Printer FriendlyPrologue
The first chapter of the
Background
Areas of Activity
Early in the last decade of the twentieth century, a group of UML faculty and administrative leaders established the Council on Undergraduate Teaching. This Council was committed to discovering ways to establish a campus community that promotes excellent teaching and enhances student learning.
The Council was driven by a group of established professors already recognized for their classroom expertise, along with Dr. Robert Wagner, the UML Provost, and Dr. Jacqueline Moloney, then Director of the UML Centers for Learning and Academic Support Services (CLASS). Faculty members provided the impetus needed for a collegial effort; the Provost obtained financial support, and Dr. Moloney coordinated efforts to organize and develop the teaching center.
Although only a few
Research showed that colleges and universities pioneering this effort had developed a variety of initiatives. Faculty were being offered a number of options; for example, some campuses offered seed grants to support innovative approaches to teaching, others provided faculty with seminars to explore research on teaching, while still others offered brown bag lunches to discuss current classroom practices. The Council saw potential in all of these ideas. Believing that the University required dedicated staff and space to support active initiatives, the Council established the Faculty Teaching Center (FTC) in 1993, appointing Dr. Mary Beaudry as Director.
Drs. Beaudry and Moloney worked closely to establish an identity of service for the Center. Most Center activities would be suggested and/or directed by faculty groups. Two Council Task Forces already in existence¾The Task Force on Faculty Development and the Task Force on Teaching and Learning Excellence¾provided a basis for some early initiatives. The Faculty Development group accepted proposals for faculty members to attend conferences in their academic disciplines; the Teaching and Learning group spearheaded discussions of teaching. The role of the
By the end its first year of operation, the FTC had defined four major areas of activity: 1. Developing Seed Grant Programs, 2. Developing Colloquia to Recognize Faculty and Promote Excellent Teaching, 3. Providing Professional Consultation on Teaching and Learning, and 4. Providing Resources and Support. These overarching areas continued to be the focus of FTC activity.
1. Developing Seed Grant Programs
As the
The Seed Grant program encouraged scholarship and instructional development. Each spring the
Proposals were reviewed by a faculty screening committee and awards for the next academic year were announced by July 1. Final reports of seed grant projects described results and recommended next steps.
When the faculty union contract provided funds for faculty to travel to academic conferences, the Seed Grant Task Force directed its efforts to encourage explorations in teaching. Later RFPs offered funding for Teaching and Learning Grants and for Faculty/Student Collaborative Grants. The latter recognized the growing awareness that undergraduate student research and collaboration with faculty mentors enhances learning.
In the period between 1993 and the start of 2007, over 350 proposals were received and reviewed by the Seed Grant Task Force. Of those proposals, a total of 166 were funded. Many important and interesting projects were completed as a result of the work of this Task Force; for example, projects included investigation of graphing calculators in the mathematics classroom, computer assisted instruction in microbiology, team taught interdisciplinary teaching, test construction in distance learning, developing video case studies, and using a personal response system for student engagement. These are only a few examples of many valuable seed grant projects completed by faculty during these years.
2. Colloquia: Events and Workshops to Reflect on Teaching
Charged with building a collegial atmosphere to support discussions about teaching, the Faculty Teaching Center developed an extensive program to promote such conversations. One of the first initiatives to accomplish this goal was the Conversation Dinner.
Conversation Dinners provided opportunities to reflect on effective teaching practices and to recognize outstanding UML teachers. Originally inspired by a program at Middlesex Community College, the UML Conversation Dinners proved to be one of the most enduring and increasingly popular activities offered by the Faculty Teaching Center.
During the first year of the FTC’s operation, a faculty lounge was created in Lydon Library. The lounge, which seated about 85 faculty for a dinner, became the meeting space for Conversation Dinners and other functions.
Conversation Dinners were planned with and funded by the Enrichment Task Force (formerly the Task Force on Teaching and Learning Excellence). The Task Force, comprised almost entirely of faculty members, suggested timely topics, formats, and speakers that would be of interest to UML faculty.
