Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy
Conversation: A Cross-Disciplinary Consideration of Purpose, Placement, and Content of
College Teaching Courses for Novice and Future College Instructors
Michelle L. Hardee, Stefanie K. Benjamin, and Michelle A. Maher, University of South Carolina
Abstract: The need – and obligation – to provide the next generation of college instructors with formal
pedagogical training is beginning to be addressed, as many academic units offer dedicated college teaching
courses and institutions sponsor training for graduate teaching assistants. However, virtually nothing is
known about the intended outcomes, topics, assignments, and evaluation methodology that commonly
define this training. Additionally, measured consideration of purposes (explicit and implicit) and
placement of this training within graduate student professional development is rare. Using the results of a
content analysis of almost 30 syllabi from various disciplines, including sciences, social sciences,
humanities, and professional schools, this conversation session will support active consideration of the
purpose, placement, and content of formal pedagogical training for novice and future college instructors on
today’s college campuses.
Literature Review
Earning a doctorate through focused inquiry into a highly specialized domain was once thought to qualify a doctoral
recipient to teach at any level and on any related topic on the college campus (Gardner, 2005). Increasingly,
however, there is growing recognition that this once commonly accepted practice poorly serves students, instructors,
the academy, and society at large (Light & Cox, 2005). Further, across the disciplines, faculty and administrators
have been required to respond to insistent calls for increased teaching effectiveness from external campus
stakeholders (McAlpine & Amundsen, 2011; Peters & Olssen, 2005). What happens in the college classroom
matters and is now seen as vital to the preparation of an educated citizenry and a workforce that can remain
innovative and competitive in a global economy (U.S. Department of Labor, 2007). Accordingly, the need – and
obligation – to provide the next generation of college instructors with formal pedagogical training is beginning to be
addressed. Many academic units across the campus now offer dedicated college teaching courses for students who
aspire to join the professoriate upon graduation. At an institutional level, many universities sponsor Graduate
teaching assistant (GTA) training (e.g., Calonge, Chui, Thadani, Mark, & Pun, 2011). This type of formal
pedagogical training is sorely needed, as some estimates suggest that graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) instruct
almost half of undergraduate courses offered in the United States (Branstetter & Hendelsman, 2000).
Goals and Objectives
While recognition of the critical need for formal pedagogical training for novice and future college instructors is
welcomed, virtually nothing is known about the intended outcomes, content, and techniques that commonly define
this training. In response, we propose a conversation session dedicated to discussing this important crossdisciplinary instructional issue. We situate our proposed session within an analysis of the almost 30 courses and
workshops from various disciplinary units on our campus that provide formal pedagogical training. Further, we
invite an active participant discussion about informing and being informed of how other multi-disciplinary campus
communities provide formal pedagogical training for novice and future college instructors.
By attending this session, participants will:




Be apprised by the results of a syllabi content analysis of almost 30 different credit-bearing courses and
workshops offering formal pedagogical training on our campus in which learning outcomes, topics,
assignments and evaluation methodology are compared and contrasted to identify commonly accepted or
“standard” conceptualizations of the college teaching domain across disciplines;
Contribute their ideas regarding what “should” or “should not” be included as part of formal pedagogical
training, regardless of disciplinary context;
Contribute their ideas and feedback regarding the place of formal pedagogical training within the
professional development of novice and future college instructors;
Contribute their ideas and feedback regarding the replication and likely outcome of such an approach at
their institution.
Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy
Description of Topics to be Discussed
Within a 50-minute conversation session, these topics will be discussed (although we anticipate that, depending on
participant background and interests, other related topics may also arise):





The purposes (explicit and implicit) of formal pedagogical training in the professional development of
novice and future college instructors;
The placement (e.g., in semester-long credit-bearing classes, one-day required workshop, etc.) of formal
pedagogical training in the professional development of novice and future college instructors;
Common and uncommon learning objectives, topics, assignments and evaluation methodology represented
in current formal pedagogical training;
Commonalities and differences of the above among various disciplines, including sciences, social sciences,
humanities, and professional schools;
Levels of institutional support and internal resources available for various types of pedagogical and
professional development training among participant institutions.
Facilitation Techniques
Facilitation techniques will include the following:




A brief facilitator-led discussion in which the overarching topic is introduced and session goals and
objectives are identified;
A brief interactive presentation in which results of a syllabi content analysis of almost 30 different creditbearing courses and workshops offering formal pedagogical training on our campus are offered and
discussed;
Pair-share activities in which participants are asked to reflect and share their thoughts on the purpose,
placement and content of formal pedagogical training for novice and future college instructors on their
campus; the pair-share activities will then flow into a whole-group discussion and consideration of these
topics;
A brainstorming session on what “should” be included in formal pedagogical training, regardless of
disciplinary context.
References
Branstetter, S.A. & Hendelsman, M.M. (2000). Graduate teaching assistants: Ethical training, beliefs, and practices.
Ethics and Behavior, 10(1), 27-50.
Calonge, D. S., Chui, P., Thadani, D. R., Mark, K. P., & Pun, C. F. K. (2011). In-service development for graduate
teaching assistants: A blended-learning and formative approach. Journal of University Teaching and
Learning Practice, 8(3), Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol8/iss3/3.
Gardner, S. K. (2005). Faculty preparation for teaching, research, and service roles: What do new faculty need?
Journal of Faculty Development, 20(3), 161 – 166.
Light, G., & Cox, R. (2005). Teaching and learning in higher education: The reflective professional. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2011). Supporting the doctoral process: Research-based strategies for doctoral
students, supervisors and administrators. Amsterdam: Springer.
Peters, M. A. & Olssen, M. (2005). Useful knowledge: Redefining research and teaching in the learning economy.
In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and
teaching (pp. 37-4 7). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). The STEM workforce challenge: The role of the public workforce system in a
national solution for a competitive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce.
Washington, DC: Author.