Thinking About Change?
Using Mission, Vision, and Purpose
to Build a More Inclusive and
Responsive Faculty Learning Center
www.efgassociatesinc.com
The Institution
• A global research university with more than 11,000 students,
86,500 alumni, and 4,000 faculty and staff.
• With a student-faculty ratio of 10:1, faculty members are
extremely accessible and take a genuine interest in their
students' work.
• Approximately 96 percent of faculty members have a Ph.D.
or equivalent degree in their field. Ninety-nine percent of all
undergraduate classes are taught by faculty, who often teach
both undergraduate and graduate courses.
The Challenge
• Develop a systematic process to reach more faculty with the
same resources
• Design and deliver cost effective and ethically justifiable
interventions
• Demonstrate results that have a positive financial and nonfinancial impact
• Plan future improvements that will make a difference and be
funded
Current CTL Approach
• Learner-centered
• Constructive
• Educational
• Data-driven
• Collaborative
• Research-focused
Current CTL Services
• Individual consultations with faculty members, post-docs
and graduate students
• Workshops and seminars for faculty members, post-docs
and graduate students
• An award-winning website with practical information on
teaching and learning, which includes a tool to help
instructors diagnose and solve their own teaching problems
• Resources for faculty members, post-docs and graduate
students, including sample syllabi, grading rubrics,
objectives, policies, etc.
• Collaboration with faculty on educational projects
Current CTL Consultations
• Strictly confidential
• Documented for faculty and graduate student
purposes alone
• Voluntary
Human Performance Improvement
(HPI)
• “a systematic process of discovering and analyzing
important human performance gaps, planning for
future improvements in human performance,
designing and developing cost-effective and
ethically-justifiable interventions to close
performance gaps, implementing the interventions
and evaluating the financial and nonfinancial
results” (Rothwell, 1996)
Core HPI Principles
• Implementation: the job/performer level, the process level, the
organization level
• Implementation occurs as these questions are answered:
• Will individuals perform better on the job after the
intervention?
• Will the process involved perform better after the
intervention? (Note: fix the process first before applying a
training solution.)
• Will the organization perform better after the intervention?
• What’s important
• Partner with management
• Link to business needs
• Laser-like focus on measurement
HPI-Focused CTL: Key Objectives
• Establish baseline functional teaching competence
• Use a thermometer to discuss when/how/where to collect
data on baseline functional teaching competence
• Become the translator of assessment* with respect to
pedagogy
• Separate the politics of assessment from the science of
assessment from the ethics of assessment
• Establish the difference between tracking and assessment
• Rely on POD Code of Ethics
• Strike a “strategic compromise” between summative and
formative approaches
*A wise institution keeps the focus [of assessment] on collective
action, not on individual blame. – Barbara Walvoord
CTL Approach Becomes
• Learner-centered We put student learning at
the center of the teaching process, helping
faculty, post-docs and graduate students to
develop course objectives, assessments, and
instructional activities that align with
University performance standards and,
together, support and promote student
learning and performance.
CTL Approach Becomes
• Educational We help faculty members, postdocs and graduate students gain a deeper
understanding of the principles that underlie
effective learning and teaching at our
University so that they can make appropriate
teaching decisions for their own courses. We
do not simply dispense teaching tips.
CTL Approach Becomes
• Collaborative We work closely with faculty,
post-docs and graduate students to help
them identify their strengths as teachers,
measure their own progress in addressing
weaknesses, and to jointly devise strategies
for course improvement and educational
innovation.
CTL Approach Becomes
• Constructive We focus on providing
constructive and practical feedback to help
our colleagues succeed as educators. Our role
is to support teaching, to clarify performance
expectations, to assist in resolving alignment
problems, and to track but not to judge
performance.
CTL Approach Becomes
• Data-driven We help faculty members, postdocs and graduate students to identify and
address the sources of their teaching
problems by collecting information from
classroom observations, student focus
groups, and examination of teaching
materials. We apply University-wide
performance guidelines to ensure all faculty
understand our teaching standards.
CTL Approach Becomes
• Research-based We distill, synthesize and
apply research integrated from a range of
disciplines to help faculty and graduate
students design and teach more effective
courses. We also help faculty colleagues to
conduct educational research in their
disciplines where gaps in the literature exist
and to contribute to the University-wide dialog
on continuous improvement in teaching.
CTL Consultations Become
• Strictly confidential*
• When acting at the request of a faculty member, we do not
disclose any information from our consultations. This includes
the identities of those with whom we work, the information they
share with us, and data we gather on their behalf via classroom
observations and interactions with TAs and students.
• When acting in collaboration with academic administration to
support University-wide pedagogical improvement initiatives, we
use approved statistical sampling techniques to select faculty for
observation and disclose only top-level, unattributable
information and data.
• When working with faculty in need of performance
improvement, we do not publicly disclose any information from
our consultations.
*Many faculty are part of the “collegial” culture, marked by high value on
disciplinary research, high insistence on faculty autonomy, and ambiguity
toward accountability for student learning. (Walvoord, 2010)
CTL Consultations Become
• Documented for faculty and graduate
student purposes alone We provide written
feedback to the colleagues with whom we
consult that summarizes and documents the
consultation process and our observations.
We do not write letters of support for
reappointment, promotion or tenure, but
faculty can choose to use our documentation
as they see fit.
CTL Consultations Become
• Voluntary We do not seek out faculty or
graduate students, but we are happy to meet
with anyone who contacts us; who is referred
to us by an academic administrator; or who is
selected by means of statistical sampling to
be observed as part of an approved
University-wide pedagogy improvement
initiative.
www.efgassociatesinc.com
ASTD HPI Model
References
• Rothwell, W. (1996). ASTD models for human
performance improvement. Alexandria VA:
The American Society for Training and
Development.
• Walvoord, B.E. (2010). Assessment: Clear
and simple. 2nd Edition. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
www.efgassociatesinc.com