CSU Long Beach College of Education Accreditation
The unit strives to ensure that faculty are intellectually, professionally, and experientially qualified to provide high value, challenging, research-based instruction in its educational programs. Programs are delivered through the teaching and advising efforts of a mix of tenure track, full-time lecturer, and part-time lecturer appointments. Retention, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) policies (Exhibits 38, 39 & 40) ensure that faculty hold a terminal degree (tenure-track) or professional certification (non-tenure-track) and demonstrate excellence in teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service to the university, college and profession. Faculty receive campus and unit support and mentoring as they establish their courses, develop a research agenda, and progress through their academic career.
Table 5.01 (CED Faculty Profile, 2005-2006) displays faculty gender and ethnicity distribution. In the snapshot year 2005-2006, of the 224 full and part-time faculty 73% were female and 70% identified as White. By comparison, for the campus 48% of full and part-time faculty were female and 70% identified as Caucasian (Table 5.02: University Faculty, Administration & Staff Demographics).
Tenure-track faculty in unit programs trace their professional preparation to such institutions as UCLA, Claremont Graduate School, Columbia University, University of Southern California, Arizona State University, University of Pennsylvania, New York University, University of California, Berkeley, Michigan State University, Indiana University, Pepperdine University, and University of Chicago. All tenure-track faculty hold a terminal degree of either the doctor of philosophy or the doctor of education. A lone exception is Gervacio Brondial, who holds a joint appointment in Liberal Studies and Music, and whose discipline carries as its terminal degree the Master of Fine Arts in Music. (Table 5.03: Faculty by Rank in Unit Programs, 2005-2006)
Faculty bring to their teaching and advising substantial expertise in such areas as educational leadership, bilingual education, multicultural foundations of education, curriculum and instruction, child and adolescent psychology and development, language development and acquisition, language arts, reading, math, science and social studies content areas, administration, and early childhood education. Relevant experience in P-12 schools is required for professional education faculty (tenure-track faculty average over 5 years of P-12 experience; the figure for adjunct faculty is much higher). This represents experience as classroom teachers as well as administrators, counselors, curriculum specialists, and staff developers. This seasoned experience contributes to faculty effectiveness in providing relevant course work, developing appropriate field experiences, and providing supervision in field placements. For snapshots of individual faculty professional background, qualifications, and accomplishments, refer to the faculty profiles on the website. Full vitae are in the Exhibits Room.
Part-time faculty teach classes and/or supervise field experiences in initial teacher preparation programs, advanced (continuing) teacher preparation programs, and programs for other school personnel (some part-time faculty both teach courses and supervise fieldwork, and some work in more than one program). Part-time faculty are hired based on their academic and experiential qualifications to teach selected courses and supervise clinical and field experiences. They are highly qualified in their content areas and have many years of experience as practitioners in partner school districts, agencies, and practicum sites. They must be licensed or certified in the area in which they teach or supervise fieldwork, and are required to hold at least a master’s degree (except in rare instances when a supervisor will have lengthy classroom experience that stands in place of an advanced degree). They typically are either current P-12 classroom teachers or have significant P-12 experience, or are employed as administrators, counselors, school nurses, school social workers, clinical rehabilitation specialists, or work at district level positions.
During the 2005-06 snapshot year there were 132 part-time instructors who taught courses in their areas of expertise and 136 supervisors who supervised field and clinical experiences in their area of certification in the College of Education. Eighty-two percent of the part-time faculty supervising student teachers had master’s degrees, and 17% held the doctorate. They typically have advanced degrees in such areas as reading, early childhood education, curriculum and instruction, and leadership as well as in liberal arts and science disciplines. Since many are employed as P-12 educators, or are recently retired, they bring current classroom teaching, administrative, service, or clinical experience which is of great value. Part-time faculty also typically have had numerous professional inservice experiences over the years that keep them current with their content and instruction.
