happy so far with my career, but I do think it was really great to have the validation that teaching (which I really enjoy) is an important activity; to see other colleagues who also value teaching, and to realize that there are still so many ways to improve, which to me makes it challenging and exciting.”

As for several others, the notion of “Is it just me?” struck a familiar chord for

Professor M.:

“What I found I had gained from these seminars was a sense of support, of reassurance, of legitimacy, that I hadn‟t felt before. I could talk about frustrations in the classroom, and know that others had had the same experience, that there were other like- minded souls in the university.”

106

And as another of our more senior Fellows stated, clearly after feeling frustration,

“I loved it. I was beginning to feel like a lone horse, and that I was the only one around here who cared about teaching, that it mattered to the students. I loved learning all the research – that you really have to begin where the learner is, not necessarily where you‟d like them to be. And I felt really validated – I hadn‟t felt support for the kind of teaching methods I believed in.”

Taking part in this seminar also gave Professor S. confidence to speak up

when teaching issues came up at department meetings. After learning for a semester

some of the research underlying the UCITE messages, Professor S. felt he no longer

had to watch from the sidelines.

“Now if I get a hard time from my colleagues, I remind them that I had this special training from the Learning Fellows – that there is a whole science behind it. I knew that my instincts were right, but this gave me something to use as proof. It allowed me to help them too – I could say, you may know your area, but when you use these particular tools, this will happen, and they knew I was drawing on legitimate research. It gave me a kind of credibility I didn‟t have before.”

“What I learned from UCITE is I‟m not crazy. You can accomplish a lot, and your students will probably learn more. I also really wanted to enhance the lives of my students – isn‟t that the goal? Not to sound negative, but shouldn‟t that be part of the agenda? It was so reassuring to know I wasn‟t the only one who wanted to put the needs of the students first.”

That sense of confidence and support came through many of the responses:

“I feel greater confidence in teaching and a stronger connection to the students.”

“I am feeling more personally satisfied with my teaching – less stressed – more confident. The “less is more” concept really helped me focus and not get so crazy that I was not covering the world in one class.”

107

“I‟ve had small successes day-to-day in teaching – moments when I know I‟m teaching this better than the last time, that now they understand this reading better than before.”

For others, the program led them in additional, or new, career directions:

“I‟ve been selected as the new Chair of our doctoral program – the fact that I am known for my interest and skills in teaching and curriculum development was a factor in my being chosen.”

“Most recently I was named one of three finalists in the [national teaching] award program.”

“I am now the resource for teaching questions in my department.”

“On a more global scale, my experience with the Learning Fellows has opened a very exciting educational door for me. Although I still consider myself a “novice” educator, I believe that even my very modest understanding of the educational theory that we learned in the program played a large part in my being recruited into position as Chair of [ ]. Surely without my UCITE/ Learning Fellow experience, I would not have been qualified or noticed for this position. Now I have the opportunity to not only impact my own classes, but an entire [ ] curriculum.”

For some, the experience of being a Learning Fellow opened up new opportunities on campus and off:

“I am more excited about teaching than ever before……Besides my being asked to give talks at Case about my teaching, I am now being asked to give talks around the country on teaching – the material I got from the seminar has been invaluable in preparing these talks.”

“I‟m working on a SAGES 2nd seminar course proposal and have found that the Learning Fellows work has helped me in that effort.”

And still others spoke of the personal satisfaction they felt,

“Being more satisfied with my own efforts in the classroom led to greater life satisfaction overall.”

108

“I think my greater satisfaction with my teaching has had broader effects on my life, including family life and obligations.”

Even though virtually 100% of the respondents were positive about the program overall, there were negative responses to individual parts of the program.

5.6 Criticisms of the Learning Fellows Seminar program

The most frequently mentioned negative comment concerned the size of the

group, from Fellows who felt it was too large. The survey respondents, however, were

all members of the first five cohorts, when the group size was still at its original 20

(as noted in Chapter 3, beginning in 2006 we became a smaller group, and invited an

average of 12 Fellows per semester thereafter).

“I really enjoyed the program, but felt the group was too large to work together productively. The best sessions were when we broke into small groups.”

“Too many participants and not enough in depth discussion of the topics.”

“Professors are strong minded people – if you have so many people in a group it goes on too many tangents, doesn‟t end up being productive.”

“The group size was too big for the room – I felt squished because I‟m small!”

“I would have preferred a smaller group – were almost too many perspectives.”

The other dissatisfaction most often described was that too frequently

there were dominant voices within the group, and that some of the quieter

participants might have remained unheard:

109

“Sometimes the stronger personalities seemed to drown out the softer ones.”

“Some talked too much – they should try to keep the personal stories short, mercifully short – some just took up too much verbal space.”

“Some people I liked, some I thought pontificated, felt that one or two dominated.”

Still others felt that the discussions were not as rigorous as they had hoped:

“I had really hoped to banter back and forth. No one else was doing any critical thinking – felt “cult-like”.

“Some sessions felt more scripted than others.”

“I came for a challenge – really wanted a struggle.”

Overall, though, the overwhelming conclusions of respondents were positive,

even from those who were disappointed in certain aspects of the program:

“I think the most valuable part...was the chance to talk to other faculty and [the facilitators] about ideas for teaching. We are all so busy that generating new ideas for teaching often gets pushed down the priority list…I really enjoyed hearing the stories from others about how they put their classes together.”

The next part of this chapter deals with the second of the original thesis questions, and brings us to the impact of the Learning Fellows Seminar on the participants‟ teaching practices.

5.7 Influence on teaching practices

110

At this point let us turn to the participant responses concerning their teaching

practices and attitudes, and bring the second original thesis question into the

discussion:

B) “How did the program influence the day-to-day teaching practices and attitudes

of its participants?”

Fully 100% of the Learning Fellows who completed the survey or were interviewed reported that the seminar program had impacted their teaching practices. As I reflect on the changes that these participants report, it becomes clear that both an awareness of, and an appreciation for, a learner-centered teaching philosophy is the central theme. This can be seen in both their attitudes about their teaching, and also in the changes made in their day-to-day classroom practices. (See

Table #10 below for further breakdown).

