Content uploaded by Donald G. McGahan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Donald G. McGahan on Oct 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Plenary Presenters
Conference Papers
Abstracts Preface
Institutions Represented
Thank Your to Cosponsors
www.lillyconferences.com/tx | 8Lilly Conference on College & University Teaching and Learning
Evidence-Based Teaching and Learning | Austin, TX Conference Proceedings | Garza, et al.
Faculty Perceptions on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Faculty
Development Initiative
Javier Garza
College of Science and Technology
Tarleton State University
Kelley Shaer
College of Education
Tarleton State University
James E. Gentry
College of Education
Tarleton State University
Donald G. McGahan
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
Tarleton State University
Sarah Maben
College of Liberal and Fine Arts
Tarleton State University
Syed Hussain A. Jafri
College of Business Administration
Tarleton State University
Abstract
is article is a synopsis of one university’s experiment on a faculty cohort (n = 12) that participated in an
inaugural program of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) program at a southwest regional
university. Interviews were used to determine the perceived impact on teaching and research as a result of
participation in this program. Investigators determined that the participants perceived a positive impact on
their teaching methods with a transition toward evidence-based instruction. ey also reported an expanded
research agenda.
Literature Review
In the spirit of Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered (1990), one university’s faculty development team set out to
spread the word about the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) to colleagues. e systematic research
and reection on teaching and student learning was woven into the university’s new strategic plan, and the
faculty-to-faculty developers recognized the opportunity to develop a cross-disciplinary initiative to promote
this research among colleagues.
SoTL compels teachers to shi from thinking of teaching solely as student-teacher interaction to an “object
of investigation” (Bass, 1999). Hodges (2013) casts SoTL as a mindset of “questioning old assumptions about
what teaching entails and how our students learn, gathering and examining evidence of the eects of our
approaches, and reecting on and sharing insights gained” (p. 72). is transformational agenda cuts across
disciplinary silos, but not everyone has the social science methodologies needed to attain expertise applying
Plenary Presenters
Conference Papers
Abstracts Preface
Institutions Represented
Thank Your to Cosponsors
www.lillyconferences.com/tx | 9Lilly Conference on College & University Teaching and Learning
Evidence-Based Teaching and Learning | Austin, TX Conference Proceedings | Garza, et al.
SoTL (Hubball & Clark, 2010). Faculty members in schools of education are versed in bridging required
outcomes assessment to a legitimate research program, but faculty in other disciplines are not aware of the
opportunity to subject their pedagogy to the rigor of scientic research principles. Conclusions regarding
the success of a given instructional practice are oen grounded in anecdote and instructors’ prior experience
as a student. While epistemological viewpoints and nuances of sound pedagogical practices may be uneven
across disciplines, Huber (2006) argues for interdisciplinary interactions amongst faculty as these interactions
foster cross disciplinary discovery of those very nuances of pedagogical practices. e study explores how
one university’s faculty development team created, and the inaugural cohort members evaluated, the pilot
installation of a SoTL program.
e Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s initiative, CASTL Carnegie Academy for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL), sought to promote the concept of taking teaching seriously
and “continues to nourish academic practice” (Bender, 2005). e SoTL message has spread throughout the
academy, and faculty SoTL training programs have taken dierent forms on campuses across the United
States. For example, Southeast Missouri State University uses a SoTL Fellows model, where an annual
cohort of 10 meets monthly to cra SoTL research projects (Waterman et al., 2010). In a study of three
of the Southeast cohorts, 66% of the SoTL projects showed enhanced student learning (100 courses and
4,500 students aected). In addition, 15 projects were presented at conferences, and seven were published
in peer-reviewed journals. e University of Wisconsin System assessed its 11-year SoTL program to
nd that 96% of participants (n = 130) reported a positive impact from its program (Voelker & Martin,
2013). Sixty-two percent of participants published SoTL-related articles, essays and book chapters. At Iowa
State University, researchers interviewed 18 SoTL champions about their experiences with SoTL research
(Marcketti, Gidlewski, & Leptien, 2014). ree themes of faculty perceptions emerged from the qualitative
study: synergistic eorts (the overlapping of teaching, research, and service eorts), personal and professional
benets, and nuanced understanding (related to how a university perceives SoTL projects). Like these
universities, the university in this study began a SoTL program for its faculty.
e purpose of this paper is to document faculty perceptions of a SoTL program that was created to enhance
the participant’s ability and interest to complete and sustain an ongoing SoTL agenda at a regional university
in the southwest United States. Two research questions were posed: R1. How do SoTL program participants
perceive the impact of the experience on their teaching? and R2. How do SoTL program participants perceive
the impact of the experience on their research agenda?
