1. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 1 Michel A. Wattiaux, Dairy Science Department and Teaching Academy UW-Madison Teaching Excellence, Teaching Expertise, and the Scholarship of Teaching

2. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 2 Content/Objectives 1. A Quick Historical Perspective. 4. Research Productivity vs. Teaching Effectiveness. 2. Excellence vs. Expertise Vs. Scholarship of Teaching. 3. Scholarly Activity: a “Process” as Much as a “Product.” 5. Summary and Conclusions.

3. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 3 Looking Back 1900195020001850 Glassick et al. 1997.Scholarship Assessed, Evaluation of the Professoriate, During and after World war II, science identified itself with national interest and got funded accordingly R T 1st Morrill Act 1862. The Hatch Act 1887. 2 nd Morrill Act 1890. Early in the 20 th century, the work of “investigation” added to the prevailing ideas of scholarship. R T “The prime business of American professors … must be regular and assiduous class teaching.” C. Eliot, 1896 President of Harvard. T R

4. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 4 The Irony of the 2 nd half of the 20 th Century Most faculty believed that the criteria used for tenure and promotion were “out of Balance” with what they believed was important and appropriate for their institution (R. Diamond, 2002) Diamond, R. M. 2002. New Direction in Teaching and Learning 90:73-79 Glassick et al. 1997.Scholarship Assessed, Evaluation of the Professoriate, 19502000 Research accomplishments became a well-rewarded model for individuals and institutions recognition. Research The reward system made professors undervalue, and turn away from spending time improving their teaching. Universities became more open and inclusive in admitting undergraduates. Teaching The changing profile of the student body made the need for good teaching both more important and more challenging.

5. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 5 So, What?… Learning about — and training in — teaching has been almost entirely ignored in higher education programs. Most faculty in academic positions with teaching responsibilities have never learned how to teach. Most faculty teach undergraduates as they were taught … (for the most part lecturing). Current teaching styles are, for the most part, narrow and fit the needs of a narrow range of students with a particular learning style. Teaching still is a “private affair” that takes place behind the walls of a classroom. As a result, teaching has never benefited from a “peer-review” process. Bad News:

6. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 6 Teaching Excellence, Teaching Expertise, and the Scholarship of Teaching Carolin Kreber Kreber C. 2002. Higher Education 46:93-121

7. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 7 Excellence vs. Expertise vs. Scholarship Kreber, C. 2002. Innovative Higher Education 27:5-23 ExcellenceExpertiseScholarship 1. What are the sources of information relied upon as “building blocks” of pedagogical knowledge? Own experience (trial and error). Newsletters, Workshops Books. Conferences, Peer-reviewed articles. 2. What is the focus of the instructor’s reflection? What works / does not work in the class as a whole. Address a particular problem in their own teaching.

8. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 8 Excellence vs. Expertise vs. Scholarship Kreber, C. 2002. Innovative Higher Education 27:5-23 ExcellenceExpertiseScholarship 3. Who do the instructors communicate their teaching and learning insights to? No dissemination / communication of insights (“private affair” except for nomination material to a teaching award committee). Insights are shared with others in the department or the campus (“public affair”). Dissemination of insights to all interested in a particular T&L issue (“public affair”). 4. Who are the beneficiaries of the instructor’s knowledge in teaching and learning? - Students - One-self (instructor) -Students -One-self - Colleagues - department - campus. -Students -One self -Colleagues - beyond the campus& discipline.

9. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 9 Excellent vs. Expert vs. Scholar Kreber, C. 2002. Innovative Higher Education 27:5-23 Excellent TeacherExpert TeacherScholarship Great course evaluations; Recognize past “mistakes”; Knows what works to help students learn their topics; Recipients of (campus) teaching award. Presented at teaching improvement “brown bag” series on campus or abstracts. “Semi-formal” (collegial) peer-review of one’s teaching expertise. Presented abstracts, invited talks, facilitated workshops on a T&L issue. “Formal” (anonymous) peer-reviewed (journal- based) publications. Draw on personal and formal sources of pedagogical knowledge and seek answers to specific questions;

10. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 10

11. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 11 Criteria of Considering an Activity or a Work Scholarly Diamond, R. M. 2002. New Direction in Teaching and Learning 90:73-79 1. Requires a high level of discipline-related expertise. 2. Has clear goals, adequate preparation, and appropriate methodology. 3. Results are appropriately and effectively documented and disseminated, include a reflective critique that addresses the significance of the work. 4. Has significance beyond individual context. It breaks new ground or is innovative. It can be replicated or elaborated. 5. The process and product or results, is reviewed and judged to be meritorious and significant by a panel of one’s peer.

12. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 12 Model 1: Scholarly Teaching (Expert) 2- Critical reflection on strategies, techniques, possibilities 3- Application to practice 4- Assessment of results 5- Documentation of results and self-reflections 7- “Publicly” available products (web-publications, student work, measures of student learning, course portfolios, etc). 1- Systematic inquiry into a teaching and learning issue Modified from Ciccone, A. 2002. 6- (Semi-formal) peer review

13. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 13 Model 2: Research in Teaching Creation of Pedagogical Content (Scholar) Modified from Paulsen, M. B. 2001. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 86:19-29 Reflective Practices Course Evaluations Faculty Development Pedagogical Content Knowledge Traditional Educational Research Pedagogical Knowledge Traditional Disciplinary Research Content Knowledge Classroom Research “Publications” Student learning

14. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 14

15. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 15 Is there a Conflict Between Research Productivity and Teaching Effectiveness? Often time, the “pre-conceived” notion (bias?) has been that :… Good researchers are (for the most part) good teachers, …with the reverse implication being that:… Good teachers may be “weak” researchers. Conventional wisdom is that teaching and research are mutually supportive if not inseparable (Webster, 1986). Webster. D. 1986. Instructional Evaluation 9:14-20 Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641

16. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 16 The Relation Between Research Productivity and Teaching Effectiveness Marsh, H. W. and J. Hattie Is research and teaching complementary, antagonistic or independent constructs? Model: Teaching and research outcomes are a function of ability, motivation and time. Teaching effectiveness was measured with student evaluations (overall, presentations, and course value). Research productivity was measured with journal articles, conference papers, authored book or book chapters. One major research university, 20 academic departments, 182 Faculty. Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641

17. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 17 Teaching - Research Relation: Outcomes Total Number of Publications (Last 3 Years) Overall Teacher Rating r = 0.03 Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641

18. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 18 Teaching - Research Relation: Correlations Ability 1 Motivation 2 Time 3 Outcomes 4 Research Ability Research Motivation Research Time Research Outcomes NC 5 NC -0.33 NC Teaching 1 Ability = self-assessed. 2 Motivation = degree of satisfaction and career objective. 3 Time = hours spent. 4 Outcome = publications (research) and course evaluation (teaching). 5 NC = No correlation. NC Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641

19. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 19 Teaching - Research Relation: Summary Good Researcher ≠ Good Teachers Good Teacher ≠ Good Researcher Research performance does not provide a surrogate measure of teaching effectiveness. Teaching performance should be evaluated with its own set of criteria. Researcher Poor Good 25% Good Poor Teacher Marsh, H. and J. Hattie. 2002. Journal of Higher Education 73:603-641 R. skills T. skills

20. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 20

21. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 21 Comparing the Views of “Experts” and “Regular Academic Staff”. Experts = Educational scientists who have “published” on the Scholarship of Teaching (n = 10). Regular staff = Faculty from two listservs of professional associations (n = 99). Survey instrument of 105 likert-type items measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Kreber C. 2002. Higher Education 46:93-121 Study Background:

22. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 22 Selected Items for Which “Educational Scientists” Differed from “Faculty” ItemP Kreber C. 2002. Higher Education 46:93-121 Experts Mean 1 Faculty Mean 1 :1= Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree 02. The assessment, recognition and reward of the scholarship of teaching remains a primary challenge ………………………………………….036.86.4 25. Whether student ratings of instruction are acceptable measures of the scholarship of teaching is an unresolved issue ……………….. <.011.94.1

23. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 23 Selected Items for Which “Educational Scientists” Differed from “Faculty” ItemP Experts Mean 1 Faculty Mean 1 :1= Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree 18. The scholarship of teaching is an activity that, in the context of promoting student learning, meets each of the following criteria: It requires high levels of disciplinary expertise, It breaks new ground and is innovative, Can be replicated and elaborated, Can be peer-reviewed, Has significant impact…………………………… <.016.15.3

24. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 24 Summary and Conclusions After more than 50 years of “second-citizen status” in many institutions, the scholarship of teaching may bring back a shining quality to the instructional responsibilities of the faculty. Teaching effectiveness and research productivity are separate constructs relying upon separate, but inter-related sets of skills. Thus, it follows that: good researchers are not necessarily good teachers, good teachers are not necessarily good researchers, but... (presumably) one can acquire the skills to be good at both. A scholarly activity (in teaching) is defined as much by a process than by a specific product – peer-review is key.

25. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 25 Summary and Conclusions Excellence, expertise and scholarship of teaching: are three distinct, but equally valid models that describe a faculty’s level of commitment to teaching and learning issues. provide a framework to set standards and expectations. could be used in tenure and promotion guidelines to help document teaching accomplishments in the context of: each specific individual appointment (% teaching) the mission statement of the department and the institution.

26. UW-Madison, Teaching Academy Dec 9, 2005; 26 Citations are available at: http://dairynutrient.wisc.edu/page.php?id=87