P-12 teachers who work with candidates in the field are selected for their skill as classroom teachers or clinicians, their ability to mentor an adult learner, and their willingness to spend the extra time required to work with preservice candidates. They must be tenured in their district, have at least three years of teaching experience, and be credentialed in their teaching, service, or administrative field. Cooperating teachers who work with program students in early field experiences in the initial teacher preparation programs frequently also serve as master teachers for student teachers, often with candidates they’ve worked with previously in early fieldwork. Thus, in addition to bringing outstanding teaching experience to their work with candidates, they also bring experience with our program and prior experience with their student teacher. In many instances, P-12 teachers who work with candidates in fieldwork are graduates of unit programs.
University supervisors of candidates during the culminating field experience (e.g., student teaching) hold at least a master’s degree, have extensive P-12 experience, and have expertise in the area for which they are hired. Part-time faculty supervisors receive training in the use of assessment instruments and other professional development. In February 2006, over 100 supervisors participated in our clinical supervision workshop. As another example, in summer 2006, 20 supervisors completed a 3-day training to become certified assessors for California Teaching Performance Assessment Task 4. Assessor training for faculty and supervisors on all 4 TPA Tasks will continue as programs gear up for high-stakes implementation in July 2008 (refer to Standard 2 for a discussion of the CA-TPA).
Unit faculty bring significant prior experience in P-12 schools. A recent poll found that faculty have an aggregated total of over 300 years of experience as classroom teachers, counselors, principals and other school professional roles to their preparing candidates for these same types of positions. They maintain currency in contemporary professional settings in a variety of ways. Many conduct research projects in schools, clinics, and other settings. An example is the Faculty in Schools Project (Exhibit 18) in which faculty research teams observed and videotaped fourth year teachers who were graduates of the Multiple Subject and Single Subject programs as part of data collection for the project. Some faculty serve as consultants to districts, schools and clinics. We also site program courses in partner school districts. In a typical school-sited Multiple Subject Program methods course, part of the instructor’s time will be spent teaching his or her preservice candidates, while part of the time will be spent monitoring the candidates’ work in classrooms at the site. Five to six sections of the Multiple Subject Program methods courses were offered at school sites each semester for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years. Perhaps the most common method for faculty to maintain currency with classroom practice is through supervising student teachers and interns. Table 5.04 (Full-Time Faculty Supervising Student Teachers in Initial Teacher Preparation Programs and Affiliated Program Faculty Supervising Candidates in Other School Personnel Programs) displays full-time faculty participation in supervising student teachers.
Faculty engage candidates in a wide range of learning experiences including in-class exercises, quick writes, and small group discussion of issues raised in class. They often require candidates to gain in vivo experiences attending school board meetings or participating at a community site for service learning. All required school observations, site participation, and service learning placements include oral or written directions to candidates on professional behavior, dress, and appropriate behaviors and dispositions. For example, prior to SERVE placements, candidates complete a two-hour training that includes basic information on the candidate’s role and responsibilities at the school site.
Faculty also demonstrate that they value candidate learning by teaching and modeling best practices. Course syllabi in the Exhibits Room provide evidence of use of portfolios, examinations, case studies, reflective inquiry, simulations, cooperative learning, technology demonstrations, research projects and class presentations. Visitors to classes will find faculty lecturing and providing didactic instruction, presenting or demonstrating, engaging students in question and answer sessions, leading discussions, and facilitating various collaborative work formats. Candidates will be leading as well as participating in discussions, presenting their work, role-playing, working on collaborative projects, and doing case studies. Faculty use audio, video, and web-based media frequently. Many faculty use PowerPoint or other presentation tools in their teaching. Faculty in initial teacher preparation programs have a responsibility not simply to “teach” instructional strategies, but to model them for candidates. Thus, a visitor will find faculty using different teaching strategies in the course of a single class meeting as a way of modeling for future teachers how they might vary their instruction within a teaching period or episode.
