This report provides administrators (deans, department heads, and other faculty leaders) with practical ideas grounded in theory and empirical research for policies, programs, and activities to encourage an institutional culture that values instructional improvement. Although designed for administrators, it would behoove all faculty members to scan the report in order to get a better picture of the forces that shape their attitudes, values, and behaviors about teaching in colleges or universities in the United States.
The title of the report, Taking Teaching Seriously, implies that many institutions of higher education do not take teaching seriously, as witnessed by the scant training provided future faculty, the low visibility given to teaching, and--particularly in research institutions--the lack of emphasis given the role of teaching in faculty evaluation. Paulsen and Feldman hope that the report will serve "as a stimulator of renewed interest in instructional improvement and a source of guidance, direction, and ideas for deans, department chairs, and other faculty leaders who want to initiate, expand, or revitalize instructional improvement on their campuses." The authors meet this goal.
Paulsen and Feldman do four things in the report. They
Paulsen and Feldman preface their description of five sources of feedback for instructional improvement with two chapters that explore several theoretical models of change and the theoretical concepts behind organizational change. The models for motivating instructional change focus on the need to change attitudes and the importance of individual, interpersonal, and group forces in facilitating and solidifying positive change.
The chapter entitled, "The Teaching Culture" is particularly good in that it is brief, yet thorough. Paulsen and Feldman give a concise but effective overview of the history of colleges and universities in the United States. They explain that the culture of the American university has evolved over some 300 years. During this evolution the primary focus of a faculty member's workload has shifted from teaching, to service, to applied research, to basic research. Paulsen and Feldman believe, as do many of us, that American higher education is on the cusp of change in which--coming full circle--teaching is viewed as an important, valued, and rewarded faculty role.
Paulsen and Feldman outline five sources of feedback for instructional improvement. This framework organizes a variety of emerging practices used to improve instruction. A key focus of many of the practices is the use of formative evaluation of teaching (evaluation designed for improvement and faculty development) rather than summative evaluation (evaluation for personnel decisions). The five sources of feedback include self-assessment and feedback from students, colleagues, consultants, and department chairs:
1. Self-assessment: Feedback from teachers themselves. Paulsen and Feldman show how "critically reflective teaching and theories of adult learning and development can be applied to improve instruction." They encourage faculty members to engage in informal or formal practice- centered inquiry about their own teaching. Self assessment tools include teaching portfolios, teaching journals, and completion of self-rating forms (often modified versions of student evaluation forms).
2. Student Voices: Paulsen and Feldman believe that students should be treated as "active partners in the improvement of instruction." They review empirical research and meta-analyses of inquiries into the importance of student ratings. The conclusion drawn from the research is that student evaluations have a small positive effect on instructional improvement, especially when accompanied by personal consultation. Readers are presented with a sampling of techniques designed to include the student perspective in the instructional improvement process including written comments by students, group interviews with students (out-of-class), class interviews, quality control circles, "alliances for change," SGID (small group instructional diagnosis), student observers, and classroom assessment techniques (e.g. 1-Minute paper, and ETSF [early term student feedback]).
3. Colleagues: Paulsen and Feldman emphasize the power of "collegial coaching," in which pairs of teachers "reflect together to improve specific areas of their teaching." Two activities of collegial coaching are classroom observation and consultation consultation that includes peer review of course materials. Paulsen and Feldman also describe five different models of team teaching that can lead to instructional improvement.
4. Consultants: Empirical research shows that student evaluations in combination with consultation are "consistently associated with more positive future evaluation of [a] teachers instruction." The authors describe a comprehensive instructional consultation process; discuss the roles of instructional consultants; present four styles of consultative interaction; and outline varies effective practices for giving feedback. They further discuss the value of videotapes in combination with consultation today used mostly with graduate teaching assistants, but with great potential for use with faculty at all career stages.
5. Department Chairs: The authors outline how department chairs are crucial to the nurturing of improved instruction. Department chairs are the leaders in cultivating a departmental culture that values teaching by encouraging peer observations, requiring pedagogical colloquiums, and opening the dialogue of teaching (for example, encouraging the sharing of syllabi among faculty, or the use of "teaching circles").
Although the report devotes a chapter to the needs of new and junior faculty, it lacks inclusion of programs and emerging practices for training graduate students for teaching and for socializing graduate students to value teaching. Also lacking is adequate coverage of the external pressures that are affecting teaching--pressures such as increasing class sizes, the increase in the average age of college students, and rapid innovations in instructional technology. Paulsen and Feldman do close, however, by touching on several trends that faculty leaders will have to face: increasing numbers of part-time faculty; continued pressure to broaden the definition of scholarship; and a paradigm shift that focuses on designing better instruments for evaluating learning.
Tricia Kalivoda
Faculty Development Programs Specialist
University of Georgia