Typically, Conversation Dinners began with a reception, followed by three speakers and a moderator— usually from the UML campus—who focused on the topic of the day. Speakers were chosen for their expertise on the topic. Also taken into consideration was the need to balance presentations from different academic fields. Each speaker was presented with a plaque recognizing the contribution to the teaching/learning dialogue on our campus.
Fostering reflection on teaching was the focus of these events. Topics included learning-centered teaching, cultural diversity as it affects teaching, integrating research and teaching, teaching with technology, and interdisciplinary learning. Topics were chosen for timely interest. In addition to UML faculty members, a number of external experts were featured speakers.
Featured speakers from outside of UML included Carol Owen of Northeastern University, Donald Farmer of King’s College, Richard Light of Harvard University, Mary Dean Sorcinelli and Matt Ouellett of UMass Amherst, Randy Bass of Georgetown University, Selma Botman of the UMass President’s Office, Steve Gilbert of the TLT Group in Washington, D.C., and Liz Dawes and Matt Miller also of Harvard University.
In the period between 1993 and 2007, The FTC hosted more than 30 Conversation Dinners featuring more than 120 speakers. Attendance at each event averaged about 80 faculty members¾although many times additional faculty unable to stay for dinner would come to hear the presentations. These dinners became so popular that other Councils and groups on campus also sponsored faculty dinners¾giving UML faculty several opportunities for cost-free professional development dinners each year.
Course planning seminars as well as teaching and technology workshops began in 1994.The latter were co-sponsored with Educational Computing, headed by Howard Kaplan. The technology seminars melded pedagogy with technology. A series of course planning sessions ran during the summer to plan and develop materials for the Values and Creative Thinking course for Freshmen. An interdisciplinary faculty group and the Centers for Learning staff were involved in those weekly sessions. These seminars and workshops laid the groundwork for a more extensive program of faculty workshops that began in the summer of 1995.
The Enrichment Task Force suggested that a series of faculty workshops, called Faculty Institutes, be offered immediately after graduation in June. These Institutes were three-day workshops¾each focused on a particular topic. The offerings for 1995 were Syllabus Redesign, Teaching and Technology, Distance Learning, and Proposal Writing. Workshop leaders were UML faculty and staff members. Over 60 faculty members from 22 departments participated in the first Faculty Institute. The popularity of Faculty Institutes continues as the number and variety of topics has grown and changed.
To the pedagogy, research, and technology topics, were added professional development workshops. At the request of junior faculty members looking ahead to the promotion and tenure process, the Teaching Center explored the possibility of offering a workshop on that topic. With the advice and consent of the Deans Council and a number of senior faculty well-versed in the process, the Teaching Center offered a workshop to support faculty as they went through the promotion and tenure process. The workshop, started in 1997, was developed with Mary Beaudry, Barbara Cocanour, Alease Bruce, Jerome Hojnacki, Arthur Watterson, and Mario Aste. This workshop, which offers individual consultation on organizing the promotion and tenure package, continues to attract large numbers of faculty members every year. Administrators and members of promotion and tenure review committees recommend the workshop and praise its organizers for helping to facilitate the process.
Also at the request of faculty, more professional development workshops were added. In June 2001, in response to a requirement in the union contract, the Teaching Center organized a workshop to support faculty members going through the Periodic Multi Year Review (PMYR) process.
The Periodic Multi-Year Review (PMYR) requirement provides an opportunity for faculty to document accomplishments and provide information about future directions. This workshop ran for several years until the process was well understood. Other professional development workshops on the teaching portfolio and publishing were also added.
What originally began as a series of workshops on teaching and technology ultimately became a rich, in-depth professional development program. Each June from four to eight different workshops were offered. In addition to the popular syllabus development and promotion and tenure workshops presented annually, institutes with technology themes like electronic library resources for teaching, teaching on the web, and information literacy attracted interest from a growing number of faculty. Workshops were offered to address topics of timely interest to the campus; these included institutes on math and science teaching, developing honors courses, student retention, interdisciplinarity, scholarship of teaching, blended learning, and assessment, to recall a few.
The popularity of Faculty Institutes was not surprising. Participants enjoyed the interaction with colleagues from other academic fields. They often commented that they seldom had the chance to hear folks from other disciplines talk about their teaching. Institutes provided that opportunity.