Similarly, faculty assessment practices are multiple and varied. Assessments include traditional paper and pencil quizzes and examinations, but more commonly involve substantive student writing, e. g., short answers, essays, case studies, research papers, and reflection papers. Some faculty emphasize student research and class presentations. Collaborative projects are often a feature of courses. Master’s program students elect to do a comprehensive exam or thesis. Several programs have experimented recently with a take-home comprehensive exam that has borne some interesting results, for example, candidates have more leisure to consider and shape responses to exam prompts, which has resulted in richer, more sophisticated writing on their part. Syllabi in the Exhibits Room contain descriptions of assessments on a course-by-course basis, and student work samples display how candidates complete assignments.
The unit Mission Statement and Conceptual Framework (Exhibit 5) reflect faculty’s strong commitment to equity, diversity and social responsibility. To the faculty, “all” students means just that: all cultures and racial/ethnic groups, all exceptionalities, all languages. Evidence of the unit’s commitment to these ideals are manifested in the faculty, e.g., the diverse makeup of the faculty, the variety of educational and experiential backgrounds they bring, the varied research interests they have. Allegiance to these ideals plays out in a variety of ways. For example, many faculty specialize in English learners, their instruction strengthened by their own research in areas such as comparing models of instruction or looking at learner cognition. As another example, the Guidelines for Curriculum Review require faculty submitting proposals for all new programs and courses to address how the program/course support the priorities stated in the mission. In response to faculty initiative, the document was the first of its type on campus to require that all college syllabi incorporate a universal statement addressing the special or exceptional needs of candidates in college courses.
The academic preparation of faculty, as well as their subsequent reading, professional development, and experiences enable them to amass rich knowledge bases in regard to issues of diversity. Faculty look for diversity as they select textbooks and class materials. As faculty develop programs, they review the coursework to ensure a developmental sequence of treatment of diversity issues that allows for spiraling instruction, increasing students’ deeper understanding of diversity in the US and the world. The linguistic, cultural, and racial diversity found in the student body, and well as the proportion of diversity present in the CED faculty, affords many opportunities for “here and now” discussions and examples.
Faculty expertise in and use of technology have increased greatly in recent years. New faculty tend to come from the “digital native” generation, and join the unit with current technological knowledge and skills. But even the “digital immigrants” have made huge strides in using technology for course administration, teaching and research. A Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers in Technology (PT3) federal grant which operated from 2000 to 2003, supported the faculty across the unit in developing expertise in instructional technology. Many aspects of the PT3 have been institutionalized. The number of faculty incorporating the use of technology into instruction has increased as newly hired faculty come in with higher expectations for equipment and software, as the university’s BeachBoard (BlackBoard) system has grown in popularity, as the faculty technology specialists have been hired, and as the university, college, and departments have spent increasing amounts on ensuring up-to-date equipment and technology support. The university offers many opportunities for professional development for faculty to learn a variety of ways to incorporate technology into instruction, and many unit faculty report taking advantage of the workshops. One of the educational technology faculty has assigned time through the Faculty Center for Professional Development to work individually with faculty who request technical assistance.
The need for candidates to be technologically competent drives the incorporation of technology into instruction. Candidates for initial credentials must meet technology proficiencies embodied in Standard 9 of the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Teacher Preparation Programs. Similarly, candidates for advanced credentials must also be technologically competent. Candidates in programs for other school personnel also need a high level of skill using technology in order to perform their job functions. The unit has a strong Educational Technology program that provides service courses to credential programs and offers a Master’s degree in Educational Technology. The program also offers a university service course that meets the General Education requirement for undergraduates.
To prepare technologically competent professionals, curriculum in all unit programs includes technology content matter and learning activities. In some cases, technology is infused throughout the program (e.g., Multiple Subject, Reading); other programs offer a separate focused course (e.g., Single Subject); still other programs offer both a focused course and deep infusion (e.g., Special Education, Library Media). Learning activities range from research using digital resources to online collaboration, from evaluating web sites to analyzing educational software, from multimedia presentations to videotaped teaching sessions, from technology-facilitated data analysis to technology-facilitated science experiments, from digital photos to streaming video development.
