ETLG Response to ITLC Request for Information
Submitted February 6, 2011
Elizabeth Gibson, Chair, ETLG
The IT Leadership Council approached the Educational Leadership Council with a request for information
related to the state of pedagogy on each of the UC campuses. Specifically, the request was:

to identify the top three or four challenges and opportunities facing each campus with respect to
education (teaching and learning), regardless of the role that technology might play. We are
interested in fundamental issues, perhaps relating to learning outcomes, time to degree, engaging
students with differing learning styles, collaborative teaching among departments and campuses,
and other issues unique to each campus.

to help us informally identify the key leaders on your campus who set the strategy for educational
initiatives broadly based….. Key leaders may include “thought” leaders, as well as those with
formal administrative responsibilities, but we are assuming likely one, but at most 2-3 individuals.
The ETLG members approached the various pedagogical groups, committees and leaders on their
respective campuses as much as possible, to obtain a sense of the key pedagogical issues. These
findings were then compiled, and a preliminary analysis was performed to identify the most common
critical or high priority issues across the campuses. These results were then returned to the ETLG
membership for review and verification that their responses were correctly interpreted. This resulted in
the final list of most common critical pedagogical issues, found in Appendix 1.
We find it not surprising that in general, the most common issues of faculty workload, insufficient
faculty support, and funding to meet instructional technology needs, stem primarily from a general lack
of funding for support for teaching and learning, whether pedagogical in nature or for educational
technologies. For a number of campuses, this lack of funding has been, at least in part, historical in
nature and now has been exacerbated further by the current budget situation.
After budget/funding issues, the second highest issue is concerns on the part of senate faculty regarding
online courses. Again, this is not too surprising, given the work being spearheaded by UCOP around the
development of online courses. This kind of major change or shift in how we think about teaching and
learning poses a threat to those who are vested in traditional classroom teaching. Faculty are across the
board in terms of online teaching. Some are very comfortable in that environment and see the potential
for teaching our students who have grown up online, and have learned how to learn online. Others are
afraid of what it portends. More specifically, campuses report that a number of senate faculty believe
that:
- Faculty will be replaced / no longer needed to teach;
- They can’t trust the identity of the person turning in the assignments or writing the exams;
- Online courses are lower quality than what is available in the classroom today; and
- Online courses are just a way for the campus to make money, which in turn creates a sense that
the university does not care about the quality of instruction.
We believe that the majority of these concerns could be altered through the involvement of these
faculty in gaining experience in the design and development of quality online courses that are
dependent on quality faculty participation, and extensive faculty-student and student-student
interaction online. Additionally, there are other solutions to deal with issues such as: final exams being
proctored at other campuses around the country/world, and an introduction to the reality that online
courses do not immediately equate to profits for the university, at least not for an extensive period of
time.
Finally, the following group of issues are tied in third place and are each listed by five campuses :
- Time to Degree
- Lack of assessment of learning outcomes, and general evaluation
- Lack of rewards to faculty for teaching excellence
An interesting observation has been made that online courses could in fact lead to solutions for some of
these in the third group. They can be used as a pressure release valve for many gatekeeper courses – at
least for those that do not require wet-labs. Furthermore, a structured, quality approach to designing
online courses includes a requirement for definition of learning outcomes for each learning module. A
faculty participating in the development of an online course becomes indoctrinated into this process,
and eventually can experience the advantages of having learning outcomes for assessment and
evaluation – whether online or in the classroom.
The last item in this group, a lack of rewards for faculty for teaching excellence, has always been an issue
for UC campuses. Merits and promotions are primarily based on research. Nonetheless, the three key
mandates for our campuses are research, teaching and outreach, and yet there really is only a reward
system for research. This has been a conflict for a number of faculty for many years, and it is unlikely to
change any time soon.
Appendix II contains the complete List of pedagogical issues from all the campuses. Unfortunately, we
do not currently have an active member from Merced, which is a situation we are working on – so that
information is noticeably absent.
