OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS

SHIFTING THE CULTURE FOR STUDENT LEARNING:
THE EVALUATION AND REWARD OF TEACHING

June, 1994

BACKGROUND

The Advisory Committee on Faculty Workload was empaneled by the Board of Regents in October 1993 and charged with the task of creating a statewide framework for faculty teaching expectations. The intention of this activity was to ensure greater faculty involvement in undergraduate learning opportunities. Statewide guidelines were approved in February 1994 and Ohio's universities are currently in the process of developing institutional policies consistent with the statewide guidelines. These institutional policies are to be completed by June 30, 1994.

Teaching is central to the role of the faculty member and has long been recognized as the primary mission of Ohio's, and the nation's, colleges and universities. However, the Advisory Committee on Faculty Workload noted in its February 1994 report that university campuses have gradually redefined the role of faculty toward a greater involvement in graduate education, research and service. The statewide faculty workload guidelines provide a framework for differentiation of the faculty role and especially for giving greater priority to undergraduate teaching activity while continuing to encourage faculty research and graduate education, as appropriate to the mission of the department and university. If progress is to be achieved in enhancing the quality of undergraduate teaching and learning, faculty workload policies need to be supported by efforts to ensure that teaching is valued by the institution and effectively evaluated, encouraged, and rewarded.

Faculty are confronted with a rapidly changing instructional environment and a student body vastly different than the college-going cohort with which they may be most familiar. As increasing numbers of individuals seek a college degree as the means for gaining entrance to a more sophisticated workforce, and as changing technologies and social relationships demand the development of critical thinking and writing skills, the university faculty member may find traditional teaching methods and instructional settings to be inadequate. Progress in serving students' educational needs with available resources will require an institutional commitment to teaching and to ensuring greater linkages between faculty teaching and research activity. Innovation and change in teaching strategies must be encouraged. All faculty and teaching staff must have access to resources designed to enhance faculty development in the area of teaching. Collaboration and cooperation within the higher education community and between educators, legislators, and other government leaders will be essential.

The Advisory Committee on Faculty Workload has outlined policy recommendations and articulated suggested strategies for encouraging change in undergraduate education and faculty teaching. These recommendations fall primarily into three categories: 1) the reward and incentive structure for faculty, 2) teaching evaluation, and 3) faculty development.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The Advisory Committee identified several guiding principles that it believes universities, colleges or schools, and departments in Ohio should consider in identifying strategies to improve the quality of student learning through a greater focus on the evaluation of teaching, the on-going development of faculty and instructional staff as teachers, and the acknowledgment of the importance of teaching through faculty reward structures. These principles guided the Advisory Committee's work.

• Greater priority should be given to the undergraduate teaching role. At the same time, formal scholarship, research, graduate education and service should continue to be important dimensions of the faculty role and should be supported consistent with departmental and institutional missions.

• A broader definition of research, as discussed by Ernest Boyer in Scholarship Reconsidered, should be used as a means of differentiating faculty effort and interaction with students. Boyer proposed four general types of scholarship: discovery, integration, application, and teaching.

• Institutional reward systems in all universities should recognize and value the importance of undergraduate teaching as comparable to other types of scholarship. All faculty are expected to pursue their area of scholarship through teaching as well as discovery, integration, and application of knowledge, and to contribute to the department, college, university, discipline and state through service. It should be possible for a faculty member whose primary contribution to scholarship is in the area of teaching to be rewarded and recognized on par with the faculty member whose primary contribution to scholarship is through research.

• The academic department ( or its equivalent) and the department chair are central to the process of change in the academic climate for teaching. Teaching and faculty development activities are primarily focused in the department. The department chair is central to structuring faculty workloads and faculty reward structures.

• The work of the department chair to encourage teaching and faculty involvement in undergraduate education must be visibly supported and acknowledged by the university's governance structures. This includes support from trustees, the president and provost, college deans and school directors, other department chairs, graduate studies chairs, the faculty senate and promotion and tenure committees.

• Long-term change in student learning must be addressed at all levels, including departmental, institutional, state and national levels.

• Efforts to develop, evaluate and reward effective teaching must focus on faculty at all career levels (assistant, associate, and full professors) as well as graduate students who will emerge as future faculty, and adjunct faculty/instructors who provide instruction in the university.