Contributing in a major way to the success of these events were the leaders of each of these workshops. They spent many hours together structuring the activities for participants each day and selecting appropriate handouts.
Participants in each summer institute received a binder filled with resources including readings, graphics, Powerpoint presentations, workshop evaluations, and bibliographies. Faculty members commented that the binders became a long-term reference for them.
Faculty and staff members from many sectors of the University contributed to the success of these workshops. Some prepared and led sessions year after year; for example, Connie Seymour, Marlowe Miller, Alease Bruce, and Nicole Champagne each led a number of pedagogy workshops; Steve Tello and Mitch Shuldman each led several technology workshops; Art Watterson, Barbara Cocanour, Mario Aste, Alease Bruce, Bob Parkin, and Nick Minton led many promotion and tenure and PMYR workshops. Many other campus leaders lent their time and energy to presenting the institutes. Abbreviated workshops, one morning in length, were offered during the Intersession in January.
From the start of Faculty Institutes in June 1995 through 2006, 109 three-day workshops were offered - 88 focused on pedagogy/technology; 21 on professional development. Participants in pedagogy/technology workshops numbered 1069; participants in professional development workshops, 301: a combined total of 1370 participants; 452 unduplicated participants.
Special Colloquia were also provided; for example, a dinner was devoted to the interests of deans/dept chairs, another focused on advising, one on multicultural chemistry, another on developments in teaching writing at UML. There were also faculty institute preparation seminars, syllabus group reunions, and a drop-in brunch, where Georgetown’s Randy Bass discussed teaching in the 21st century. These early initiatives to provide opportunities for conversations about teaching laid the foundation for enduring programs.
The most in-depth, extended reflections on teaching took place in connection with the Carnegie Initiative. UMass Lowell’s active involvement with the Carnegie movement began in 1998. In response to the invitation from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the director of the Teaching Center proposed a plan of action to the Council on Teaching and Learning. Shortly thereafter, the Carnegie Task Force was formed and funded by the Council. The task force was co-chaired by Alease Bruce and Mary Beaudry; its mission was to raise the status of teaching by asserting its scholarly nature and to put forth models of teaching that promote deep understanding of subject matter by students.
The Carnegie Task Force encouraged faculty to engage in “the scholarship of teaching and learning,” that is—as Lee Shulman, President of the Carnegie Foundation, put it—“to view the study of teaching and learning as public, subject to peer review, and accessible for use by other members of one’s scholarly community.” It was the goal of the Task Force to encourage faculty to conduct, discuss, and report on their classroom research. To accomplish this goal, the Task Force employed a number of incentives including opportunities to gain funding for projects, workshops to support scholarly research on teaching, monthly seminars to review the progress of research projects and offer comments on them, display of completed projects on the Faculty Teaching Center website, campus-wide surveys of teaching practices, and public recognition of researchers at a Carnegie Showcase dinner.
The Carnegie group, comprised of 21 charter members, met monthly to discuss questions about the purposes and types of research on teaching, and ways to promote such research on our campus. Co-chair Alease Bruce, an experienced researcher herself, contacted the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UML to discover how to streamline the process of project approval for Task Force sponsored research. After a several months of communication with the IRB, Alease obtained a blanket approval for projects that met prespecified standards. This was a huge leap forward. This approval meant that Carnegie researchers at UML did not need to seek individual approval for their research on teaching projects. Few, if any other institutions have managed to obtain that approval status.
The Task Force distributed an RFP inviting faculty members to describe an active classroom research project which—if approved by the Task Force—would earn a stipend upon successful completion. Sample projects included the scholarship of teaching chemistry, the use of collaborative groups to promote deep learning, service learning in an engineering course, a case study on the use of internships in the seminar on high school teaching, course portfolios for a number of courses, comparing an online and face-to-face graduate pathophysiology course, and the use of technology-enhanced active learning in various courses.
Once projects had been approved, monthly meetings were held to allow researchers to report on the progress of their studies and to provide comment and support from their colleagues. These luncheon meetings were filled with rich discussion of teaching practices in a variety of academic fields. Professors discovered that good teaching practices were transferable across disciplines, and they tried some of the novel teaching practices of their peers.