BeachBoard (a web-based integrated courseware program customized from BlackBoard’s software program) is the campus digital medium for instruction, and includes several features that facilitate meaningful technology incorporation: online resources, email and discussion forums that encourage students to share their learning and their work, online quizzes and surveys that provide instant feedback, group pages to facilitate collaboration outside of class time, hypertext that links sources easily, electronic grade book, course statistics, and TurnItIn functionality to preclude plagiarism. Departments also use organizational BeachBoard sites and department/program web pages to provide consistent information to program candidates (e.g., applications, exemplars, scholarship information, deadlines, events, etc).
The most recent form of the unit Technology Survey (Exhibit 37) was administered in fall 2006. The survey revealed a wide range of technology utilization reported by faculty in the courses they teach. Refer to a fuller discussion of the results in Standard 3 (see Table 3.10: College of Education Faculty Technology Use, Fall 2006).
Scholarly work by unit faculty is both diverse and extensive in its application to teaching and learning. As teacher-scholars, they contribute to the advancement of the scientific literature and professional practices in their disciplines and integrate advances in their disciplines into their instructional practices. Faculty engage in systematic inquiry into a range of areas related to learning, teaching, and the education of teachers and other school personnel. They are active in traditional research and publication pursuits, and regularly present at meetings of the major professional organizations in education and related fields. Table 5.05 (Summary of Faculty Scholarly and Professional Productivity, 2003-2006) provides a broad look at the quantity of faculty productivity in recent years. Closer examination of faculty profiles and vitae (Exhibit 49) show the extent to which individual faculty are active and productive scholars. We also call attention to the sample of publications by College of Education faculty on display in the glass case in the lobby of the College of Education main building (Education Building 1).
A sample of research projects illustrates the type of research in which faculty are engaged:
Faculty are also successful in securing external funding. Table 5.06 (Unit Grants and Funded Projects, 2004-2006) illustrates the number and amount of grants over a three year span. Table 5.07 (Selected Recent Grant Wards to Faculty) contains some notable examples of projects for which faculty have won funding in competitive bid processes.
The university is very supportive of faculty scholarship, especially through the campus Scholarly and Creative Activities Committee (SCAC), which annually supports over 200 awards of assigned time, summer stipends, and mini-grants. In 2004-2005, Academic Affairs increased the amount of funds available, and in return colleges were asked to match the additional awards available for their individual colleges. For the past two years, the CED has matched two faculty awards per year (each equivalent to assigned time for one course) to demonstrate support for university and college faculty scholarly activities. In 2005-2006, 19 College of Education faculty received assigned time and summer stipends to support their scholarship.
Faculty engage in service to the department, college, and university, as well as to their professional communities (faculty profiles; Exhibit 49). Table 5.08 (Summary of Faculty Professional Service, 2003-2005) illustrates the quantity of service activities by faculty in CED and the Affiliated Programs in recent years.
Faculty engage in campus governance by serving on standing and ad hoc department, college, and campus committees, and make important contributions at each level. There is extensive faculty service at the university level including serving on such committees as WASC, Assessment, Financial Affairs, Teacher Preparation, and Academic Senate. Faculty service at the unit level includes serving on committees such as Faculty Council, Curriculum, Student Appeals, Technology, and RTP review. At the department level, faculty service includes department and program specific committees such as RTP, Curriculum and Faculty Search. Faculty provide service to candidates by holding orientation and advising sessions, maintaining web-based information sites, supervising independent studies and theses, and monitoring and evaluating comprehensive examinations.
Faculty provide service to the professional community in a number of ways. Faculty and administrators are members of international, national and state professional organizations where they sometimes serve in such roles as board members, committee chairs, and conference organizers. Faculty serve as editors for major journals and as members of refereed journal editorial boards.
Faculty and administrators also work with professional and state organizations and agencies. As an example of unit service to the professional community (as well as by members of the unit who participated), in fall, 2006 the College of Education hosted a two-day Commission on Teacher Credentialing workshop that brought together 25 persons from around the state to review secondary subject matter programs for initial and continuing accreditation.