• The faculty workload guidelines were designed to address concerns regarding full time and part-time faculty. Universities also use adjunct faculty and instructors to provide undergraduate instruction. While increasingly more full-time faculty will be involved in undergraduate education, it is unlikely that universities will discontinue adjunct faculty and other instructional staff members. As such, institutions need to also focus on strategies for improving the evaluation and reward of teaching and develop these other instructional staff members more fully for the teaching role.

Teaching, research, and service are the traditional aspects of the faculty member's role in fulfilling each university's mission and purpose. Within the larger context of scholarship, these aspects of the faculty role cannot be separated from each other; research and teaching work synergistically to advance knowledge in a discipline which, in turn, influences the nature of the teaching process. Over time, however, reward structures for individual faculty such as tenure, promotion, and merit salary increases, have favored the scholarship of discovery primarily in the form of published original work and/or grant supported research. Academic prestige for universities is frequently linked with achievement in this type of scholarly activity. Research productivity and performance are easier to determine through such factors as the number and amount of grants received for research, for performances and creative productions, books and articles published in prestigious scholarly journals, and by the number of patents on new scientific discoveries.

The increasing focus on the quality and nature of the undergraduate experience, and the pressing need for a college education, have redirected attention to faculty teaching. The statewide faculty workload policies clarify the priority given, by the state, to faculty involvement in undergraduate education and teaching. The success of these guidelines in engaging more faculty in teaching, however, rests upon a complementary shift in the nature of the institutional reward and incentive structures for faculty effort. Greater prestige, incentives and rewards need to be linked, at the departmental and institutional levels, with teaching activities.

Policy Recommendations and Strategies for Change

• Recommendation. Promotion and tenure processes, and policies for merit salary increases should be designed to reflect the reward of good teaching comparable to the reward of good research. Teaching, scholarship, research activity and service should be consistent with faculty workload guidelines and departmental/university missions.

  Strategies for Change

  1. Evaluation strategies for teaching that are fair and reasonable must be developed (see section II on teaching evaluation for further discussion).

  2. Institutions should give high priority to teaching and student learning, consistent with mission (and consistent with the statewide guidelines on faculty workload). Departmental promotion and tenure processes, and policies for merit salary increases should reward teaching comparable to research. Not all faculty within a given department will have the same level of teaching responsibility. However, all faculty and instructional staff should strive for high-quality teaching and a visible commitment to student learning.

• Recommendation. Departments that actively emphasize, encourage, and reward effective teaching should be acknowledged at both the institutional and state level for such efforts and encouraged to continue. Such awards/incentives should be comparable to departmental awards/incentives for research.

  Strategies for Change

  1. Institutions should provide incentives for the enhancement of teaching at the departmental level. These might include:

  a. creating ways to allow a department to benefit economically as a result of greater quality/quantity of undergraduate education just as departments benefit from the receipt of research grants,

  b. awarding competitive grants to departments to improve pedagogy within a particular discipline,

  c. creating undergraduate studies committees (similar to graduate studies committees) to provide broader faculty and student investment, at the departmental level, in student learning. These committees would include both student members and a faculty chair.

  d. providing teaching start-up funds for faculty to support undergraduate teaching,

  e. designating on-going teaching development awards for faculty teaching.

  2. The role of the department chair or school director with regard to encouraging and rewarding effective teaching should be made clear by the college dean, provost, president and board of trustees. Expectations regarding the importance of teaching should be clearly articulated to department chairs and school directors. They, in turn, should be held accountable for leadership in achieving institutional goals with regard to teaching. Performance of these individuals with regard to these expectations should be clearly evaluated and serve as a basis for future merit decisions.

  3. The state should provide incentives for the enhancement of teaching such as additional funding to enhance the Academic Challenge Program to stimulate and reward excellence in undergraduate education (beyond the expected levels of undergraduate instruction and student advising) at the departmental level.

• Recommendation. Many examples of departmental commitment to enhancing the quality of undergraduate education exist across the state. Achievements in undergraduate education and teaching should be clearly communicated and well publicized within the educational community. As well, these achievements should be shared with the general public and the political/governmental leadership as models for "best practice."

  Strategies for Change

  1. The Advisory Committee on Faculty Workload has compiled, as part of its Report, an appendix outlining current examples of best practices with regard to reward/incentives for faculty teaching, faculty development and the evaluation of teaching (some of these examples are used illustratively throughout the text of the Report to highlight current campus efforts). The list is not exhaustive and should be expanded by the Board of Regents (and maintained as an on-going effort). These examples of "best practice" should be shared with the educational community and beyond, with the political/governmental leadership and general public, on a regular basis.