To promote involvement with the Carnegie initiative on our campus, the Task Force offered a number of Faculty Institute workshops from June 1999 through 2005. To encourage wider participation in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) research, these workshops were open to all faculty members—not just those on the Carnegie Task Force. Topics included, for example, developing an SoTL project, an editorial collaborative, and assessing student projects.
The Carnegie Showcase was an elaborate Conversation Dinner entitled Classroom Practices That Foster Deep Learning. The event featured poster exhibits of SoTL projects and presentations by faculty who had engaged in scholarly research of their teaching. Small group discussions of deep learning were summarized during the dinner and later distributed to the entire UML faculty. This occasion provided public recognition for the faculty members who had completed SoTL studies, and everyone attending the dinner received a copy of Linda Nilson’s remarkable book, Teaching At Its Best.
The Carnegie Initiative provided an opportunity for UML to share our work with a wider audience. Alease Bruce attended annual National Conferences sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation, and reported on the UML faculty activities. Mary Beaudry and Alease Bruce were awarded a grant from the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) to write a monograph describing UML’s Carnegie activities. This publication, A Campus-Wide Mission: The Scholarship of Teaching, was distributed by the Foundation to all Carnegie institutions in the U.S.
To summarize, over 100 unduplicated UML faculty were involved with the Carnegie Initiative. There were many different modes of involvement including SoTL projects, online surveys, participation in the Carnegie showcase, and summer and winter Institute workshops, to name a few.
3. Professional Consultation on Teaching and Learning
The Teaching Center provided consultation on teaching and learning for individuals and groups both on the UML campus and for those beyond UML.
On campus faculty groups, individuals, and students came to the Center for direction and advice. Department chairs and faculty members asked for help with specific issues; some requested classroom visits and informal comments on their teaching, others wanted special faculty seminars on particular topics. For example, at the request of the nursing department, the director offered a special seminar on student civility and ethical standards.
The director assisted new faculty with course development and provided department chairs with materials for adjunct instructors. Department Chairs also consulted the Center on room layout and technology installations when improvements or additions were to be made.
Often, on-campus consultation took the form of informal drop-in conversations leading to discussions of teaching, grading, student difficulties, etc. Many such talks took place during a lunch break; some were lengthy telephone conversations.
Summertime consultations were connected to Faculty Institute end products. Workshop participants often stopped in to ask advice about a partially completed draft of a syllabus or lesson plan.
The Center provided help to various groups working to develop curricula. For example, the director worked with the nursing faculty to design the college teaching component of a new doctoral program in nursing and with Continuing Studies and Corporate Education (CSCE) to develop a certificate in higher education.
Faculty members writing articles or papers about pedagogy, consulted the director asking her to review drafts. Occasionally, the director would contribute to an article and become a co-author.
UML students also consulted with the director. Undergraduates were writing papers on topics like “the general education movement”; while graduate students wanted help identifying a topic for doctoral research on some aspect of curriculum and teaching. Still others sought guidance in preparing for comprehensive examinations or resources for dissertation writing.
From beyond UML, individuals and groups sought the Center’s assistance in several ways and for a number of reasons. In response, the Center supplied whatever resources were requested.
Some requests were related to publications like the Learning-Centered Syllabus article in The Teaching Professor and the Carnegie monograph, A Campus-Wide Mission: The Scholarship of Teaching. The Teaching Professor article by Mary Beaudry and graduate teaching assistant Tracey Schaub generated much intercollegiate correspondence. (Most of it via the US Post Office; not all academics were using e-mail at that time.) Institutions from many parts of the US requested further information on syllabus development; for example, University of Oregon, Central Texas College, University of Nevada, University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin, Arizona State University, Ball State University, University of the Virgin Islands, to name a few.
Some of the Institutions that had received a single copy of the Beaudry/Bruce monograph from Carnegie/AAHE requested that the Teaching Center send enough copies for each department chair. While the supply of that publication lasted, requests were filled.