Faculty also engage in service to local communities that draws on their professional expertise. For example, they serve as liaisons to partner schools, collaborate on research or professional development activities with educational professionals and parents, develop and evaluate programs, and serve on advisory, improvement and other committees in schools. Faculty volunteer in elementary and secondary school classrooms, provide assessment and diagnostic services, and teach lessons and/or units in local schools.
Faculty collaborate regularly and often with educational professionals from the P-12 schools, faculty from other units on campus, and other members of the professional community dedicated to improving teaching. Table 5.09 (Examples of Collaborative Partnerships) lists the major collaborative activities. These collaborations are instrumental in improving teaching, candidate learning, teacher education, and area schools. Candidates and graduates are integrally involved in many of these initiatives. Below are several examples of collaborative activities.
A strength of our institution is its relationship and partnership with the city of Long Beach and two other education institutions, Long Beach Unified School District and Long Beach City College, in the Long Beach Education Partnership (LBEP). The LBEP is viewed throughout the state as one of the most effective P-18 partnerships, and is featured regionally and nationally as a successful P-16 collaborative. A number of initiatives have arisen from LBEP, including development of the Integrated Teacher Education Program, which addresses the effective integration of content studies and pedagogical studies; the SERVE program, described earlier; the Distinguished Faculty in Residence program, which provides Lecturer appointments for P-12 educators; the Reading Institute for Academic Preparation (RIAP), which runs workshops to train English teachers in developing curricula for students at risk of not meeting college entrance standards in reading and writing; and the California P-16 Conference for Student Success, which is hosted annually on campus and brings together up to 1,000 participants around the theme of collaboration for student success.
An example of a collaborative research project is the Collaborative Research: Electronic Books project that linguists Carol Lord and Robert Berdan have developed. In Long Beach, they have implemented the innovative e-books program in elementary schools, the YMCA After-School Program, and the Long Beach WRAP (Winners Reaching Amazing Potential). They have presented research results at the American Educational Research Association and the National Reading Conference.
A major collaboration across higher education institutions is the CSU Asian Bilingual Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development (Asian BLACD) consortium that provides a Multiple Subject Asian BCLAD credential program open to candidates from six IHE partners. Faculty from partner CSU campuses collaborate with professional organizations and public and private schools to provide training opportunities for candidates developing competence in bilingual teaching in 4 Asian languages. This innovative program directly addresses the critical need for Asian language speaking credentialed teachers in our area. In fall 2005 the program had 158 students enrolled, 101 of whom were based at CSULB.
School social work faculty have participated in the development of a Community School at Stevenson Elementary School in LBUSD, modeled after the Children’s Aid Society of New York’s model of community schools. Hallmarks of this model of community schools include parent involvement, integration of school curriculum into extended school activities, and equal partnership among parents, schools, agencies, and the university. In 2006, Stevenson was recognized by the national Community Schools Organization.
The Professional Development School at Bret Harte Elementary School, which has evolved into the Urban Teaching Academy site, is an example of a partnership that resulted in better teaching and better teacher preparation, as well as increased learning for students. Begun in 2000 as part of a funded project by Lucent Technologies, the energy and enthusiasm of the university faculty and teachers at the school for the good work they were doing together kept the project alive after the initial grant ended in 2003. In recent years, an on-site master’s program at the school has engaged nearly 50 of the teachers in professional development that supported collaboration on-site to improve learning conditions and greatly enhanced the school’s record of academic progress (Table 5.10 Harte Elementary School California Academic Performance Index [APE]).
The goal of unit leadership is that every faculty member hired will be successful in achieving retention, tenure and promotion, and every effort is made to assist individuals toward this goal. The unit promotes a triangulated process for collecting and analyzing data to evaluate the work of faculty.Examination of the performance of faculty is conducted through two formal means: student evaluation of faculty through the campus course evaluation process and the Retention, Tenure, Promotion (RTP) processes. The unit adheres to university policy and procedures for Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) as agreed to in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) (Exhibits 38, 39, 40, & 50). Each college and/or department develops its own RTP policy unique to its departments, programs, and disciplines. The College of Education created a single college RTP governing document in spring, 1997, rather than have separate documents for the departments and college, as other colleges in the university do. This document was revised by Faculty Council in 2005.