• Recommendation. The concept of the "teaching award" program should be extended to all campuses with the focus on recognizing achievement at the departmental, college, institutional and statewide levels. Recognition for these faculty awards might take a variety of forms, including cash awards, resources for teaching, and distinguished titles. Teaching award programs should go beyond the one-time acknowledgment of excellence. These faculty are a "master teacher" resource to the campus in its efforts to develop effective instructional approaches and encourage faculty development. These "master teachers" provide a valuable resource to the state in addressing undergraduate education and faculty development, and should become an integral part of the state's strategic planning efforts.

  Strategies for Change

  1. Each campus should identify and implement strategies to encourage excellence in undergraduate student learning and faculty teaching through the involvement of "master teachers. " For example, these individuals could play a valuable role in new faculty orientation and faculty mentoring programs, programs designed to develop graduate students for future teaching roles and as teaching assistants, teaching evaluation and the faculty hiring process.

  2. The Board of Regents should establish an Ohio Teaching Academy, with the recognition of the General Assembly and the Office of the Governor. This Academy would recognize both outstanding teacher/scholars from each campus as well as departments that excel in undergraduate teaching. This group would then serve as a resource to the state in developing strategies for encouraging excellence in undergraduate education and teaching. Strategies to be considered by the Ohio Academy of Teaching might include such activities as mentoring programs for doctoral students, statewide seminars and symposia, and the development of "white papers" on teaching.

Despite the concern that faculty may be too heavily engaged in the scholarship of discovery and in graduate education, most faculty are deeply committed to the undergraduate learning process and have teaching as a high priority. At the same time, few university faculty have been educated to be teachers. To support faculty efforts in this regard, the processes for evaluating teaching should be improved and should be accomplished in such a way that evaluation becomes a tool for enhancing the development of the faculty member.

There now is a national and state imperative to improve teaching effectiveness and engage faculty more extensively in student learning, especially for undergraduates. At the same time, reward and incentive structures that help shape the use of faculty time must be reconceptualized to include an emphasis on teaching comparable to research. As one might imagine, the difficulty resides with the ability of a department to effectively evaluate teaching in a way that provides useful direction for the faculty and offers meaningful distinctions. While these distinctions exist for evaluating faculty research performance, teaching evaluation has not been traditionally assessed with the same intent and purpose.

The development of effective reward and incentive structures to support faculty teaching and faculty development efforts must be grounded in multi-dimensional evaluation strategies for faculty teaching performance.

Policy Recommendations and Strategies for Change

• Recommendation. Systems designed to evaluate teaching must also be sufficiently sophisticated and multi-dimensional to provide for a thorough assessment of each faculty member's teaching ability, both for the purpose of evaluation and reward and to provide further direction for individual faculty teaching development. Effective evaluation of teaching is essential to encouraging student learning, life-long faculty development, and the development of faculty rewards and incentives. Teaching is a complex and multi-faceted activity.

  Strategies for Change

  1. The higher education system, as a whole, should focus on developing and implementing multi-dimensional teaching evaluation strategies that are applicable to faculty at all levels (assistant, associate and full professors) and to teaching assistants, part-time faculty, adjunct faculty and instructors. Means of accomplishing this goal include:

  • collaborations both within each institution and among campuses to develop evaluation strategies. To encourage this activity and stimulate significant change, the Board of Regents should take a variety of actions, including:

    a) creating a statewide incentive program (funded by the state with institutional matching funds) for departments interested in developing teaching evaluation models that might be broadly applicable across the state.

    b) convening a statewide advisory council on undergraduate education to focus initially on teaching evaluation and effectiveness.

  • focus on multi-dimensional approaches to teaching evaluation, including a portfolio approach and faculty mentoring model.

  • focus on multi-dimensional sources of teaching evaluation, including self evaluation, student and peer evaluations, and videotape assessments.

  • focus on teaching evaluation as a tool for faculty growth, development and change as well as faculty assessment. Central to this goal is the role of the department chair and the structure/nature of the reward structures for faculty effort(promotion, tenure review and merit salary increases). Efforts should be made at both the institutional and statewide levels to work with department chairs in encouraging change.

  2. Higher education systems should focus on the goal of student outcomes and on teaching strategies that research suggests will produce student learning.