Appendix III contains a list of campus leaders, by campus, who have pedagogy as part of their portfolio.
If there is anything that ETLG can do to further analyze or provide more information regarding this
question, please do not hesitate to call on us.
Appendix II: Issues and Opportunities
I.
UC Berkeley
a. Challenge of how to regularize assessment of learning goals within the current resource
environment, as assessment is labor intensive. Also looking at how to reduce intergroup
disparities in time-to-degree as part of our equity and inclusion work.
b. Active Learning Challenge- how do we support a transition from heavily lecture-based
teaching methods to more active learning? Includes challenge of providing and
supporting spaces that promote more dynamic student engagement during class time.
c. Concern for effective and high quality online learning experiences.
d. Consistent method for teaching evaluations (considering online approach).
II.
UC Davis
a. The ongoing perception - whether or not it is true - that UC does not care about
instruction, ‘nor about the quality of teaching that is being offered. This is supported by
over-enrollment and insufficient teaching faculty affecting all aspects of teaching –
whether at the faculty level or the support level.
b. Need for flexible classrooms – to do group work and various learning activities. This
need will increase as we offer more blended courses, providing more classtime for
learning activities, discussion, group work etc.
c. The institutional investment in instruction is lacking: pedagogical support for teaching
faculty, TAs, a funding model for departments leading to multiple similar courses, and
funding for instructional technology is poor. (e.g. Faculty are paying for instructional
technology out of their own pockets.)
d. Long Waitlists, increased Time-to-degree, limited by physical classroom space and
availability.
e. Low skill levels of entering students in terms of reading, writing ad algebra.
f. Assessment and Evaluation of Learning Outcomes.
g. Student retention and completion, particularly of the underserved and underprepared.
h. Online teaching and learning: faculty perspectives and distrust related to: (1) the
university’s intentions behind offering online courses, as well as (2) the level of quality
that is achievable versus required for quality learning.
i. A lack of clear defined direction regarding a campus or UC definition regarding
Copyright and particularly Fair Use.
III.
UC Irvine
a. Online learning and teaching. Units across UCI have been collaborating on deliberate
preparations for an increased UC emphasis on online learning.
b. Assessing learning. A coordinated campus approach to educational assessment with an
eye towards providing information and analysis on undergraduate issues, students,
programs and policies for use in decision-making by the Dean of the Division of
Undergraduate Education and other campus leaders.
c. Rewarding teaching excellence and Faculty and TA teaching development
d. Academic integrity. An online program is being created to develop academic ethics and
integrity skills in undergraduates.
e. Impact of faculty workload on course quality and student learning.
f. Decentralization and collaboration.
IV.
UC Los Angeles
a. An unclear and potentially unduly restrictive environment with regard to fair-use,
intellectual property, copyright, etc. both in the classroom and in the extended on-line
learning environment.
b. Over-enrollment, leading to stress on almost every aspect of instruction - TAs, classroom
space, support services, class availability, etc.
c. A fixed classroom infrastructure that does not easily adapt to changing instructional
needs.
d. The ongoing perception - whether or not it is true - that UC does not care about
instruction, nor about the quality of teaching that is being offered.
e. Budget environments that have lead to the removal or diminution of educational
requirements and/or standards.
f. Uneven and inconsistent institutional investment in technology (and staff support) for
teaching faculty.
V.
UC Merced
a. No Submission
VI.
UC Riverside
Funding. Lack of sufficient funding impacts classroom renewal and replacement, support for
blended learning efforts.
Student engagement as a tool to promote student success, in particular, six year graduation
rates and student retention. Students with a demographic background similar to UCR’s
students benefit greatly from engaging in active, participative learning environments.
Integrating emerging technologies (e.g. blended learning) into programs and pedagogies
aimed at enhancing student engagement is a high priority for UCR.
Support (particularly from faculty) for adopting new, innovative teaching approaches,
especially technology-related approaches.