In the RTP process, high stakes review for retention and/or promotion alternates with a mini-evaluation. The university pattern is for a high stakes retention review in the third year of employment, with tenure and promotion to associate professor determined in the sixth year. Faculty normally become eligible for promotion to full professor in the sixth year after gaining tenure. This pattern varies since faculty may begin employment with up to two years of credit for prior service, thus shortening the period leading up to first promotion and/or tenure; faculty may shorten the second review period by requesting promotion to full professor earlier than is the norm. Early tenure or promotion is only given to faculty who exhibit superior ratings in all areas of review: teaching, scholarship, and service. Tenured faculty are reviewed every five years. A department committee reviews the individual’s materials for instructional effectiveness and currency in the field, then the Dean meets with the faculty member and completes his/her own review. Part-time faculty are reviewed on an annual basis by department committees and department chairs. For the details of the requirements at the various levels of review for tenure track faculty, full time lecturers, and part time faculty, see the RTP policy and guidelines on the college website (Exhibit 39).
All faculty, including part-time faculty, are evaluated formally on student Course Evaluations each semester on a minimum of two courses. These evaluations are done on university designed, machine-scored surveys that are tabulated by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. Eight questions address generic effective planning and instruction. The originals of the evaluation forms with student comments (if any) are returned to the faculty member. Summary Reports are returned to department chairs, the dean, and individual faculty. Summary Reports provide faculty with mean scores in eight survey categories, along with comparative scores for the department and college.
Faculty review and use their course evaluations as they prepare for the next time they teach the course. Course evaluations are also submitted and discussed as part of the Retention, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) portfolio. The RTP process permits faculty to demonstrate how they have developed courses to improve instruction. This process also provides faculty the opportunity to engage in systematic self-assessment of their teaching. Additionally, it compels faculty to analyze the quantitative ratings and qualitative comments from the course evaluations and to interpret the data to assist them in establishing goals to improve their teaching practices. The ongoing process of RTP, and the mini-evaluation process in non-RTP years, ensures a formal mechanism whereby faculty are in continuous reflection and review of their teaching. In cases where faculty fall below the department and college means, RTP committees may do a more detailed analysis of the faculty scores on other items to investigate potential problems.
Faculty in the unit consistently score high on course evaluations. Table 5.11 (Comparison of Aggregated Course Evaluations, 2003-2006) shows aggregated mean scores on a 1-5 scale for item eight on the course evaluation form, “Rate the overall teaching effectiveness of this instructor in this course.” In addition to the formal review process driven by RTP policy, faculty, like exemplary faculty everywhere, constantly reflect on and update their teaching, their syllabi, and their currency in their field.
RTP policies explicitly direct review committees to be specific in their evaluations and provide constructive advice for improvement where appropriate. Each time a faculty member submits for periodic review, feedback from all previous reviews is included. These policies support a more holistic perspective of the faculty’s performance over time. Poorly performing part-time faculty and part-time university supervisors are dropped from the part-time faculty pool when remediation is not effective. Tenure track faculty can have their teaching responsibilities re-assigned.
Department chairs meet with faculty concerning their RTP recommendations and discuss the results. The dean also meets with new faculty specifically to review and discuss the recommendations. Faculty are given suggestions for ways to improve in those areas of performance which may have been found lacking. Resources include referral to other faculty who have related expertise. If the area of growth is instructional, the expert faculty might conduct class visits or observations with feedback for the individual. The university Faculty Center for Professional Development is also a source for workshops related to improving instructional practices. If the area for growth is related to scholarship, the dean or department chair might suggest a writing workshop or consultation with a faculty member with a solid record of scholarship. In the College of Education, Associate Dean Claude Goldenberg has conducted a writing support group for new faculty which is open to all non-tenured faculty. If service were the identified area of growth, the faculty member would be counseled to stand for election to appropriate committees, or the dean might facilitate the connection of the faculty member to a school or community center for that type of service contribution.
