Assessing Foundations Programs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

assessing foundations programs n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Assessing Foundations Programs PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Assessing Foundations Programs

play fullscreen
1 / 20
Assessing Foundations Programs
119 Views
Download Presentation
abel
Download Presentation

Assessing Foundations Programs

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. K. Lynn Taylor University Teaching Services The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2 Assessing Foundations Programs Foundations of University Teaching Colloquium Flinders University, Adelaide, April 10-11, 2003 Acknowledgements: This study is supported by a SSHRC Standard Research Grant (#410-2002-1584) to Schonwetter (PI), Ellis, Griffin, Perry, Taylor & Wright, 2002-2005

  2. Session Objectives • Outline our longitudinal study • Explore selected bench mark data • Seek feedback on the design and findings

  3. University of Manitoba: Program Requirements • Theory: • Credit Course - 129.745 Teaching and Learning in Post-Secondary Instruction (3 credits) or • Extended Workshops & Papers/Research Project • Practice: • TA work reflection and feedback or • Mentor supervised teaching • Professional Development: 20 Hours • Teaching Dossier and Curriculum Vitae (CV) • Optional:WebCT training; Accent Modification.

  4. University of Waterloo:Program Requirements • GS 901: • 6 workshops • 6 reflective response papers • GS 902: • 2 more workshops • 2 more response papers, research paper, presentation on paper, teaching dossier • GS 903: • 3 observed teaching events • 3 reflective response papers

  5. Longitudinal Study: Gaps in the Literature • Gap 1: Lack of research and comprehensive program evaluations based on empirical design(Chism, 1998; Weimer & Lenze, 1997) • Gap 2: Target instructional interventions to specific groups across institutions(Levinson-Rose & J. & Menges, 1981; Weimer & Lenze, 1997) • Gap 3: Inclusion of different kinds of inquiry, including both qualitative methods and quantitative methods(Levinson-Rose & J. & Menges, 1981; Weimer & Lenze, 1997) • Gap 4: Limited models and theories to direct research (Blackburn, Beiber, Lawrence & Trautvetter, 1991; Menges & Svinicki, 1989; Perry et al., 1997;Weimer & Lenze, 1997)

  6. GTA Studies (Abbott, Wulff & Szego, 1989; Carroll, 1980; Chism, 1998; Weimer & Lenze, 1997) Conceptual Framework GTA Development Theories (Abbott, Wulff & Szego, 1989; Marincovitch, Prostko & Stout, 1998; McKeachie, 1997) CHET-CUT Study (SSHRC Grant to Schonwetter (PI), Ellis, Griffin, Perry, Taylor & Wright, 2002-2005) New Hires Research (Boice, 1992; Menges, 1994; 1996; Perry et al., 1997; Smith & Kalivoda, 1998) Pilot Studies of CUT-CHET Programs (Ellis & Schonwetter, 2001;Schonwetter & Taylor, 2000) Control Theory (Bandura, 1986; Perry et al., 1997; 1999)

  7. CHET-CUT Longitudinal Study PROCEDURE Ethical Approval Access to Graduate Students University of Manitoba Control Group(s) University of Waterloo Pre-Test prior to entry into CHET-CUT Post-Test after CHET-CUT completion 18 month follow-up into a tenure track position

  8. Pre-Test • Perceptions of: • Preparation for academic career • Importance to academic career • Perceived control questions: • having to teach a new course this term • Open-ended questions: • How did you come to know about the Program? • What motivated you to sign-up for the Program? • Effects of program on professional and personal development?

  9. Who Has Been Participating in Our Study? (M = Means) • 65 (53.7%) female; 56 (46.3%) males • 20 to 48 years (M = 28.01) • 56 seeking a Master’s degree; 64 seeking a Ph.D. • 1 - 12 graduate courses completed (M = 3.42) • 0 - 9 terms of studying (M = 3.29 terms) • Markers for 0-14 courses (M = 1.98 courses) • TAs for 0 - 14 courses (M = 2.10 courses) • Instructors for 0 - 6 courses (M = .76 courses).

  10. Top 5 Most Important Teaching Items Very Low Very High

  11. 5 Least Prepared for Teaching Items Very Low Very High

  12. Difference Between Importance and Prepared IMPORTANCE - LEAST PREPARED

  13. 5 Least Important Teaching Items Very Low Very High

  14. What Most Influenced or Motivated you to Sign-Up for the CHET/CUT Program? Frequencies

  15. How will Your Experience in the CHET/CUT Program Contribute to Your Professional Development? Frequencies

  16. How will Your Experience in the CHET/CUT Program Contribute to Your Personal Development? Frequencies

  17. Responses to Data • How can these data be used to inform the development or fine tuning of our programs? • How can research like this be used to enhance the scholarship of faculy development?

  18. References Abbott, R.D., Wulff, D.A., & Szego, C. K. (1989). Review of research on TA training. In J.D> Nyquist, R.D> Abbott, & D. A. Wulff (Eds.), New Dirrections for Teaching and Learning, Number 39, (pp. 111-124). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Blackburn, R.T., Beiber, J.P., Lawrence, J.H., & Trautvetter, L. (1991). Faculty at work: Focus on research, scholarship and service. Research in Higher Education, 32, 385-413. Boice, R. (1992) The new faculty member: Supporting and fostering professional development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carroll, J.G. (1980). Effects of training programs for university teaching assistants. Journal of Higher Education, 51, 167-183. Chism, N. V. N. (1998). Evaluating TA Programs. In M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, & F. Stout (Eds.), The professional development of graduate teaching assistants (pp. 249-262). Bolton: Anker. Ellis, D., & Schonwetter, D.J. (2001). Help though the gateway: Assessing teaching certificate programs. Paper presented at the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, St Louis, MI. Levinson-Rose, J. & Menges, R. (1981). Faculty Development and the adoption and diffusion of classroom innovation. Review of Educational Research, 51, 403-434.

  19. More References Marincovich, M., Prostko, J., & Stout, F. (1998). The professional development of graduate teaching assistants. Bolton: Anker. McKeachie,. W. J., (1997). Critical elements in training university teachers. The International Journal for Academic Development, 2, 67-74. Menges, R. J. (1994). Preparing new faculty for the future. Thought and Action, 10, 81-95. Menges, R.J. and Associates (1999). Faculty in new jobs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Menges. R.J., & Svinicki, M. (1989). Designing program evaluation. To Improve the Academy, 8, 81-97. Perry, R.P., Menec, V.H., Struthers, C.W. (1999). Feeling in control. In R. Menges and Associates (Eds.), Faculty in new jobs (pp. 186-215). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Perry, R.P., Menec, V.H., Struthers, C.W., Hechter, F.J., Schonwetter, D.J., & Menges, R.J. (1997). Faculty in transition: A longitudinal analysis of the role of perceived control and type of institution in adjustment to post-secondary institutions. Research in Higher Education, 38, 519-556. Rice, R. E. (1996) Making a place for the new American scholar. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

  20. More References Schonwetter, D.J., & Taylor, K.L. (2000). Identifying critical components of effective instructional development. Paper presented to the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Brock University, St. Catherines, Ontario. Smith, K.S., & Kalivoda, P.L. (1998). Academic morphing: Teaching assistant to faculty member. To Improve the Academy, 17, 85-101. Weimer, M. & Lenze, L. F. (1997). Instructional interventions: A review of the literature on efforts to improve instruction. In R.P. Perry & J. P. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice (pp. 205-240). New York: Agathon Press.