Outdated and inefficient curricular and course delivery design.
Faculty support, in particular faculty training and adoption of analytics as a measure of
student success in their courses.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
VII.
UC San Diego
a. Lack of quantity and breadth across disciplines specifically on teaching, making it difficult to
identify key pedagogical issues.
b. Creating context and opportunities for faculty to have conversations on teaching.
c. Making instruction accessible to all types of students (learning styles, wide ranging
disabilities).
d. Providing adequate training opportunities for faculty (and graduate teaching assistants) to
learn new instructional approaches while simultaneously funding new instructional
technologies.
e. Finding ways to keep the learning experience engaging and personalized for students as
class sizes increase.
f. Challenge of continuing to offer a wide variety of courses and programs to students without
appreciably increasing faculty workload.
g. Providing support for core academic mission, including space, technology, TAs, etc.
h. Foster the exploration of new and interdisciplinary fields of research and education
VIII.
UC San Francisco
a. The need for more faculty development in how to be excellent educators. Resources are
needed to make this feasible and attractive to faculty. Faculty need to be motivated to be
continually updating their teaching skills.
b. Inadequate recognition/respect for faculty educators at research 1 institutions, limited
support for faculty development (finances for salary and science, time, expectations and
expertise).
c. Challenges of clinical training. Separation of clinical settings and school; learning in the
clinical setting is not always consistent with stated educational goals.
d. The move toward competency based education.
e. Institutions need better student information systems that allow the tracking of an
individualized track through a program – including the ability to track research projects,
supplementary curricula, leaves of absence related to professional development, and
extracurricular activities to name a few.
f. Assessment skills of teachers and standard-setting procedures are not sufficient
g. The need for more educational research at UCSF. Must be rigorous and must measure
impact and not just outcomes or educational strategies / innovations.
IX.
a.
b.
c.
d.
UC Santa Barbara
Lack of consistent funding for instructional support services, initiatives, equipment and
staffing which has been further exacerbated by three years of budget cuts, in some cases of
over 30% over the three year period. It is extremely difficult to be able to think, plan and act
strategically when there are barely enough fiscal, physical and human resources to act
tactically.
Faculty concerns about the impacts that an emphasis on online instruction will have on their
role as teachers, mentors, and their relationships with their students. This is frequently
exacerbated by concerns about who will ultimately own the products of their efforts in
developing innovative instructional materials and approaches that take advantage of
current and future technologies.
Deep seated mistrust of the administration on the part of the faculty that efforts at
promoting instructional innovation are motivated more by the desire to cut costs rather
than improving learning and access.
Faculty misconceptions, and accompanying fear and resentment, about student outcomes
assessment, course and instructor evaluation, and the current political and economic
climate. A deep seated fear of “No Child Left Behind” being applied to the research
university and the subsequent destruction of everything that makes the research university
actually work.
X.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
UC Santa Cruz
Need for large classrooms
Baseline funding for teaching
Funding for educational technology
Interdisciplinary course design
Learning outcomes assessment
Online evaluations
Expanded use of Sakai
Appenddix lll: Pedagogy Across the UCs: Key Leaders
Prepared by the ETLG for the IT Leadership Council
February 1, 2011
Key Leaders
I.
UC Berkeley
a. Cathy Koshland, Vice Provost, Teaching, Learning, Academic Planning, and Facilities
b. Cynthia Schrager, Assistant Vice Provost, Office of Teaching, Learning, Academic
Planning & Facilities
c. Steve Tollefson, Director, Office of Educational Development
d. Mara Hancock, Director, Educational Technologies and Associate CIO, Teaching and
Learning
e. Lisa Rothrauff, Manager, Training and Support, Educational Technology Services
f. Linda Van Hoene, Director, Graduate Student Instructor Teaching & Resource Center
g. Beth DuPuis, Assistant University Librarian, Doe and Moffitt Libraries
II.