The unit Mission Statement speaks to our commitment to professional education faculty being engaged in continuous learning. Faculty at all ranks have opportunities to engage in continued professional development to maintain and enhance their qualifications.
The Strategic Planning Committee provides leadership with regard to providing opportunities to address the collective professional growth needs of faculty. Unit meetings held the first Monday of every month address areas of professional development. For example, agendas of the meetings include such topics as performance assessment, diversity, technology, and emerging practices. Other recent topics have included:
The Center for Language Minority Education and Research (CLMER), which is housed in the College of Education, hosts periodic public events. For example in May, 2005, the symposium, From Achievement Gap to Opportunity Gap: Reframing the Discussion and Identifying Successes, was widely attended by faculty, staff, and the larger community.
Another example of a professional development opportunity was The 30-Year Commemoration of Public Law 94-142, held in November, 2005. Several faculty members, in conjunction with one of the associate deans, organized a panel of experts, including some of our own faculty, to critically examine the implementation and celebration of the landmark legislation that is now referred to as IDEIA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act). Noted researchers in the field as well as parents and students with disabilities, teachers, and students came together to share their knowledge, experience and critical reflections. The event was well attended by our candidates, faculty and community members. The second part of the commemoration was the presentation of the award winning documentary, “Autism is a World,” on November 18. Sue Rubin, who is the subject of the documentary, spoke to our academic community. This event was also well received and provided the opportunity for an engaging discussion regarding conventional understandings of disability
For many years now brown bag lunches have been organized around faculty work and travel throughout the world. In 2005-2006, there were 11 brown bag presentations, with topics such as “The Role of Social Studies Teachers During Times of Crisis,” “Higher Education in Russia Today,” “Affirmative Action (Employment Equity) in South Africa: Context and Further Reflections,” and “The Giant Sequoia Project: Environmental Education through Art.” Table 5.12 (Brown Bag Sessions, 2005-2006) displays the 2005-2006 brown bag presenters and presentation titles. Brown bags not only give faculty a chance to share their research both formally and informally, but also serve as “practice” sessions for more formal presentations at professional conferences.
We emphasize the notion of our being a learning community in which we view faculty support holistically as involving both support for professional areas of responsibility, but also support for a sense of belonging to a group that cares about each other’s learning and success. To that end, we support new faculty through several formal mechanisms. Table 5.13 (CED New Faculty Support) summarizes the ongoing activities that support new faculty.
One of our most successful ways of supporting new faculty has been achieved by providing assigned time for a senior faculty member to support and coach new faculty in their first year. This coach has a strong reputation as an effective instructor and expert on cultural diversity and learners with exceptional needs. She facilitates meetings with the new faculty members, visits their classes upon request to assess their teaching effectiveness and provide suggestions and support, and links them with more experienced faculty. She volunteers to visit classes to conduct formal or informal peer evaluations if desired. Scholarly expectations are discussed, and the Associate Dean for Research, Planning, and Evaluation consults and offers to proof drafts of writing projects. Another senior faculty with experience as a journal editor joins the group to talk about preparing and submitting manuscripts for publication.
For a number of years the College of Education has been a leader on the campus in its support for new faculty. The College of Liberal Arts dean, for example, adopted our practice in her college to systematically bring new faculty together to see what challenges they were having and have opportunities to socialize. The university as a whole is moving in this direction, and in August 2006 implemented its first week-long professional development for new faculty in the week preceding the start of the academic year. In consultation with deans, the Director of the Faculty Center for Professional Development and an advisory group planned a week-long program for new faculty. The other deans enthusiastically endorsed the program, and committed to paying new faculty for that additional week.
