Teaching-Learning Academy
Study Group Highlights, April 21-23, 2004
A total of 61 TLA members (18 faculty, 7 administrators, 3 staff, 31 students. and two community
members) participated in this round of study-talk. As a result, the special projects advanced in these
ways:
On-site/Classroom Visits
 The W@12:30 group drafted a faculty questionnaire to get some feedback on observation criteria
and also identified a list of potential faculty to survey
 This group also recommended both observing a classroom (by request) and also interviewing the
faculty member whose classroom was observed in order to get at the instructor’s rationale.
 The W@2 group focused on the practices of a particular class of one faculty in the group. They
plan to interview students in this class about how they are reacting to this particular approach, to
compile feedback for the instructor, and then to publish an article in a national accreditation
newsletter on the results.
 After reviewing the criteria developed winter quarter, the R@1 group recommended creating a
qualitative section to the observation write-up after visiting a classroom, possibly including some
comparative information. They also suggested examining practices in addition to the classroom
performance, such as the use of Blackboard, and they urged tailoring criteria that can be adjusted
for class type/expectations/faculty needs
 The F@12 group discussed the results of one member’s faculty interview and decided to use the
language from last quarter’s “Features of An Optimal Learning Environment” document in
drafting their observation form. [See project folder for a copy of this winter quarter document.]
Promising Practices Manual
 The W@12:30 folks are working on creating a page on “What makes a good classroom/academic
discussion” with an emphasis on what students think. (Just because people are talking doesn’t
mean they are learning.) How to create the sense of a learning community in a discussion? How
to keep groups accountable? Group members are researching other resources in answering these
questions.
 The R@1 bunch has drafted and fine-tuned a survey to ask students (outside the TLA) what they
identify as best practices. [See project folder for a copy of this survey draft.]
 The F@12 group is creating a page tentatively titled “It Takes Two to Tango” with ideas for kinds
of things both faculty and students can do to develop more effective study groups. They also
brainstormed another list of promising practices including bringing in current events, connecting
course ideas with everyday life, setting clear expectations, and building in day-before reviews.
Development Activities
 The W@12:30 group is developing a workshop plan on “Creating an Interactive Dynamic”
including First-Day activities, as well as community-building exercises, and plenty of ongoing
informal assessment. Their plan calls for students co-presenting in the workshop, as well as
modeling the interactive activities recommended. [Note: The First Thursday Development series
for 04-05 has one session set aside for this topic of interaction, so there’s a venue waiting for this
plan!]


The W@2 group is also interested in a development workshop led by students with an emphasis
on what students think of writing assignments – what makes them want to write, as well as what
makes for assignments from hell. Data from Writing Center staff could be used in developing this
workshop. [Note: The campus writing group has scheduled a Sept.10 faculty workshop session on
“Creating Writing Assignments” and is already planning to incorporate student respondents, so
this workshop plan also has a venue waiting for it!]
The F@12 group shares an interest in writing assignments from students’ perspectives, but with a
particular emphasis on research-based assignments. They would like to see development activities
that help with topics such as building in ways to get started on research as well as how to avoid
plagiarism. With the help of a librarian, this group would like to convene some student groups to
discuss their needs in doing researched writing and to identify some research assignments that
worked. Perhaps, former FIG/TLA students could participate. Or perhaps this idea could be
dovetailed with the W@2 group’s ideas on writing assignments, and Writing Center staff could be
convened as well. [Note: Again, the September faculty writing workshop series would provide a
venue for the results of this work.]
Course Evaluations
 The W@2 group reviewed all the course evaluation forms currently used at Western and
continued their discussion of creating a midterm online form. Next time, they will compile
their recommended questions for such a midterm form.
 The R@1 group intends to interview Joseph Trimble, Dir. of the Office of Assessment/Testing
(OIAT) to get more information about online evals.
 The F@12 group also discussed obtaining more information from the OIAT, including talking
with Rich Frye who is working on putting a midterm evaluation online based on best practices.
[See project folder for copy of an evaluation form based on best practices and developed by
the Committee on the Assessment of Teaching and Learning.]
Communication
 The W@12:30 group has one member who is working on an article for Praxis, the faculty-staff
newsletter.
 The W@2 group is working on co-authoring an article about how faculty cultivate enthusiasm and
how enthusiasm correlates with more positive student learning outcomes.
 The F@12 group is working to identify ways for the campus to communicate more with the
community on learning issues, such as expanding the scope of TLA, including sponsoring TLA
meetings off campus, creating a video with community partner voices, and tracing a service
learning project.
~Compiled by Carmen Werder and Megan Otis.