Some of the most pervasive comments were that simply learning about learning itself, and the subsequent implications for teaching, were extremely helpful:

“People ask me all the time, „what did you learn in the seminars? What did you get out of it?‟ I have to tell them, I got tons out of it. I think of everything differently now, from the way I approach curriculum design to the way I manage the classroom. It was great.”

“It affected me greatly – gave me very many tips and tricks as well as a theoretical background I had never dreamed of. It really brought a breakthrough in my teaching.”

As one of our more senior Fellows added,

“It made me more aware of teaching methods that help to keep students engaged in learning. The program also provided me with support for my beliefs in the value of teaching and the manner of teaching that are not supported by my school. This was probably the biggest benefit to me.”

111

Another followed up with a similar theme:

“It provided much encouragement that some of the things I‟m currently doing are “on the right track”. It exposed me to some literature and topics I wasn‟t familiar with (reflective judgment, instructional alignment in part), and I will try to incorporate these ideas into my teaching. It pushed me to have higher expectations for my students, mostly through seeing the kinds of expectations my colleagues from around the campus have for their students. Gave me even more ideas for how to connect with students and how to make my classes more engaging. Gave me renewed excitement about my teaching, especially after being in the company of a group of colleagues who are also excited about and committed to teaching - this was very valuable.”

The seminar provided inspiration even for some of our most senior Fellows:

“This helped me in many ways. The idea of learning styles, rubrics, planning overall goals, specific tools like clickers, all came into clear focus for me. I have directly used everything, and moreover just the change in my mindset has been significant. In addition, I was able to share many of the things that I have been doing over the decades with young CWRU faculty.”

Several of our Fellows from professional schools also appreciated the seminars:

“I have come to regard teaching as more of an art that requires the integration of several formats and methods for success. The methods that I learned for group learning and assessment have already been integrated into my classes. I have learned that rather than being worried about delivering all of the content, I can teach the students how to examine the content as they read or interpret.”

“The program helped me become more self-reflective about my teaching methods and their real impact on students. I learned about how students experience the learning process and their different learning styles. My understanding of how they learn allowed me to rethink my approach to teaching, my preparation of materials and preparation for class, and how I created my assignments and conducted my classes so that student learning would be enhanced.”

112

5.8 Specific changes in the classroom

There are clearly many modifications and adjustments that Fellows have

adopted in their teaching. These fall into roughly the same categories we used to

design the program, including:

1. Key ideas and principles of learning, including: prior knowledge and the

construction of learning; the Learning Cycle of Experiential Learning and how this

differs among students; defining course goals more clearly (many adopted our

suggestion of a concept map to help visualize these more clearly); strategies for

planning “aligned” courses (where the course goals, teaching methods and

assessments are all in accord).

2. Practical applications for the classroom, including: creating a motivating

environment in the classroom; ways to establish that environment and how to use

positive first impressions from the first day; creating more successful lectures,

discussion and assessments; and using more active learning strategies, including

small group work .

3. Involving students more from the beginning, including student input for course design (where possible) and evaluation; incorporating student choice in assignments; and using the positive environment effectively.

Table #10 below displays the most frequently mentioned specific ideas that have influenced Learning Fellows, plus changes they introduced, into their classroom teaching. (For definitions of the terms in this table, see the Glossary of terms on page

14 of this paper).

113

TABLE #10: Specific new ideas for classroom teaching (N = 62)

N = 15 26 28 5

New idea PROF ASSOC ASST LECT

Active learning 53% 65% 71% 100% Alignment 13% 62% 86% 60% Concept maps 47% 35% 32% 60% First day 20% 46% 36% 100% Journals 13% 23% 29% 0% Learning cycle 67% 69% 54% 60% Learning styles 33% 65% 71% 100% Metacognition 7.0% 23% 36% 0% Prior knowledge 27% 62% 54% 100% Rubrics 27% 65% 54% 100%

The concept that students (and faculty) have different approaches to their

learning was one of the most significant, and resulted in many of the distinguishing

new teaching methods. More than a third of those surveyed specifically mentioned

that differences among learning preferences had influenced them in planning their

course activities.

“Would have to say the most inspirational part of the experience was to actually learn how people learn!”

“The program gave me new frameworks to think about teaching: the life cycle of learning and different learning styles…these allow me to rethink my course syllabi and day-today activities/ also how to work efficiently with students on a

114

one-to-one basis, for example, first try to establish how they prefer to learn.”

“I became more sensitive to the fact that students have different learning styles and that different strategies need to be on hand to reach them – there is no magic pill that works for everyone.”

“After the Learning Fellows, I thought of everything differently. When I used to hear students complain sometimes, or argue with a concept, I used to think they were out in left field. Now I detach, and try to reach them in different ways, with different examples, knowing that their style of learning may be different from mine. That was a big change.”

“I became more aware of how important it is to appeal to students‟ different learning styles and to create different kinds of class exercises and rely less on lectures.”

Every respondent spoke of practical ideas for the classroom that they had adopted, or planned to adopt. Some of the more representative comments were:

“I learned how students‟ attention is strongest at the beginning of class, so I‟ve made an effort to convey critical information early in class rather than save it for the end as I often did in the past, thinking I was somehow pulling it all together.”

“I make time for many more reflective activities and writing.”

“I get much more feedback mid-semester from them about how the course is going. This gives me enough time to still make any appropriate changes.”

“I now meet with every student during the first few weeks to get to know them.”

“I LEARN ALL OF THEIR NAMES!” [speaker‟s own emphasis]

“My course is almost completely taught using discussion whereas I wouldn‟t have used nearly as much discussion in the past. This keeps the students much more engaged than before.”

115

Increasing student involvement and incorporating more connections to students‟ real lives was also a frequently mentioned issue. There are many ways to involve students more in the life of the class, and what many respondents found was that including students more, and giving them more responsibilities about the class, actually increased student interest and engagement.

“This program gave me ideas about how to make my classes more experiential, in the sense of relating material to experiences close to the students.”

“I found that the large number of students who benefit from the experiential strategies seem to bloom in their learning before your eyes.”

“I‟ve molded discussions to be a bit more free-form, to elicit more information and let the class influence the direction a bit more without getting too far off the track.”