Involvement in faculty development activities varies across departments and programs, but includes such things as participation in college, department and program faculty meetings, course/area discussion groups, program advisory groups, joint presentations with full-time faculty, consultation regarding program development, and review of student/alumni surveys concerning program quality. Multiple opportunities for faculty development exist to ensure that faculty are continually updating and revising their instructional practices and to assist faculty in their development as researchers and scholars. Table 5.14 (Summary of Faculty Professional Development Activities, 2003-2006) numerically presents the level of faculty professional development participation. These activities, of course, are quite varied. A few examples are described below.
The Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grant from 2000-2003 provided multiple resources to assist our faculty in using technology to improve instruction. Key PT3 faculty presented at monthly unit meetings at various times to provide examples of how to incorporate technology into our programs. The PT3 grant supported six EdPAC department educational technology coaches to work one-on-one with 62 (72%) unit faculty members to customize training as faculty learned how to incorporate technology into the curriculum to better prepare candidates. Based on their curricular needs, faculty learned how to use Office Suite software, authoring tools, web page editors, PDAs, science probes, video-related technology, assistive technology, etc. As part of the PT3 grant, a set of technology rubrics with corresponding candidate exemplars were also developed collaboratively by EdPAC, Liberal Studies, and Teacher Education faculty, distributed to all CED faculty, and implemented in programs. By spring 2003, faculty had made significant gains in every area, the greatest being in databases, Internet, and video, both for productivity and classroom integration. Refer to Standard 3 for a discussion of faculty use of technology, post-PT3.
The Faculty Center for Professional Development is a source for workshops on a variety of teaching and scholarly activity related topics, including workshops to assist faculty in improving instructional practices, grant proposal writing, and manuscript tutoring. The Center annually sponsors university-wide competition for Enhancing Educational Effectiveness grants of up to $10,000 to individuals and teams for program developing, course revision, and instructional innovation. In 2005-06 the Center sponsored a Faculty Learning Community, which provided an opportunity for 8 to 10 faculty members to engage in a year-long program whose aim was to enhance teaching and learning by examining the best use of technology in the classroom. Participating faculty spent the year attending bi-weekly community meetings and working on an individual teaching project incorporating technology in their teaching. The Center sponsors scholarly writing workshops during the summer and an intensive writing workshop during the winter break.
To encourage faculty use of the campus course administrator, BeachBoard, and other instructional technologies, campus technology staff offer face-to-face and online tutorials. They also established a BeachBoard User Group (BUG) with its own organizational BeachBoard presence, and developed a BeachBoard User Mentor program (which included three College of Education faculty). In 2005, the library assumed responsibility for BeachBoard, and reorganized faculty assistance. The faculty e-learning consultant is a unit-based Educational Technology assistant professor.
Individual programs hold regular meetings to discuss program structure, features, courses, evaluation data, candidates, etc. Many of these conversations involve topics that lead to improved course instruction. In the Single Subject Program, the Coordinator meets regularly each semester with faculty who teach each of the core courses to discuss course content, reading material, assignments, assessments, and instruction. Teacher Education Department meetings often have agenda items that are faculty development in nature. The department chair dedicated the 2005-2006 year to Celebrating Our Teaching. At each department meeting one or more faculty made presentations of classroom practice. Faculty presented to their colleagues on such topics as using PowerPoint and BeachBoard as teaching and course management tools, Excel in the math methods course, sharing student work, and student perceptions of the value of a multiculturalism course. The Professional Studies Department (Designated Subjects Program) holds a professional development each semester. The Clinical Rehabilitative Services Program directs its coordinators to use release time for professional development.
A large and talented cadre of part-time faculty is an integral part of the overall education program within the unit. Many are full-time practitioners who bring talents and skills that complement those of the full-time faculty. They participate in professional development at their primary place of employment, and are often able to attend on-campus professional development activities. In addition, tenure track faculty attend and present at a wide variety of national, international, state and regional professional conferences individually and collaboratively, all of which contributes toward becoming better at what we do in our programs.Faculty refers to both professional education faculty who are employed by higher education institutions and school faculty who supervise clinical practice.