Regardless of academic background or experience, the role of each faculty member as teacher is central to the undergraduate student learning process. It only stands to reason, then, that on-going support and development must be provided for faculty in this arena if the educational community is to serve the needs of student learners. One component of support and development must be targeted at non tenure- track teaching staff who provide support for instructional activities. These individuals must also be supported in improving teaching performance.

Faculty are called upon to be increasingly involved in undergraduate education and teaching activities. As the educational community struggles to keep pace with rapid changes in technology and the needs of changing student populations and disciplines, faculty development continues as essential.

Faculty development continues to take a variety of forms. The Advisory Committee on Faculty Workload is particularly concerned with three areas of activity. First, that faculty development be focused on improving the quality of undergraduate education and, particularly, the interactions between faculty and students in the first years of college. Institutions should be creative in encouraging the active involvement of students in the learning process. For example, students should have the opportunity to engage in activities that encourage critical thinking, and analyzing and writing skills.

Second, faculty development activities should focus on the preparation of future faculty. Most graduate programs emphasize the development of research skills. Unless they serve as teaching associates, however, these "faculty of the future" are less likely to be prepared for their role in the classroom. Extensive mentoring and academic preparation occurs in molding the graduate student as competent researcher. Comparable attention needs to be focused on the development of graduate students as teachers. Graduate students are likely to find employment in a range of institutional settings that emphasize teaching and undergraduate education. Effort focused on the development and evaluation of effective teaching abilities would significantly enhance the graduate students' preparation for the future faculty role.

Third, faculty development opportunities should provide on-going support and mentoring for all faculty as well as other instructional staff.

Policy Recommendations and Strategies for Change

• Recommendation. Institutions should provide instructional resources to assist faculty in developing creative and innovative instructional approaches to undergraduate education. These resources should be organized in ways that will be most useful for the individual campus. Some campuses have already chosen to create centralized support services for faculty teaching. In other instances, support is available more informally through departments and colleges. Regardless of structure, each department and institution should actively support faculty development in teaching for faculty at all levels of experience.

  Strategies for Change

  1. Each institution (by department) should have a well-articulated plan for the development of faculty at all levels, from new faculty to tenured full professors, as well as a plan for the development of instructors and adjunct faculty. Elements of the plan might include new faculty orientation programs, faculty mentoring programs, workshops and seminars on special topics (e.g., teaching the freshman seminar, technology in instruction, techniques to enhance student critical thinking and writing skills), faculty development offices to provide individual assistance and teaching resources, and opportunities for faculty assessment. Institutional resources should be directed to the implementation of each department's plan. Students should have input into the development of these plans.

• Recommendation. Academic programs should be structured to provide opportunities for students to become skilled teachers as well as researchers. This preparation might take a variety of forms and should be both general preparation for teaching and development specific to the student's discipline. Current faculty play a critical role in preparing college and university teachers of the future and should be actively engaged in the process of developing graduate students for this future role. Training tomorrow's teachers is a prerequisite to long-term effectiveness. As the faculty of tomorrow, graduate students should be actively engaged in the process of preparing to teach.

  Strategies for Change

  1. The training and supervision of graduate students for the teaching assistant role should be a part of every institution's faculty development program.

  2. Beyond the role of graduate student as TA, academic program curriculum should include a specific component directed at the development of students as teachers. This might include such strategies as:

  a) coursework focused on such topics as the nature and structure of teaching, intellectual and ethical development issues of college-age students (both traditional and nontraditional age students), syllabus development and teaching strategies, and the use of technology in teaching;

  b) workshops and seminars on teaching (department, college and institution, as appropriate),

  c) assessment and review of teaching performance on a regular basis;

  d) teaching internships whereby graduate students intern with faculty in the classroom (with the purpose being the development of the graduate student as teacher versus the provision of additional teaching support to the faculty). The internship would provide the student the opportunity to be mentored by a departmental faculty member and follow the progress of a class from course conceptualization/development through completion, including opportunities to engage in supervised teaching (with feedback).

  e) the development of a teaching portfolio for each student, either during or after the completion of graduate study(and as a complement to the student's dissertation research activity). The student's portfolio might be comprised of such background materials as: faculty and peer assessments of teaching performance, student evaluations, course materials developed by the student, videotapes.