Following conference presentations by the director, many institutions requested additional syllabus development materials. Some of the institutions included SUNY Albany, Babson College, Bradford College, Endicott College, Middlesex CC, Mount Ida College, Newbury College, Nichols College, North Shore CC, Pine Manor, and Suffolk University.
The miracle of technology made possible many new kinds of outreach. The FTC website developed and maintained by FTC staff member Geovanna Ramos attracted local and international inquiries. General requests for higher education resources came from many diverse institutions including Boston University, Curry College, DeLaSalle College of St. Benilde the Philippines, Emerson College, Mount Ida College, and others.
The web also made it possible for the Teaching Center to participate in and to shape distant research projects. For example, the UML Center participated in the University of Illinois multi-phase study of teaching centers. Through our involvement with the Carnegie Clusters, UML disseminated our own pedagogy surveys for use at other institutions.
The FTC website also drew inquiries for help with curriculum planning. An institution in Porto Novo, Republic of Benin, West Africa asked for assistance in developing a teacher preparation program; the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, requested help planning an online graduate course in higher education instruction.
The Faculty Teaching Center also provided an informal mentoring/outreach program for other institutions interested in faculty development. The Center hosted a number of day-long visits designed to share with other campuses the activities, projects, and organizational structures supporting UML professional development.
4. Providing Resources and Support
The Teaching Center provided a variety of resources and support for the UMass Lowell community. The Center participated in several grant projects, provided funding and other support for UML events, sponsored faculty and staff attendance and teaching/learning conferences, maintained extensive resources for teaching and learning—including a comprehensive website, developed resources for new and adjunct faculty, and provided support for institutional and departmental accreditation requirements.
Grant participation at UML was another aspect of the Teaching Center’s support of faculty efforts. Dr. Judy Boccia, principal investigator for the Ready to Teach Grant funded by the US Department of Education, invited the director to serve as partner for the four-year duration of the project. The Center also participated in the Web-Based Instruction Project funded by the UMass President’s Office. In addition, an AAHE grant funded the publication of the Carnegie monograph.
Services and support for UML projects expanded as the years progressed. As new faculty arrived in greater numbers, the Center provided special resources for them. Each September the Center presented a New Faculty Orientation event; some years the number of new faculty warranted more than one presentation. Dr. Barbara Cocanour suggested and subsequently developed a Mentoring Program for new faculty members. The Center sponsored the publication of a Handbook for new faculty members. Dr. Cocanour coordinated this project, working with Dr. Joe Lipchitz, who developed and edited the text. As the number of new faculty members increased dramatically, the Faculty Teaching Center annually published a book of biosketches introducing individual new faculty members and distributed it to all faculty and departments at UML.
The Center made special outreach efforts to include adjunct faculty; for example, a website designed in consultation with Claudine Perreault, an adjunct faculty member, provided information for part-time faculty. Another effort for adjunct faculty was the creation of an online syllabus development project. This project, developed with Dr. Connie Seymour, was tailored specifically for faculty who were not on campus on a full-time basis.
Each fall, the Center recognized recipients of the Departmental Teaching Awards at a special reception. Each awardee received a lapel pin, designed by the director, as a memento of the occasion. Recipients invited family members and friends to share the celebration with them.
The Center supported many UML initiatives as they evolved. For example, the Teaching Center presented workshops for the interdisciplinary studies initiatives. At the invitation of Dr. Diana Archibald, the director provided consultation support for the Gender Studies Interdisciplinary Teaching fellows.
The Faculty Teaching Center provided publicity and other forms of support for many faculty sponsored projects; such as, dramatic productions, special lectures, gallery exhibits, concerts, etc. The Honors Council worked with the Center to develop scholarship fund raising events. These elegant evenings honored retired UML leaders and recognized emerging undergraduate scholars.
Faculty and staff represented UML at teaching and learning conferences. The Center sponsored faculty/staff attendance at numerous conferences; for example, American Association of Higher Education, ABET, Association for Computing Machinery SIGGRAPH, CAUSE, Lilly New England, New England Faculty Development Consortium (NEFDC), National Conference on Higher Education and Carnegie Academy for SoTL, National Science Foundation, New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), Practice Oriented Education, Teaching for Understanding in a Standards-Based Environment, Teaching Professor, Telecommunications Conferences, to name a few.