“I‟ve involved the students in developing/ setting the grading criteria for their new assignments, I also rewrote some of my course outlines so they did not sound so “authoritative”.

“I no longer worry about the content to be covered or the order of its occurrence in the class. I‟ve learned that we‟ll get to the content eventually, but usually when it‟s brought up by the students. That puts the learning within the students‟ context rather than mine. Thus students are really interested when we discuss the content.”

“I use more flexible deadlines now – I tell students to look at their calendars, pick Monday – Friday of the same week, then they have to commit to it. They completely stopped asking for extensions! And it makes my life easier to have them coming in on different days.”

Using active learning strategies was also mentioned frequently as a practical addition:

“I‟ve spent a lot of time updating and revising my lectures to accommodate more time for discussion and role play.”

“I use lots more small groups in class and assignments! I call on these stable groups to respond to questions and problems 116

that I propose. This avoids the situation where the same students always give the answers and participate in the discussions.”

“I have such a big class – finding out ways to use groups more effectively really helped. I also implemented online discussion boards through Blackboard.”

“I integrate much more discussion into the classes – we cover less content, but they understand it much more deeply.”

Several faculty members also reported that the impact these changes seemed to have had on their students was substantial:

“My students have appeared more engaged in class. I think they are more interested in the materials they read and work with…My own growth as a teacher seems to have had an appreciable effect on the students‟ respect for me and on how they listen to me and generally interact with me. My class has been more enjoyable for everyone, and what is most important, I hope, is that more learning is taking place.”

“The majority of students “took flight” with the flexibility and showed remarkable insights in discussion.”

“This year‟s [ ] class was the best I‟ve ever had. The enthusiasm/ interest is high and they seem more engaged.”

“The students loved the new assignments – they were surprised to be involved in setting grading criteria, but the quality of their work improved.”

Others, though, stated that the student reactions were not entirely enthusiastic:

“Some liked the group participation, others weren‟t so thrilled.”

“A few grad students complained that I had shifted more of the responsibility of the course onto them (repeatedly students reported that they wished I had lectured more…).”

“I wish I could say my evaluations were fabulous. The positive ones were greatly positive and do seem to reflect some of the changes in strategies, especially the reflective and discussion opportunities. However, some students continued to give me negative feedback, and complained strongly about having to do the preparation and reading before the class…They identified a 117

need for very rigid content outlines, and wanted distinct deadlines printed on the syllabus. Interestingly, the students who wanted more structure were also the ones who wanted extra time for papers.”

It is interesting to hear that adding a more learner-centered focus felt like a burden to some of their students – though often it is students themselves who hold traditional views of the classroom and what the appropriate roles and activities should be. In the next section, I discuss some of the various avenues of support, or the lack thereof, that Learning Fellows felt, while incorporating some of the changes they had come to believe were important.

5.9 Support for making changes in teaching practices

At this point, we revisit the third area among the original thesis questions:

At CWRU, as with many universities, there are distinct differences between

the schools on the campus, and many reflected on this in the next question. Several

noted administrative support:

“My department Chair was very supportive, said “do what you want to do. If it works, fine, if not, we‟ll make changes”.

“We had a very aggressive [Dean] who encouraged faculty to try new teaching methods, particularly more active formats.”

Others pointed to technological offices on campus that were helpful:

“The ability to have wired classrooms was a huge help. Media vision helped me a lot.”

“Am spending a lot of time in the Freedman Center, turning VHS into DVD so I can insert short clips to discuss in class.”

118

Still others noted that departmental colleagues had been valuable:

“My senior colleagues were willing and interested in talking to me and helping me improve my teaching based on some of the ideas I had gotten from UCITE. A number of [my] faculty have done the Learning Fellows program and I think that‟s useful.”

“It was helpful that my co-instructor had completed [the Learning Fellows] last year and was familiar with the key concepts.”

And finally, some mentioned that the benefit that the Learning Fellows and

UCITE themselves provided was the most important:

“These changes were strictly personal. The only support I ever received in teaching has been this fellowship.”

“Support was the key – it was provided by UCITE and the Learning Fellows. I had only minimal support from [my school].”

The next question followed along the same lines as the previous question, and

asked if there were any factors that had hindered their efforts? The responses were

quite varied, and I believe reflect the very diverse nature of the university, as well as

the extremely busy schedules of our faculty. Many still felt the sting of institutional

pressures; that time was always a scare resource; and that teaching was still viewed

much less importantly than research, and doing it well brought few professional

acclaims.

Some expressed their frustration with institutional barriers, either in the way

that their classes were scheduled, or in the number of competing demands on their

time:

“A compressed format [in my class] was a significant barrier to using more experiential learning strategies.”

“Not having tenure has meant my time is pretty severely constrained. I‟d implement more things sooner if I had the time.” 119

“A number of institutional and personal factors combined – serving on committees, the university having financial issues and new administrations creating transitions – have all made it harder to focus on my teaching as much as I would like. I feel forced to prepare for my classes very quickly.”

“TIME; I really feel under the gun to get [a grant] submitted – I can only go so far in revising my teaching.”

“There is an institutional bias in favor of using the “Socratic Method” in large classes, and requirements about grading.”

Others discussed the resistance of students and colleagues alike:

“A lot of our students have pre-conceived notions about classes: some pretty strict norms already in mind.”

“Some faculty and even students are reluctant to change.”

Finally, some spoke again of the absence of significant institutional support:

“An overall lack of any importance placed on education [at our school] is a major obstacle. Between the poor facilities and the lack of recognition for teaching effort, I‟m surprised anyone wants to teach…We are held in the lowest regard.”

“It became even more obvious that teaching does not enter into faculty evaluations and I felt I was in the Learning Fellows program on my own time.”

5.10 Impact on the institution

The first three of my original thesis questions concern the impact of the

Learning Fellows Seminar program on its participants as individuals, and as teachers. From the data thus far, it becomes clear that many faculty members have made substantial changes to their teaching attitudes and classroom practices. The fourth and last of the original thesis questions now points us toward the institution they belong to, and what impact this program may have had at a larger level of consideration: 120

D) “Are there any other consequent institutional effects from this program?”