  4. The development of graduate students as teachers is an issue for the state as well as for each institution/department. Where appropriate, the guidelines for the review of new graduate programs by the Regents Advisory Committee on Graduate Study (RACGS) should incorporate a teaching component as a necessary part all new terminal degree programs (e.g., Ph.D. and M.F.A.).

  5. The Advisory Committee on Faculty Workload also acknowledges that the development of "faculty for the future" should be a strategy for long-term change in the faculty culture with regard to teaching. The committee recommends the Board of Regents develop a statewide "Faculty for the Future" effort. Such an initiative might provide:

  a) seed funding to departments (from the state or private funding sources), matched by institutional funds, for the purpose of developing graduate curriculum models to prepare doctoral students as faculty scholars in teaching as well as research.

  b) statewide graduate workshops on teaching and undergraduate education.

• Recommendation. Improving undergraduate instruction and ensuring that good student learning is a priority for all faculty should be among the highest priorities of the department/institution. Faculty at all levels should be encouraged and rewarded for their efforts in this regard (as has been discussed in other sections of this report). Leadership at the department or school level from the chairperson or director is critical to long-term change.

  Strategies for Change

  1. Department chairs and school directors should have plans in place for faculty development and undergraduate curriculum development. These should be readily available for discussion within the college and department.

  2. Faculty development/training/support should be provided to department chairs and school directors as a strategy for accomplishing the departmental/institutional goals with regard to undergraduate education and teaching.

  3. The importance of teaching and undergraduate education should be stressed in the hiring process for new faculty. Faculty hiring processes should provide opportunities to assess each candidates teaching philosophy and ability/potential. The hiring process should include:

  a) an opportunity for candidates to discuss their teaching strategies;

  b) an opportunity for each candidate to teach a class or lead a seminar discussion;

  c) a review of each candidate's teaching portfolio and his/her objectives for further development.

  5. Negotiations with new and current faculty regarding salary, class assignments, and release time for professional development (in both teaching and research) should blend a consideration of the faculty member's performance with regard to both research and teaching scholarship. Decisions regarding the use of faculty time need to be made consistent with departmental mission, the potential contribution to departmental needs and individual faculty development.

  6. Opportunities for new faculty to interact with more experienced faculty with regard to teaching and undergraduate education should be structured at the departmental level. These "opportunities" might include focused discussions on various topics (innovative teaching techniques, diversity issues, improvement of teaching skills), and mentoring.

THE PROCESS OF CHANGE - ENGAGING THE ACADEMY

The Advisory Committee on Faculty Workload has presented a range of recommended policy statements and strategies for change at both the institutional and state level. These recommendations are provided to the Ohio Board of Regents for review, consideration for action and, as appropriate, implementation. Longer-term change in the academic culture, however, can only be accomplished through efforts that engage the entire higher education community in a broader discussion of strategies for change. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Faculty Workload provide a focal point for beginning the discussion with the educational community.

A great deal of creativity and innovation already exists among faculty with regard to strategies to enhance undergraduate student learning and teaching effectiveness. Furthermore, examples of best practice with regard to student learning and teaching effectiveness can be found in every institution across the state. Longer-term efforts to shift the faculty culture with regard to teaching can best be accomplished by building on the current strengths of the state while also engaging faculty and academic leaders in the creative design of strategies for change. As such, the Advisory Committee on Faculty Workload recommends that the Ohio Board of Regents provide opportunities for the policy statements and recommended strategies for change to be discussed with the educational community, generally, and specifically with faculty and academic leaders (e.g., department chairs, graduate studies chairs, deans, faculty senates, promotion and tenure committees) prior to taking final action. This period of comment and discussion could identify additional areas for change and strategies for improvement.

A period of review within the educational community might take a variety of forms, including faculty forums and focus-group discussions, public hearings and discussions with academic leaders and students. The Advisory Committee recommends that the staff of the Board of Regents convene such meetings within each region of the state (and on each campus, if possible). The Board of Regents staff should be encouraged to call upon the membership of the Advisory Committee for assistance in this project.

Even as this period of discussion continues, the Advisory Committee recommends that the Board of Regents begin preliminary plans for those statewide strategies for change outlined in this report, particularly those with budgetary/funding implications.

The Advisory Committee on Faculty Workload noted the presence of many exemplary approaches for enhancing the reward and incentive systems for faculty teaching and for providing opportunities for the further development of faculty in this regard. The following represents a few examples of programs/initiatives of interest from various institutions across the state. The Advisory Committee on Faculty Workload recommends that the Ohio Board of Regents seek additional examples and further information regarding examples of "Best Practice" and provide this information to the academic community. The following list represents the beginning compilation of such information and is not comprehensive.