Methodology
e faculty development team, called Faculty Fellows, created a program and solicited faculty applications to
participate in the university’s rst SoTL cohort. Priority consideration was given to those applicants without
prior experience with educational research. A cohort of 12 was selected with faculty members from a diverse
set of disciplines, including the natural sciences and the humanities. Most were assistant professors with
doctoral degrees, and had varying years of service at the university. Demographics are omitted so individual
identication is not possible. Because a keystone of a SoTL eort is communicating ndings (Bishop-Clark &
Dietz-Uhler, 2012), a central goal for the semester-long initiative was that every participant submit an abstract
or manuscript to present at a conference or for publication, respectively. is goal was incentivized because
participants did not receive their stipend until they responded to a Request For Proposal to present at a
conference or submitted a manuscript to a journal. Over the course of ve Saturdays, the faculty development
team at a mid-size regional Master’s granting university in the southwest U.S. led workshops and lectures.
Topics included: an introduction to SoTL projects and the SoTL research process including reection; research
question construction; study design; institutional review board (human subjects) process; data collection and
analysis; and publication and presentation avenues. At the time of publication, eight members of the cohort
had earned their stipends by submitting an article about their SoTL project to a journal, or had submitted to
present the project at an academic conference.
Plenary Presenters
Conference Papers
Abstracts Preface
Institutions Represented
Thank Your to Cosponsors
www.lillyconferences.com/tx | 10Lilly Conference on College & University Teaching and Learning
Evidence-Based Teaching and Learning | Austin, TX Conference Proceedings | Garza, et al.
Aer receiving IRB approval of Exempt status (University IRB approval #2014-012314-14001), the faculty
development team utilized a qualitative design based on two research questions that guided the study. Because
participants’ perceptions were the focus of the study, interviews served as the primary data source. e
interviews were conducted at least three months aer completion of the program but prior to formal group
presentations of each participant’s SoTL project. All 12 participants were interviewed. e interview questions
were structured to give researchers a glimpse into participants’ perceptions regarding the SoTL experience.
e interviews were conducted in person, over the phone, and virtually by an independent interviewer.
Completed interviews were transcribed and delivered to investigators for analysis. e interview questions
were: 1) How has your participation in the SoTL cohort program impacted your ability to complete a SoTL
project? 2) How has the SoTL experience impacted your teaching? 3) How has the SoTL experience impacted
your research agenda? 4) What tools or strategies did you nd helpful when participating in SoTL? Tell us
why you found them helpful. 5) What changes in the SoTL process might have made it more eective and
applicable for your teaching and research eorts? and 6) Anything else you want to say?
Investigators used open coding as they independently reviewed all transcripts in their entirety for keywords
and themes. Keywords were collapsed into categories and further collapsed into patterns or themes (Gay,
Mills, & Airasian, 2012). Investigators (n = 6) compared coding and themes via peer debrieng (Creswell,
1998). From peer debrieng and discussions, overall themes emerged through debate and consensus. Narrative
samples from transcripts provided participants a voice concerning their SoTL experience.
Results
Transformation and transition were two overarching themes for both research questions. e major theme
for faculty member perceptions on a SoTL experience’s impact on teaching (R1) was a transition to evidence-
based teaching. Participants were testing assumptions about particular teaching methods. One participant
phrased it this way: “I think you get comfortable doing things a certain way and you know whether or not
that’s the most eective way in that particular context; you may or may not be true sic [correct]. You’ve got to
keep asking yourself those questions and nd ways to eciently and eectively get those questions answered.”
Another said he “found that a lot of the things we were doing in the classroom don’t always increase student
engagement, that students have a dierent way of being connected … than we were expecting.” A third said
he was thinking of new ways of approaching the classroom, and the kind of eects that may have on student
learning and outcomes.
While some participants were in a transition to evidence-based teaching, others experienced transformation.
“I’ve kind of gone from just being someone in front of the room throwing information out, to trying to get
the students more involved and trying to make it more of an engaging environment for them,” said one
participant, who has already applied SoTL ndings to her classroom. She added, “...the assessment portion
of my SoTL research has been helpful in terms of how I can add value in my classes right now.” Another
participant said she is making sure that scholarship is involved when she implements something new into her
course, saying her teaching has “more of a purpose.”
Two sub-themes included reection on their own teaching and beliefs about student learning, and exposure
to teaching ideas from colleagues. e reections included “reconsidering” and “rethinking” classroom
approaches. “It’s certainly made me think more about the way that students learn in a modern setting,” said
one participant. Another participant said the program did not change the way she taught, but she did add a
teaching component to her research agenda.