At the time of this writing we have had over 170 Learning Fellows participate in the Seminar program. They represent all 8 of the schools within the university, from 46 different departments. (The university has 84 departments in total, 35 of which are in the School of Medicine alone). The largest departmental representation thus far has been from the School of Arts & Sciences, from the English and Modern

Languages departments, with 11 participants each. (See Tables #1 and #2 for more detail).

From the data already presented it is clear that many individual professors have used the information presented in the seminars to augment, or significantly change, their teaching practices. Over the last five years, along with the numerous changes to the lives of the professors involved, there have been literally hundreds of students affected by these changes.

Faculty members have rewritten their courses, added active learning techniques to their classrooms, ventured into different professional arenas and found new collaborative partners as a result of this program. The first days of classes have become more welcoming in many instances, with grading rubrics and concept maps clarifying many course expectations for students and faculty alike. With new knowledge of Experiential Learning Theory and the variety of Learning Styles among both learners and faculty, many faculty members are now adjusting their day-to-day classroom techniques to accommodate and engage different types of learners.

Many expressed satisfaction with their teaching that they had never felt before, and that this too had changed their feelings about their careers in general.

Many of our Fellows stated that the community created was instrumental in how they

121

felt toward the university as a whole, and that finding a “safe haven” of like-minded souls on the research campus was both nourishing and validating.

Still others expressed that because the “new” teaching techniques advanced

with more student involvement and activity, they had more time to pursue their

research interests. One of the more intriguing comments provides the potential for a

tremendously beneficial outcome from the Learning Fellows Seminar:

“The notion of making the students more active participants in the course might enable me to lessen my prep time for class and thus open up more time for research and writing.”

Some of the more senior members were humbled by the information offered in the seminar, and even the most skeptical entrants found the experience helpful.

Many have suggested that this program become a required one for faculty:

“I think this is an absolutely essential program. If Case wishes to promote excellence in all endeavors, it cannot neglect teaching. Indeed, I wish this was mandatory for all faculty.”

“It is an outstanding program that has enormous benefits and has no doubt enhanced teaching and learning in the Case community. Too many faculty members go into teaching without any formal training in learning theory or teaching techniques. I wish this was mandatory for all faculty - it is quite challenging to inform/educate my colleagues as to why some of our traditions and practices might be problematic and why there is sometimes such a high level of student dissatisfaction. It would be much easier if everyone could be exposed to the ideas and issues in the LF‟s program.”

“As more faculty have the opportunity to learn in this seminar and share their insights into teaching with their colleagues and students at the various schools, the program has even greater potential to have a positive impact throughout the Case community.”

122

“This program is vital to Case as it works to enhance the teaching and learning environment for faculty and students…To be the “world‟s most powerful learning environment” we need to create a balance between research, teaching, and other scholarly efforts. A program such as [this] is ideal for keeping teaching excellence in the forefront of professors‟ minds.”

„I think this program is a great asset to the Case teaching community. I also think that research faculty would benefit from this program. I have witnessed too many abysmal lectures from faculty that teach once or twice a year.”

Several expressed new pride in the university after this program:

“Focusing on teaching as a significant part of [this] career experience was a good thing. It was good to liaise with faculty from other schools and hear about their issues in the classroom. Puts my experience in a broader “Case Western Reserve University” context.”

“This had tremendous effect on my work life. It‟s inspirational and affirmative.”

“I enjoyed the class and meetings. I feel good about CWRU and its faculty.”

123

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

This chapter outlines three major themes that I have identified in reviewing

the aggregate data collected: from discussions, surveys and documents written by

Fellows from the program‟s nine semesters, and again using the original thesis

questions as a guide. There were a number of significant outcomes for its

participants: many faculty members expressed a strong sense of isolation before

attending the Learning Fellows Seminars, combined with a lack of support for

teaching, both of which were positively affected by their participation in the

program.

The Seminar program created a sense of community for its members, which

diminished both their feelings of isolation, and sense of lack of support. They felt

newly validated, and empowered. This carried over into both their classroom

activities and their careers in general. The use of Experiential Learning Theory in the

program significantly enhanced their understanding of, and subsequent use of, more

learner-centered teaching methods.

6.1. Common Themes

1. Lack of support for teaching: As a research university, CWRU values good research, but in its day-to-day practices does not universally support or reward good teaching, though its public statements would indicate otherwise. The support for, and value of, good teaching varies tremendously by department and school within the university. For many participants, the idea that teaching would of necessity take a

124

back seat to research was difficult at best. For many, teaching well was critically important, and to allow it to become neglected was not a realistic personal choice.

Over and again, participants stated the same thought – that as a research

university the institution itself did not universally value or support teaching as an

activity. This by itself should not come as a surprise, but the vehemence with which

the individuals described this experience was surprising. Faculty members expressed

the thought that while the university as a whole embraced teaching as part of its

mission, and a critically valuable part of its goals, in practice teaching was often

treated as either a waste of time, or at best a less valuable activity.

“Case Western Reserve University‟s mission is to serve society as a leading center for undergraduate, graduate, and professional education, for research constitute the university community pursue and represent this mission through their teaching, research, professional activities and public service, all marked by a commitment to continuous learning…” (CWRU Website: www.case.edu)

In virtually every college within the university, faculty members expressed their concern that research dollars far outweighed teaching excellence in the promotion and tenure process. The message given publicly was that teaching mattered. Privately, faculty was told that “good enough” was enough.

2. Importance of community: Teaching under any circumstances can be an isolating, and potentially frustrating experience. The support of colleagues can shift this isolation to a sense of community. The community created within the Learning

Fellows was especially valuable not only because it created a safe haven, but also it

125

was among like-minded individuals who shared a passion and dedicated responsibility for teaching.

For many of our Learning Fellows Seminar participants, the community

established within the seminar was one of the most valuable parts of the experience.

This was not only in literally meeting colleagues from other parts of the university

(whom they might not have met under other circumstances), which gave them a

sense of community, heretofore absent from their professional experience, but also in

giving them a place in which to feel at home.