I. REWARD AND INCENTIVE SYSTEMS

Distribution of Merit Pay. Since 1985, Kent State University has divided the merit pool for faculty equally between research and teaching performance. A faculty member must achieve a certain threshold of performance on teaching before he/she can receive merit funds based upon research performance. The opposite is true as well. As such, a faculty member must demonstrate a threshold level of performance on both teaching and research in order to be considered for merit pay. As might be expected, this method of distribution has greater impact when larger merit pools are available. Unfortunately, merit pay has not been possible within the state's current funding climate during the past few years.

University Teaching Awards. Nearly every campus recognizes its outstanding faculty and graduate assistants for excellence in teaching. These recognitions include:

Kent State University annually awards several university-wide Distinguished Teacher Awards. The recognition includes a cash award of $1000.

Bowling Green State University has three awards for faculty teaching. These include the Faculty Excellence Award given yearly by the Undergraduate Student Government, the Master Teacher Award which carries with it a cash award of $1000, and the Distinguished Teaching Professorship includes an annual operating budget award of $1000 and the invitation to deliver the fall commencement address at the university.

Cleveland State University has an annual Distinguished Faculty Teaching Award. This recognition includes a $1000 cash award.

Ohio University established a University Professor Program in 1970. Faculty are chosen on the basis of two criteria: demonstrated teaching excellence and the capacity for developing original courses to offer as University Professors. Each professor receives a $2000 award.

University of Cincinnati has a Distinguished Teaching Professorship.

Central State University names Outstanding Teachers and provides a monetary award of $1,000.

The University of Toledo annually recognizes four outstanding teachers and provides them with a monetary award of $1500 each.

Teaching Academy. The Ohio State University has honored its faculty with outstanding teaching awards for several decades. Despite the fact that these outstanding faculty are acknowledged for their teaching abilities, little was done with the honorees beyond the initial award and recognition event. In the past year, Ohio State University has recognized the potential impact of this group of teacher-scholars on influencing change in the nature of the academy and improving the quality of undergraduate instruction through a greater attention to the development of faculty as teachers. Ohio State University has now created an "Academy of Teaching" comprised of past and present teaching award winners. These individuals will be working together to serve as an active resource to the campus regarding teaching and faculty development.

II. EVALUATION OF TEACHING

Portfolio approaches to teaching evaluation. Several campuses have begun efforts to evaluate faculty teaching through the use of multiple sources and types of evaluation materials(including student and peer evaluations, and the development of special evaluation materials) that combine to constitute a faculty teaching portfolio. The following are a few examples of campus-level efforts:

• Peer evaluations and systematic evaluation of teaching portfolios. Kent State University has established several objectives in its most recent Strategic Plan designed to broaden the notion of scholarship consistent with Ernest Boyer's conceptualization of scholarship in Scholarship Reconsidered (scholarship as discovery, integration, application and teaching) and provide new means of rigorously evaluating instructional activities. Included among the objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan is the plan to increase the use of both peer evaluations and the systematic review of teaching portfolios in the reward system for faculty. In relationship to this objective, Kent State University has been asked to participate in a national pilot project, "From Idea to Prototype: A Peer Review of Teaching, directed by the American Association for Higher Education with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts. Participating units from Kent State University include the Department of History, the School of Nursing, and the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science.

• Faculty portfolios. Miami University's Committee on the Improvement of Instruction awarded $35,000 to seven departments during the current academic year to design and implement effective evaluative measures that might be included in faculty portfolios. The results of these portfolio projects will be shared widely on campus and successive rounds of developmental grants are being considered.

  Generally speaking, however, Miami University has taken a comprehensive approach to the evaluation of teaching. A variety of approaches are commonly used to demonstrate teaching effectiveness including course/professor evaluations by students, peer evaluations by faculty colleagues both within and outside the department and reviews of syllabi and teaching materials. In developing teaching dossiers, many Miami faculty incorporate statements of their teaching philosophies and approaches to pedagogy. Others demonstrate commitment to teaching by discussing the importance of mentoring relationships, by participating in special teaching effectiveness seminars and programs, by contributions to literature on teaching, through collaborative projects with students, software and video-disc development, by instituting innovative approaches to teaching and through the success rates of their students in passing licensure examinations and gaining graduate admissions (as appropriate to the discipline).