In addition to transforming the participants’ perceptions about teaching, the investigators noted a change
in participants’ perceptions about research as well as a broadened research agenda (R2). e keyword data
taken from the transcriptions suggests a transition of foci from solely traditional discipline specic research
to an expanded research agenda which now includes SoTL research. Evidence of a change in participants
perceptions were statements such as “I’ve been able to add more of the teaching component to my research
Plenary Presenters
Conference Papers
Abstracts Preface
Institutions Represented
Thank Your to Cosponsors
www.lillyconferences.com/tx | 11Lilly Conference on College & University Teaching and Learning
Evidence-Based Teaching and Learning | Austin, TX Conference Proceedings | Garza, et al.
agenda in addition to my other posted research” and “...this is good because it provided another area to focus
on.” When describing how this experience has impacted their research agenda, a third participant remarked
that SoTL is a “secondary area of research that I can kind of focus in” and further stated she would denitely
incorporate SoTL into her research objectives. Another said, “I would have never gotten into SoTL — it’s a line
of research that would be missing in my kind of [research] tool bag.”
For the novice researchers, the SoTL program provided guidance and assistance to motivate them to not only
complete this research project but also increased their self-ecacy about unfamiliar research methods. During
the post program interview, one participant stated, “e support of the Faculty Fellows and all the resources
provided [to] us really helped me to see a project all the way through.” Another participant displayed some
trepidation because she did not have any prior experience with human or classroom research. Yet another
participant interjected that she did not feel condent in her research abilities prior to starting the program.
Since completing the program, this same participant stated, “I feel more condent in my [research] abilities
and skills.” Another participant started the program lacking condence with qualitative research methods.
However, upon completing the program, his perspective changed. He stated, “[SoTL] helped me get my mind
around the idea that [qualitative research] is OK and that’s real too.” One of the greatest successes of this
program is that aer completing this program, one of the participants decided to enroll in a doctoral program
because she felt more condent in her research skills.
e investigators also noted benets to those participants who were experienced researchers. One participant
noted, “Being able to do research on what I’m passionate about, which is teaching, was kind of eye opening.” A
participant from the natural sciences stated, “Learning how to take something that we’re doing in the research
lab and how to bring it into the classroom is an important change in the way I do research.” In addressing the
program, this participant further elaborated, “It’s helped me to fuse together an educational component with
the actual research I’m doing.” A male participant stated that his SoTL experience “opened up some doors
on some other research areas to go into” further stating, “It will lead to several more conference papers and
proceedings or journal articles.”
Discussion
e research ndings are consistent with Hodges (2013): “rough the SoTL perspective, faculty realize that
course design is an intellectual endeavor, that students are complex individuals from whom they can learn, and
that teaching is an ongoing transformational journey to be shared.” (p. 72) Participants began to recognize and
started to practice evidence-based teaching with plans for broader dissemination of ndings. Participants also
realized the value of SoTL research and have expanded their research agenda to include projects that involve
the SoTL and its impact on students.
A limitation for this study is the small number of participants from a single institution, which weakens
generalizations to larger populations. Another limitation of the study is the potential bias introduced into
the study by investigators who are also mentors for the program. Suggested areas for further research include
collecting longitudinal data to track how the participants incorporate SoTL into their research agenda and
how their teaching evolves as a result of their research.
Huber and Hutchings (2006) stated about SoTL, “doing it enables one to use it” (p. 28) and one institution’s
foray into a SoTL cohort experience helped 12 faculty members start their SoTL journey. As a result of this
investigation and the perceived success by the participants, the university has decided to continue the program
with revisions to capitalize on promoting a campus culture of evidence-based teaching and research.
Plenary Presenters
Conference Papers
Abstracts Preface
Institutions Represented
Thank Your to Cosponsors
www.lillyconferences.com/tx | 12Lilly Conference on College & University Teaching and Learning
Evidence-Based Teaching and Learning | Austin, TX Conference Proceedings | Garza, et al.
References
Bass, R. (1999). e scholarship of teaching: What’s the problem?. Inventio: Creative inking About Learning
And Teaching, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www2.okcu.edu/cetl/randybass.pdf
Bender, E. T. (2005). CASTLs in the air. Change, 37(5), 40-49.
Bishop-Clark, C., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2012). Engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning: A guide to the
process, and how to develop a project from start to nish. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York: Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among ve traditions. ousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hodges, L. C. (2013). Postcards from the edge of SoTL: A view from faculty development. Teaching and
Learning Inquiry: e ISSoTL Journal 1(1), 71-79. Indiana University Press. Retrieved November 8,
2014, from Project MUSE database.