The UCITE Learning Fellows Seminar gave its members a sense of

community beyond that in which they generally functioned: here was a place where

they were understood, where there were “like-minded” souls, with whom they could

communicate freely, and in concert. This was a group in which they could speak

honestly, knowing that there was a common value placed on teaching, one they did

not need to defend or justify.

Again and again, I heard individuals speak with relief that there were other

instructors on our campus who respected and valued the art of teaching, who viewed

teaching as an important, even critical activity in the life of the university. For many

of these individuals, teaching was commonly experienced as the most difficult,

though often the most rewarding, thing they could do.

Many of the participants also expressed their joy in the establishment of this

collegial atmosphere by the facilitators themselves. The “modeling” of the best kinds

of teaching methods became for many the model for ideal teaching environments:

respectful, yet humane, always with compassion, humor and an open ear and heart.

126

I think this has to do somewhat with the structure of the program itself, but

much more with the personalities of the facilitators. Zull and Singham are both well-

respected scholars in their fields, but they came to this program not as experts, but

as fellow faculty members and participants. They model the best behavior of mentors

and guides: in their speech and manner they are respectful of their learners.

I imagine many would find a room full of opinionated scholar- faculty

members from every part of the university to be a daunting environment. The

facilitators approached this as the easiest thing in the world. In their every action

they are respectful, listen carefully, take someone‟s idea and build on it to create an

appreciative and positive culture. They establish an atmosphere of lightness and

humor mixed with very serious study and research. And the human qualities are

always at the forefront: the participants in the seminars know they are respected as

fellow colleagues.

The experience of being a Learning Fellow gave additional confidence to many of its participants, who went on to take initiative in various forms, either within their classes, departments, or schools. The changes these individuals enacted covered a broad range, and they were unrelated to experience level, position, or school.

For many of the participants, the Learning Fellows Seminar experience gave

them the confidence, the impetus to develop changes either in their own classrooms

or within their departments. For Professor C. it meant not only taking a more

confident stand in her classroom (“just allowing myself to trust my instincts”), but

writing a multi-page set of ideas she had gleaned from the seminars and sharing

them with her departmental colleagues.

127

For others, it meant being called upon to give teaching strategies, since they

were “the ones who had had this special training”. For Professor S., it meant

speaking up at department meetings for the first time, knowing that he knew what

he was talking about, and that he “had research to back it up”. For Professor K., it

meant explicitly telling his students he had “made a mistake”. For all of these

teachers, the Learning Fellows programs allowed them to do things they might not

have considered before.

3. The teacher-centered classroom of old is an outdated model: In their use of

Experiential Learning Theory, the facilitators modeled ideas of establishing a motivating, more learner-centered environment and teaching behaviors, and demonstrated practical, concrete solutions to common teaching challenges.

For many, their very role within the classroom shifted, from one of centrally

located “knowledge – imparting” individual, to one of mentor and guide. For several

of the participants, this shift was quite dramatic: their roles themselves changed –

instead of feeling their own power within the classroom, they began to feel the power

of (and respect for) their students.

By stepping back within the classroom, and establishing a more humble

position, they were in fact honoring their students, and respecting their abilities to

create their own learning. By accepting their students‟ prior learning as an

opportunity, they were again honoring the individuals mutually engaged in learning

with them in the classroom.

An unexpected theme, which emerged from the interviews and surveys, was

one concerning a balance between professional and personal goals and aspirations.

128

For many, there was an overwhelming sense that professionally, they were told again and again that the most important part of their “jobs” was to do research, and that this would have the most impact on their promotion and tenure process.

But in reality it was teaching, which gave them both the most satisfaction and challenge on a daily basis, and when these instructors‟ classes went well, they felt especially gratified. When their classes did not go as well as they would have liked, everything else, including their research, suffered.

This reconciliation between professional and personal pressures involved daily, weekly, and yearly choices, which were in some cases clearly painful. For many, UCITE presented a cheerful oasis from the realities of their departments, and the struggles to maintain both professional status, and personal integrity when facing their students in the classroom.

6.2 Implications for Further Research

Since the initial offering of the UCITE Learning Fellows Seminars in the

Spring of 2003, Case Western Reserve University has seen several shifts within its administrative leadership. The development of the seminar itself was a direct result of the efforts of two of the previous Presidents, who wanted to improve the educational experience for the students, specifically through the use of Experiential

Learning.

At the heart of Experiential Learning Theory is an honoring of the individual, and that individual‟s experience. As in experiential learning theory itself, honoring the experience of the individual student became paramount. Interestingly, this came about by honoring the experience of the teacher.

129

Over the next few years, I would like to continue to follow up with former

Fellows: have they maintained the changes they intended to? If so, how were they

able to accomplish this? And if not, what were the barriers they experienced? Are

these barriers perceived to a different extent, or in different ways, by the various

groups among the faculty?

As we look to our twelfth semester of this program in the Spring semester of

2010, I am extremely hopeful that we will soon have touched virtually every

department on the campus, and that the message of more student-centered learning

will continue to flourish.

With this dawning awareness of the myriad ways that classroom teaching can be enhanced, one can only imagine the effect as entire departments gently shift toward a more learner-centered focus.

130

APPENDIX A:

Interview Protocol:

Name:

Department, Position:

How long have you been at CWRU?

How long have you been teaching?

Have you ever had training in pedagogy?

What do you teach now?

What was the experience of the seminar like for you?

Were there areas of the seminar that were particularly helpful to you?

What was the experience of “being a student” like for you?

Did you feel you learned anything in the seminar?

What was that process like for you?

If you felt you did learn, was it from the instructors? Was it from other members of the seminar? Was it on your own?

Has your philosophy of teaching changed?

If so, how?

Has your view of your role as a teacher changed?

If so, how?

Are there specific areas of your teaching that you will change, following this experience?

If so, how did you choose those areas?

If so, what will those changes be?

131

Recruitment Letter:

Dear ______,

As you may know, Sarah Walleck (whom you remember from our seminars) is writing her dissertation for her PhD in Organizational Behavior on the Learning Fellows Seminars. Her paper traces the program from its inception, through its evolution over six semesters, and finally to its impact on the participants and the campus overall.