• Portfolio Approaches to Teaching (Experimental). Ohio State University's College of Education has become increasingly aware of the need for more comprehensive and clearly articulated strategies for the evaluation of effective teaching. The College of Education's Personnel Committee of its Faculty Senate is completing a proposal to institute a portfolio approach to teaching evaluation on an experimental basis in selected areas within the college during the 1994-95 academic year.

• Criterion-Referenced Evaluation of Teaching. The University of Cincinnati's University College has a criterion-referenced system for evaluating teaching. Candidates for tenure or promotion must present a portfolio of evidence relevant to specific criteria, some of which are mandated by the review committee and some of which may be chosen by the candidate from a predetermined list.

III. FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

Teaching Council. To support faculty development in the area of teaching, Kent State University has established a Teaching Council consisting of both faculty and student members. This council is responsible for allocating up to $100,000 annually to support the improvement of teaching, with a particular focus on the undergraduate level.

Summer Institutes for Curricular Innovation. Consistent with available funds, Bowling Green State University's College of Arts and Sciences, in cooperation with BGSU's Office of Academic Affairs and Faculty Development Committee, has supported summer institutes for faculty considering participation in new curricular initiatives. These summer institutes focused on special topics and provided modest stipends for participants.

Teaching Effectiveness Programs. Miami University's Teaching Effectiveness Programs in the Office for the Advancement of Scholarship and Teaching provide a variety of opportunities for faculty development. A Committee on the Improvement of Instruction serves as an advisory group to the Office for the Advancement of Scholarship and Teaching and supports a range of programs described in an extensive university publication titled Teaching Grants, Programs and Events. Developmental activities are designed to support faculty at all levels of experience/development from first year faculty to senior faculty. Included among Miami University's efforts are:

• Teaching Scholars Program. This award winning program is described in a separate section below.

• Senior Faculty Program for Teaching Excellence. This program provides senior faculty the opportunity to participate in roundtable discussion of teaching, supports attendance at national higher education conferences, and provides $500 for a teaching project.

• Lilly Conference on College Teaching and the Journal on Excellence in College Teaching. These efforts provide opportunities for Miami University faculty to interact with faculty nationally on the topic of excellence in college teaching. The University is now in its 14th year of hosting the nationally recognized Lilly Conference on College Teaching which brings together Miami University faculty and administrators with colleagues from across the country. The Journal on Excellence in College Teaching is a refereed journal founded and published at Miami University.

• Grant support programs. Various grant support programs provide money to both individuals and departments for the development of new teaching methods and courses. Individuals can obtain small grants ($250) or summer fellowships ($3000), while departments can secure major grants ($12,000) or fund visiting teacher-scholars.

Teaching Scholars Program. Miami University's efforts to help junior faculty enrich their teaching skills earned it the prestigious 1994 Theodore M. Hesburgh Award in national competition. The Teaching Scholars Program was established in 1979 to provide guidance to faculty in their formative second to fifth years of professional engagement. Teaching Scholars participate in a two-semester series of special activities, including seminars on teaching and learning, retreats, national conferences and individual teaching projects. Participants in this program also select one or two senior faculty members each to serve as mentors. Participants are also provided with time and support for individual investigations of teaching problems and projects.

Project for Improvement and Reward of Teaching (PIRT). This project at the University of Cincinnati helps departments study their own cultures and change them, so as to support and nurture teaching and learning. Cultural aspects that would be studied and changed include the department's ways of granting status to its faculty, its ways of allocating resources to teaching and other priorities, its ways of categorizing students, its paths of communication about teaching, its intrinsic and extrinsic reward systems, and the rituals and ceremonies by which it enacts its core values.

College of Education/College of Engineering Partnership. Entering its third year (in 1994), the College of Education and the College of Engineering partnership at the University of Cincinnati provides opportunities for science education faculty to meet weekly with engineering faculty to explore and develop teaching techniques to enhance student learning outcomes.

Freshman Year Program. Center for Instructional Enhancement. In 1993, the Ohio University Foundation funded implementation of a Freshman Year Program, which includes the creation of a Center for Instructional Enhancement. The center coordinates resources and activities that support effective teaching and provides programs for all those involved in instruction: full-time faculty, part-time faculty, and teaching associates.