Hubball, H., & Clark, A. (2010). Diverse methodological approaches and considerations for SoTL in higher
education. e Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 1-11.
Huber, M.T. (2006). Disciplines, pedagogy, and inquiry-based learning about teaching. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 107, 69-77.
Huber, M.T., & Hutchings, P. (2006). Building the teaching commons. Change: e Magazine of Higher
Learning, 38(3), 24-31.
Marcketti, S., Gidlewski, S., & Leptien, J. (2014, November). SoTL champions: Leveraging their lessons learned.
Presentation at the 39th Annual POD Conference, Dallas, TX.
Voelker, D., & Martin, R. (2013). Wisconsin teaching fellows & scholars program assessment project: Final
report. University of Wisconsin System, Oce of Professional & Instructional Development. Retrieved
from http://tinyurl.com/jvrgkd8
Waterman, M., Weber, J., Pracht, C., Conway, K., Kunz, D., Evans, B., ... & Starrett, D. (2010). Preparing
scholars of teaching and learning using a model of collaborative peer consulting and action research.
Faculty Perceptions on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, a Faculty Development
Initiative
Conference Proceedings
EVIDENCE-BASED
TEACHING AND
LEARNING
Austin, Texas
January 4–7, 2015
international teaching
learning cooperative,
llc
ITLC
HOSTED BY:
Lilly Conference
Institutions Represented
Thank Your to Cosponsors
www.lillyconferences.com/txEvidence-Based Teaching and Learning
Conference Proceedings
Lilly Conference on College & University Teaching and Learning | Austin, TX
Plenary Presenters
Conference Papers
Abstracts
Institutions Represented Thank Your to Cosponsors Preface
Preface to Conference Proceedings
is past January approximately 200 conference participants attended the Lily Conference on College
and University Teaching in Austin, Texas. ese individuals represented 118 dierent institutions,
from 27 states. e conference program oered 3 plenary speakers, 72 concurrent sessions, 6 round-table
discussions, and 13 poster presentations.
I am grateful to all of the individuals who presented their work at the Lilly Conference on College and
University Teaching, Austin 2015. Conference evaluations, supported by anecdotal comments, clearly
noted the quality of the session presentations, both in content and delivery.
Of the many things that are needed to make a conference a success, conference presentations are
by far the most important. is is certainly a group eort and I appreciate the willingness of the
presenters to help make this important event possible.
Respectively Recorded,
Todd Zakrajsek, Conference Director
Home Conference Information Institutions Past Conferences Resources Contact
Proposals
The call for proposals is now closed.
Subthemes
L
illy Conferences is committed to EvidenceBased Teaching and Learning. The conference subthemes include
:
•Academic Success
•Student Learning
•Creating Communities of Learners
• Course/Curriculum Design/Redesign
•Engaging and Motivating Students
•Innovative Pedagogical Approaches
•Multiculturalism/Diversity/Inclusion
•Online Learning and Teaching
•Promoting Social Responsibility and Sustainability
•Service/Experiential Learning
•Teaching Well with Classroom Technologies
T
he conference offers a dynamic program across three and onehalf days. Presenters may submit presentation
p
roposals formatted as 100minute workshops, concurrent 60minute sessions or 40minute presentations, 20
m
inute discussions, or as a poster presentation. Potential presenters are asked to rank order the format they
r
equest consideration of their proposal. If your session content cannot be formatted to be presented in a specific
f
ormat please do not select that format when ranking your request. Conference presentations are selected
t
hrough a blind peerreview process, following the close of the call for proposals
.
P
resenters may develop their presentation into a manuscript for consideration in the Conference Proceedings.
The guidelines for submitting a manuscript are found under the resource tab. All manuscripts are blindpeer
r
eviewed
.
First Last
News & Updates
2015 Conference Workbook
Click here to download the
Conference Workbook (PDF)
Join the Lilly
Conference Mailing
List
Name
Institution
Email
Anti-Spam Verification
Submit
Page 1 of 2Proposals | Lilly Conference on College & University Teaching – Texas
2
/
3
/
201
5
htt
p
://lill
y
conferences.com/tx/
p
ro
p
osals
/
© 2012 International Teaching Learning Cooperative
Site designed by Mevins Consulting
Page 2 of 2Proposals | Lilly Conference on College & University Teaching – Texas
2
/
3
/
201
5
htt
p
://lill
y
conferences.com/tx/
p
ro
p
osals
/