In order for her to complete this work, I would really appreciate it if you could complete the attached questionnaire and consent form, and send them back to the UCITE office before October 21st. If you would be willing to speak to Sarah in more detail about your experiences since your participation in the program, she would be happy to set up individual appointments (again, through our office, at [email protected]).

This is really important in order for Sarah to complete her degree and for us to evaluate the program so I hope, although I know you are all very busy, that you will be able to spare the time to attend to it promptly.

We have experienced wonderful semesters with the Learning Fellows, and have been fortunate to receive significant financial support from the Provost‟s office, though at this point our funding is no longer guaranteed for the coming semesters. Obviously, the more positive results Sarah can demonstrate in her paper, the better our chances of receiving future funding for similar programs.

Thank you for your help,

Mano

132

Learning Fellows Questionnaire (I am interested in hearing as much as you can share about your reactions to these questions. Please don’t worry about formal prose – I want to capture as much of your thoughts and reactions as possible - please use additional space as necessary)

About you, the participant: 1. Name: ______Department: ______

 How many years have you been at Case?  How many years have you been teaching in total?  What courses do you teach currently?

About the seminars and your teaching: 2. How did the program influence your teaching?

3. Were there specific changes you introduced following your Learning Fellow experience? If yes, please describe:

4. What impact, if any, do you think this has had on your students?

5. Were there any notable changes in your evaluations?

6. What factors, if any, (institutional, personnel, other), provided support for the changes you made?

7. What factors, if any, (institutional, personnel, other), hindered your efforts?

8. What successes have you experienced since the program?

9. What disappointments/ challenges have you faced since the program?

10. Beyond the classroom, did this program have any impact on other areas of your life?  Your research?  Career satisfactions?  Other areas of your life?

11. Are there any other comments you wish to make about the Learning Fellows‟ Program?

12. Would you be willing to be interviewed about your experiences?

133

APPENDIX B

INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT Learning Fellows: A Model of Faculty Development Through Experiential Learning

You are being asked to participate in a research study about the UCITE Learning Fellows seminar program. You were selected as a possible participant because of your membership in the Learning Fellows program. Please read this form and ask any questions that you may have before agreeing to be in the research.

Researchers at Case Western Reserve University are conducting this research.

Background Information The background of this research is to study the UCITE Learning Fellows Program as a model for faculty development.

Procedures: If you agree to be a participant in this research, we would ask you to do the following things: There would be periodic interviews (during the program and after) which will be audio taped. The expected duration of the participation would be less than six months, with each interview (2) lasting less than one hour.

Risks and Benefits to Being in the Study: There are no foreseeable risks. The benefits of participation are those mainly gained by future Learning fellows, in terms of improved program or continued funding.

Compensation: There is no monetary compensation for participation.

Confidentiality: The records of this research will be kept private. They will be kept in a locked file and any report we publish will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a participant. Access to research records will normally be limited to the researchers. However, the University‟s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and other regulatory agencies may review the research records to ensure that the rights of human subjects are being adequately protected. Only the researchers will have access to audio tapes, and they will be destroyed within 18 months of the completion of the study.

Voluntary Nature of the Study:

134

Your participation is voluntary. If you choose not to participate, it will not affect your current or future relations with the University as a whole or with UCITE. There is no penalty or loss of benefits for not participating or for discontinuing your participation.

You will be provided with any significant new findings that develop during the course of the research that may make you decide that you want to stop participating.

Contacts and Questions: The researcher conducting this study is Sarah McClusky Walleck [de Swart]. You may ask any questions you have now. If you have any questions later, you may reach her at (216) 529-0278.

If you would like to talk to someone other than the researcher about (1) concerns regarding this study, (2) research participant rights, (3) research- related injuries, or (4) other human subject issues, please contact Case Western Reserve University‟s Review Board at (216) 368-6925 or write: Case Western Reserve University; Institutional Review Board; 10900 Euclid Ave.; Cleveland, OH 44106-7015.

You will be given a copy of this for your records.

Statement of Consent: I have read the above information. I have received answers to the questions I have asked. I consent to participate in this research. I am at least 18 years of age. Yes No I consent to audiotape of interviews.

Print Name of Participant:______

Signature of Participant:______Date:______

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent:______Date:______

135

REFERENCES

Alstete, J. W. (2000). Post-tenure faculty development: Building a system for faculty improvement and appreciation (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 27 [4]). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ambady, Nalini & Rosenthal, Robert (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluation from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology , V 64 (3), p. 431 – 441.

Anderson, M. (1992). Imposters in the temple. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Austin, A.E. (2002 January/February). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education, V 73 (1), 94-122.

Baker, Ann C., Jensen, Patricia J., and Kolb, D.A. (2002) Conversational Learning: An experiential approach to knowledge creation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Beach, Andrea L (2003). Unpublished dissertation. “Strategies to improve college teaching: The role of organizational influence on faculty instructional practices”. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Biggs, John (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Bland, C.J., & Schmitz, C.C. (1990). The faculty development literature: An overview and bibliography. In: Schuster, J.H. and Wheeler, D.W., (Eds.). Enhancing faculty career: Strategies for renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bloom, B. (1984). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

Boice, Robert (1989). Psychologists as faculty developers, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, V 20 (2), 97 – 104.

Boice, Robert (2000). Advice for New Faculty Members, Needham Heights, MA.: Allyn & Bacon.

Border, L.L.B. (2007). Understanding Learning Styles: The key to unlocking deep learning and in-depth teaching. NEA Higher Education Advocate, V 24 (5), 5 – 8.

Borredon, L., Deffayet, S., Baker, A.C., Kolb, D. (2007). Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University Working Paper.

Bourne, B., Gates, L., & Cofer, J. (2000). Setting strategic directions using critical success factors. Planning for Higher Education, V 28 (4), 10 – 18. 136

Bok, Derek (1986). Higher Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Boyer, Ernest L. (1987). College: the undergraduate experience in America. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Boyer, Ernest L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered, Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. California/ Princeton Fulfillment Services.

Braskamp, L.A., Brandenburg, D.C. and Ory, J.C. (1984). Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness: A Practical Guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brookfield, S.D. (1990). The Skillful Teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Campus News. (February 6, 2003). “Edward Hundert Inaugural”, Case Western Reserve University, pp. 1 – 2.