Support for accreditation at the departmental and institutional level was also provided by the Faculty Teaching Center. Many departments regularly depended on the Center to provide documentation of professional development opportunities available at UML. Departments which were not regulated by accrediting bodies were subject to AQAD review. Such departments praised the Center in their AQAD reports.
The Faculty Teaching Center coordinated the 10-year NEASC self-study and accreditation on-site review of the complete UML campus. Despite the grueling work involved in this two-year effort, the Center managed to carry on all of its usual activities. It is also worth noting that NEASC gave UML excellent accreditation reviews.
Extensive resources for teaching and learning were developed and maintained by the Faculty Teaching Center. Even though the physical space for the Center was limited, it was important to acquire and disseminate resources testifying to the scholarly nature of teaching. Ultimately, the Center maintained a comprehensive library of print and electronic materials on higher education curriculum and instruction. This collection was organized so that keyword searches of the FTC archive were available upon request. Faculty members also called upon the Center to provide citations for research articles and presentations. The resource materials were used extensively in the preparation of workshops and colloquia; eventually, many resources for teaching—including a plethora of excellent teaching materials by UML faculty and several online journals¾were displayed on the FTC website. Center staff members, Geovanna Ramos and later Li Feng provided technical support for all day faculty involved in teaching hybrid courses. In addition, the Center staff, assisted faculty in the development of computerized course graphics. Both PC and MAC computers were available for faculty use at the Center.
Media equipment was also available at the Center. Faculty members were able to borrow small equipment such as document cameras, overhead projectors, and web projectors for conference presentations or classroom use. Multimedia equipment was purchased by the Faculty Teaching Center for the Alumni Lounge, providing a permanent setup for events held at that venue.
The support of faculty, administration, and staff established the Center and enabled it to develop and expand. Without this support, the Center could not have accomplished the work detailed here. UML faculty provided constant support in the form of ideas and participation in events, task forces, workshops, etc. Some faculty gave energetically to FTC initiatives as coordinators, chairpersons, and workshop leaders. The FTC coordinators included Barbara Cocanour, professional development coordinator; Chuck Thompson, technology coordinator; Marlowe Miller, instructional development coordinator; Alease Bruce, scholarship of teaching and learning research coordinator. There were also a large number of task force chairpersons whose influence shaped the Center; some of those include Bob Tuholski, Marvin Stick, Art Watterson, Nicole Champagne, and many others.
The UML administration provided financial support by consistently funding the Council for Teaching and Learning. Without this consistent support, the Center would not have been possible. Additionally, administrative persons provided council and direction for the Center. In particular, it is important express deep gratitude to Dean Jacqueline Moloney for her foresight and wise counsel, from the early days of the Center.
The years between 1993 and 2006 were lean ones for UML. At the FTC there was never enough space or staff to accomplish all the Center wanted to do. Only with the determination and persistence of valued staff and faculty colleagues was the Center able to overcome the shortage of resources.
Members of the Faculty Teaching Center staff worked tirelessly and enthusiastically to accomplish the Center’s goals. As goals expanded and staff remained meager, staff members like Michelle Quinno, Joanne Talty, Jacqueline Nicholas, Geovanna Ramos, and Li Feng worked harder to ensure that events continued to run smoothly. They worked with a multitude of students—like Donna Ouellette, who almost single-handedly organized the FTC bibliography, and Geovanna Ramos, who—after several years as a student assistant—became a valued staff member herself. It was never easy for the staff, but their willing energetic response to every challenge was ever-present. Without this kind of dedicated support, much of the Center’s work would not have been possible.
This chapter ends by expressing gratitude to the Council on Teaching and Learning for establishing a teaching center on this campus and to the administration for generous support. The driving force, however, behind the success of the Center was the strong approval and vigorous participation of the faculty.
In this time of new UML leadership, the Center moves into the future with new ideas, initiatives, and challenges and a new name - The Faculty Development Center. A promising new chapter in professional development on our campus has begun to unfold.
- Mary Beaudry, 2007