Experimental Education Fund. Ohio University offers a range of programs to support faculty teaching and advising activities. The University offers $10,000 - $15,000 in funding annually to support the improvement of undergraduate education. Specifically, this fund supports the integration of classroom and student life activities; provides for individual course enrichment when such enrichment falls outside normal budget parameters; and helps to launch experimental education programs which have potential for becoming permanent additions to University curriculum.

Instructional Grants. The University of Toledo's College of Arts and Sciences awards one $5,000 grant or two $2,500 grants to a department or collaborating departments to improve instruction. Proposals dealing with the development of interactive technologies or the introduction of culturally diverse materials into course syllabi are encouraged.

Teaching Excellence Committee. Central State University has a Teaching Excellence Committee that was organized in 1992. This group meets monthly and conducts programs aimed an enhancing instruction.

Faculty Development Workshops. More than 500 University of Cincinnati faculty have participated in a two-day workshop on critical thinking, writing, oral communication, and/or visual communication. A research study showed 99% of them subsequently changed their teaching methods.

Improved Teaching Methods in General Education. The University of Cincinnati is preparing to implement a General Education reform in which students take 33 hours of courses that have met certain pedagogical qualifications. These include an emphasis on critical thinking, written/oral/visual communication, engaging students in the practice of the discipline rather than merely having them memorize facts about the discipline, and committing the resources that will keep class size to a level that allows discussion and interaction between teacher and student.

Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE). The University of Toledo's Center for Teaching Excellence provides for faculty development through grants in support of teaching and through faculty outreach and workshop programs. The efforts of the CTE include:

• A Small Grants Program for teaching, where faculty can receive up to $300 annually to support, for example, purchase of software, books, or videos for classroom use. This fund also supports travel to national conferences and workshops related to teaching.

• A Teaching Enhancement Awards Program, where individual faculty members or groups of faculty can receive up to $3500 to support innovative teaching projects. These awards have been used for new course development and to enhance and "retool" existing courses, especially through the introduction of technology and multimedia.

• An orientation program for new faculty members, entitled An Introduction to University Teaching. This day-long workshop, offered the week before the start of fall classes, aims to introduce new faculty to UT centers such as Audio-Visual Services, the Writing Center, and the CTE that directly support teaching. New faculty also receive advice on pedagogy and student learning styles, and experience first-hand the University's commitment to excellence in teaching.

Dr. David L. Jamison
Interim Sr. Vice Pres. & Provost
University of Akron

Dr. Milton Hakel
Department of Psychology
Bowling Green State University

Dr. Lee Ingham
Department of Philosophy
Central State University

Dr. Joe Caruso
Dean of Arts & Sciences
University of Cincinnati

Dr. Barbara Walvoord
Professor, Department of English
University of Cincinnati

Dr. William Shorrock
Vice President for Academic Affairs
Cleveland State University

Dr. Roy Lilly
Department of Psychology
Kent State University

Dr. Amira Gohara
Department of Pathology
Medical College of Ohio

Dr. Hardy Eshbaugh
Department of Botany
Miami University

Dr. Glenn A. Saltzman
Dir., Div. of Basic Med. Science
NEOUCOM

Dr. Randy Smith
Department of Geography
The Ohio State University

Dr. Anne S. Pruitt
Director, Ctr. for Instructional Resources
The Ohio State University

Dr. David Stewart
Provost
Ohio University

Dr. Karin Sandell
School of Telecommunications
Ohio University

Mr. Jerry Holt
Department of English
Shawnee State University

Dr. Philip Rusche
Dean, College of Education & Allied Professions
University of Toledo

Dr. Willard J. Hutzel
V. President for Academic Affairs
Wright State University

Dr. James Scanlon
Provost
Youngstown State University

Dr. Keith Brooks
Professor Emeritus
The Ohio State University

Dr. James Bruning, Chair
Psychology Department
Ohio University

Dr. Jonathan York
President
Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce

Mr. Paul D. Marshall
Director
Legislative Office of Education Oversight

The Honorable Wayne Jones
Ohio House of Representatives

The Honorable Merle Kearns
Ohio Senate

Ohio Board of Regents

Dr. Elaine H. Hairston, Chancellor

Dr. Howard Gauthier
Executive Assistant to the Chancellor for Planning

Dr. N. Jane Fullerton
Assistant to the Chancellor for Administration &
Planning

Return to OBR home page