Centra, J. A. (1978). Types of faculty development programs, Journal of Higher Education, V 49, 151 – 152.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, V 54 (3), 77 – 80.

DeZure, D. (Ed.). (2000). Learning from change: Landmarks in teaching and learning in higher education from Change Magazine, 1969-1999. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Druskat, V. (with D. Kayes), (2000). Group Emotional Competency and Its Influence on Group Effectiveness, Emotional Competency in Organizations (C. Cherniss and D, Goleman, Eds.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Druskat, V. (with S. Wolff), (2001). Learning Versus Performance in Short-term Project Teams, Small Groups Research, V 31 (3).

Eble, K.E. (1972). Professors as teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Eble, K.E. & McKeachie, W.J. (1985). Improving undergraduate education through faculty development: An analysis of effective programs and practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ewell, P. (2001). A review of tests performed on the data in Measuring Up 2000 (Center Report No. 01-1). San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

137

Freidman, Lynn (2002). Faculty Professional Development: A Primer for School Leaders. NAIS Website (nais.org).

Frost, Susan & Teodorescu, Daniel (2001). Teaching Excellence: How Faculty Guided Change at a Research University, Review of Higher Education, V 24 (4), 397 – 415.

Gardiner, Steve (June, 2008). Phi Delta Kappan. http://www.pdkintl.org/index.htm.

Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, V 5 (1), 87 – 100.

Gladwell, Malcolm (2005). Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking, New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.

Gross Davis, Barbara (2009). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gullatt, David E. & Weaver, Sue W. (1997). Use of Faculty Development Activities to Improve the Effectiveness of U.S. Institutions of Higher Education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (22nd, Hines City, FL, October 16 – 19, 1997).

Hadfield, J. (2006). Teacher education and trainee learning style. RELC Journal, V 37, 367 – 386.

Hernandez, A. E., and Schmidt, S.J. (1995). The role of student, instructor and administrator perception of effective teaching. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, V 6 (3), 85 – 94.

Hersh, R. & Merrow, J., Editors (2005). Declining by degrees: higher education at risk. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hickcox, L.K. (2002). Personalized teaching through experiential learning. College Teaching, V 50 (4), 123-28.

Houseman, J. (1997). Infusion, not diffusion: A strategy for incorporating information technology into higher education. Journal of Distance Education, V 12 (1/2), 1 – 28.

Huber, R.( 1992) How professors play the cat guarding the cream: Why we‟re paying more and getting less in higher education. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.

Hurt, P.K., and Williamson, K.J. (1991). Teaching Through the Cycle: Application of Learning Style Theory to Engineering Education at Brigham Young University. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.

138

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Jones, R. W. (2007). Learning and Teaching in small groups: Characteristics, benefits, problems and approaches. Anesthesia and Intensive Care ,V 35 (4), 587- 592.

Kang, Bai & Miller, Michael T. (2000). Faculty Development: Research Findings, the Literature Base, and Directions for Future Scholarship (available as online analysis ERIC: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019 b/80/16/96/2a.pdf).

Katz, J., and Henry, M. (1988). Turning Professors into Teachers. New York, NY: American Council on Education and Macmillan.

Kayes, D.C. (2002), Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Academy of Management and Learning, V 1 (2), 137 – 149.

Kayes, A., Kayes, D.C., & Kolb, D.A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation and Gaming, V 36 (3), 330 – 354.

King, Kathleen P. & Lawler, Patricia A. (2003). Best Practices in Faculty Development in North American Higher Education: Distinctions and Dilemmas. Journal of Faculty Development, V 19 (1), 29 – 36.

King, P. M. & Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kneale, P., Bradbeer, J. & Healy, M. (2006). Learning Styles, disciplines and enhancing learning in higher education. In Sims, R., and Sims, S. (Eds.). Learning styles and learning: A key to meeting the accountability demands in education. Hauppage, NY: Nova Publishers.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by Rewards. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D.A., Boyatzis, R., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). Experiential learning theory : previous research and new directions. Prepared for R.J. Sternberg and L.F. Zhang (Eds.). Perspectives on cognitive learning, and thinking styles.

Kolb, A.Y. & Kolb, D.A., (2003). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Working paper Series: Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. 139

Kolb, A.Y. & Kolb, D.A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education, Academy of Management Learning and Education, V 4 (2), 193-212.

Kolb, A.Y. & Kolb, D.A. (2006). A review of Multidisciplinary application of experiential learning theory in higher education. In Sims, R., and Sims, S., (Eds.). Learning Styles and learning: A key to meeting the accountability demands in education. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.

Kolb, A., & Kolb, D.A. (2008). Experiential Learning Theory: A Dynamic, Holistic Approach to Management Learning, Education and Development. Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University Working Paper.

Kumaravadivelu, B.A. (1995). A multidimensional model for peer evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, V 6 (3), 95 -113.

Lafferty, J. Clayton, Eady, Patrick & Pond, Alonzo W. (1970). The Desert Survival Situation™ .

Langer, E.J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Light, R. J. (2001). Making the Most Out of College: Students Speak Their Minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lionni, L. (1970). Fish is Fish. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf.

Mann, K.V., Sutton, E. & Frank, B. (2007). Twelve tips for preparing residents as teachers. Medical Teacher, V 29 (4), 301-306.

Marcinkiewicz, H. & Doyle, T. (2004). New Faculty Professional Development. Stillwater, OK: New Forums.

Martinez, & Wolverton, M. (2009). Innovative Strategy Making in Higher Education. New York, NY: barnesandnoble.com.

McKeachie, W.J. (2005). Teaching Tips: A Guide for the Beginning College Teacher (11th Edition). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

McLean, M., Cilliers, F., Van Wyk, J.M. (2008). Faculty development yesterday, today and tomorrow. Medical Teacher, V 30 (6), 555 – 584.

McNeil, P.H., Hughes, C.S., Toohey, S.M. & Dowton, S.B. (2006). An innovative outcomes-based medical education program built on adult learning principles. Medical Teacher , V 28 (6), 527 – 534.