UC Davis
a. Pat Turner, Vice Provost, Undergraduate Studies
b. Winder McConnell, Director, Center for Excellence for Teaching and Learning; reports
to Pat Turner
c. Pete Siegel, Vice Provost, IET
d. Liz Gibson, Director, Academic Technology Services; Reports to Pete Siegel/Dave Shelby
e. Dean Dennis Pendleton, University Extension
f. Bob Sams, Director, Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR)
g. Susan Keen and Lori Lubin: Faculty Co-Chairs of the Educational Technology
Subcommittee to the Campus Council for Information Technology (CCFIT)
III.
UC Irvine
a. Sharon Salinger, Dean, Undergraduate Studies
b. De Gallow, Director, Teaching, Learning & Technology Center
c. Dana Roode, Assistant VC and CIO, Office of Information Technology
d. Gary Matkin, Dean, Continuing Education, Distance Learning, and Summer Session
(University Extension)
IV.
UC Los Angeles
a. Judi Smith, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education
b. Larry Loeher, Associate Vice Provost, Instructional Development
V.
UC Merced
a. No submission
VI.
UC Riverside
a. Gladis Herrera-Berkowitz, Director of Instructional Development, Undergraduate
Education
b. Leo Schouest, Manager of Faculty Support Services, Computing & Communications
VII.
UC San Diego
a. Gabriele Wienhausen, Assistant Dean and Professor, Biological Sciences
b. Christine Alexander, Manager of the Center for Teaching Development
c. Barbara Sawrey, Professor of Chemistry and Associate Vice Chancellor of Undergraduate
Education
d. Jeff Henry, Director of Academic Computing & Media Services
e. Christine Bagwell, Associate Director of Academic Computing and Manager,
Instructional Web Development Center
VIII.
UC San Francisco
a. Karen Butter, University Librarian and Asst. VC for Library Services and Instructional
Technology
b. Joe Castro PhD, VC, Student Academic Affairs
c. Molly Cooke MD, Director, Academy of Medical Educators (primarily research in
medical education, but also provides some support for teaching.
d. Curriculum Innovations Committee
IX.
UC Santa Barbara
a. Ronald W. Tobin
i. Associate Vice Chancellor, Office of Academic Programs (OAP)
ii. Reports to: Executive Vice Chancellor Gene Lucas
iii. Responsible for: Instructional Development (ID), Instructional Computing (IC),
Summer Sessions (SS), Extended Learning Services (ELS, Extension), Education
Abroad Program (EAP)
b. George H. Michaels
i. Executive Director, Instructional Development; Reports to: Ronald W. Tobin
c. Bill Koseluk
i. Director, Instructional Computing; Reports to: Ronald W. Tobin, OAP
d. Carol Pasternack
i. Acting Dean, Summer Sessions; Reports to: Ronald W. Tobin, OAP
e. Michael Brown
i. Acting Dean, Extended Learning Services; Reports to: Ronald W. Tobin, OAP
f. Alan Moses
i. Technical Coordinator, Letters and Science Information Technology
ii. Reports to: David Marshall, Executive Dean, College of Letters & Science and
Dean, Division of Humanities & Fine Arts
g. Mary Nisbet
i. Dean of Undergraduate Education, College of Letters and Science; Reports to:
David Marshall
X.
h. Glenn Beltz, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies, College of Engineering to the
UCSB
UC Santa Cruz
a. Mark Cioc, Interim VP, Undergraduate Education
b. Jessica Fiske Bailey, Asst. VP, Chancellor’s Office
c. John Tamkun, Chair, Committee on Educational Planning
d. Viqui Pagani, Chair, Committee on Teaching
e. Pam Hunt Carter, Registrar and Classroom Subcommittee
f. Linda Kittle and Karen Eckert, Co-chairs, Vice Provosts Group
g. Greg Careaga and Elizabeth Cowell, Librarians, University Library
h. Tyrus Miller, VP, Graduate Division