140

Meacham, Jack & Ludwig, Jeanette (1997). Faculty and Students at the Center: Faculty Development for General Education Courses, Journal of General Education, V 46 (3), 169 -83.

Menges, Robert (1985). Career-Span Faculty Development, College Teaching, V 33 (4), 181 -84.

Merriam, Sharon B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Meyers, S. A., Green, P. M., Pincham, L. B., & Seiser, R. (2007). Including service- learning in your class: How we did it. In S. A. Meyers (Ed.), Proceedings of the Roosevelt University Mini-Conference on Teaching , V 4, 2-6. Chicago: Roosevelt University.

Milton, O. (1976). “Research vs. Teaching?” Teaching- Learning Issues, no. 32. Knoxville, TN: Learning resource Center, University of Tennessee.

Moohanna, K., Chambers, R. & Wall, D. (2007). Developing your teaching style: Increasing effectiveness in healthcare teaching. Postgraduate Medical Journal, V 83 (977), 145 - 147

Neff, Rose Ann and Weimer, Maryellen (1989). Classroom Communication. Madison, WI: Magna Publications.

Nilson, Linda B. (2003). Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

Novak, Joseph D. (1984). Learning How to Learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Osgood, Ann F., and York, Paula A. (1992). Faculty Teacher Training at the Post- Secondary Level., Northern Maine Technical College.

Palmer, Parker (1993). Good talk about good teaching; improving teaching through conversation and community. Change Magazine, Magazine of Higher Learning, November, 1993.

Palmer, Parker (1998, 2007). The Courage to Teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Phitayakorn, R., Gelula, M.H. & Malangoni, M.A. (2007). Surgical journal clubs: A bridge connecting experiential learning theory to clinical practice. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, V 204 (1), 158- 163.

Pickett, N. and Dodge, B. (2001). Rubrics for Web Lessons [Online] 22 October 2001. http://edweb.sdsu.edu/webquest/rubrics/weblessons.htm.

141

Pintrich, Paul R. (2004), A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in Learning and Teaching Contexts, Journal of Educational Psychology, V 95 (4), 667 – 686; summarized in The Teaching Professor, V 18 (3), March, 2004.

Pittas, Peggy (2000). A Model Program from the Perspective of Faculty Development, Innovative Higher Education, V 25 (2).

President‟s Commission on Undergraduate Education and Life (2001). Education Through Experience: A White Paper. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University.

Prince, M.J. & Felder, R.M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, V 95 (2), 123- 138.

Regan-Smith, M., Hirschmann, K. & Lobst, W. (2007). Direct observation of faculty with feedback: An effective means of improving patient-centered teaching skills. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, V 19 (3), 278- 286.

Ridley, R.T. (2007). Interactive teaching: A concept analysis. Journal of Nursing Education, V 46 (5), 203 – 209.

Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J., Eds. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Rosenfeld, M. & Rosenfeld, S. (2006). Understanding teacher responses to constructivist learning environments: Challenges and resolutions. Science Education, V 90 (3), 385 – 399.

Ryan, C.W., & Bernard, H.R., (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, V 15, 85-109.

Salter, D.W., Evans, N.J., & Forney, D.S. (2006). A longitudinal study of learning style preferences on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Learning Style Inventory in the Classroom. Journal of College Student Development, V 47 (2), 173 – 184.

Salamon, L.M., (2003). The resilient sector: the state of nonprofit America. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Saroyan, Alenoush and Amundsen, Cheryl (2004). Rethinking Teaching in Higher Education. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing.

Serow, R., P. Van Dyk, E. McComb, and A. Harrold. (2002). Cultures of undergraduate teaching at research universities. Innovative Higher Education, V 27, 25-37.

142

Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A.E., Eddy, P.L., & Beach, A.L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Scriven, Michael (1967). “The Methodology of Evaluation”, in Ralph W. Tyler et al., eds., Perspectives in Evaluation, American Educational Research Association Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, (1). Chicago, Il: Rand McNally, pp. 39 – 83.

Sharp, J.E. (2006). Rationale and strategies for using Kolb Learning Style Inventory in the Classroom. In Sims, R., and Sims, S. (Eds.). Learning styles and learning: A key to meeting the accountability demands in education. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.

Singer, Susan (2002). Learning and Teaching Centers: Hubs of Educational Reform. New Directions for Higher Education, (119).

Spence, L. (2001). “The Case Against Teaching”, Change Magazine, Magazine of Higher Learning, Nov. – Dec., 1 – 19.

Stake, Robert E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stassen, M., & Sorcinelli, M.D. (2001). Making assessment matter: Effective assessment can indeed inform teaching and learning. NEA Higher Education Advocate, V 18 (4), 5 – 8.

Steinert, Y., Mann, K. & Centeno, A. Et al. (2006). A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8. Medical Teacher, V 28 (6),497 – 526.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (, 1990, 1998, 2008). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Strauss, A., & Glaser, B. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Svinicki, M.D. & Dixon, N.M. (1987). The Kolb Model modified for classroom activities. College Teaching, V 35 (4), 141 – 146.

Sykes, C. (1988) ProfScam: Professors and the demise of higher education. Washington DC: Regency Gateway.

Teaching at Emory (1997). Commission on Teaching, Emory University. Atlanta, GA.

Teitel, Lee (1994). “Re-Inventing Myself as a Teacher”. Teaching Education, V 6 (1), 85-90, Fall Winter 1994. 143

Torrey, Evelyn J. (2002). Faculty development centers in higher education: Incorporating diversity and technology. EdD dissertation at Florida Atlantic University.

Travis, Jon (1996). Models for Improving College Teaching: A Faculty Resource. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Series 95 –6, V 24, (6).

Weimer, Maryellen (1990). Improving College Teaching: Strategies for Developing Instructional Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

Weimer, Maryellen (2002). Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Welch, R.W., Quadrato, C., & Albert, B.C., (2003). United States Military Academy, from “Proceedings of the 2003 ASEE/WFEO International Colloquium, American Society for Engineering Education.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of Practice. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (1st ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.

Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.

Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.

Zahorski, Kenneth (2002). Nurturing Scholarship Through Holistic Faculty Development: A Synergistic Approach, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, V 90.

Zull, James E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

144