Date: May 31, 2023
The Future of Teaching & Learning Working Group on Quality has continued our efforts as outlined on our March 24, 2023 status report, with the following updates:
Establish a framework and shared language around teaching excellence at UW
Framework subgroup
This group held a series of information sessions with various leadership groups across the three groups to share the draft framework. Initial feedback was elicited from over 100 participants.
- Associate Deans (Seattle), April 7
- Faculty Council on Teaching and Learning, April 13
- Vice Chancellor Executive Committee (Bothell), April 19
- Council of Deans (Tacoma), April 20
- School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences Faculty Council (Tacoma), April 24
- Faculty Assembly Open Faculty Meeting (Tacoma), April 26
- Tri-campus Academic Affairs Leaders, May 3
- Senate Chair’s Cabinet, May 8
- Faculty Council on Teaching and Learning, May 11
- Board of Deans and Chancellors, May 18
- Faculty Council Chairs, May 25
The majority of feedback received from these sessions was positive and supported both the concept and content of the framework. There were suggestions made about the framework itself as well as the process. The working group incorporated those suggestions. There were also questions about when faculty would be able to participate in meaningful engagement with the framework, leading us to the next step in the process of development.
Next steps and stakeholders
Faculty across campuses refine the framework
We have developed a strategy to beta test a workshop with faculty facilitated by two members of the working group. Joel Ross (iSchool) and Dan Ratner (College of Engineering) will facilitate either a 30-minute or 60 minute session to;
- Gather feedback on the draft framework with shared language about quality teaching and proposing refinements
- Spur an initial conversation about how their department/unit might build on a shared language and tailor it to their unique teaching contexts
Results from these two initial sessions will inform updates to the workshop plan and process and surface potential improvements, questions, or concerns that would be shared with groups later integrating the framework into their work.
In addition, a request has gone out to the BODC to expand workshop offerings in autumn retreats, and a series of info-sessions will be held in advance to prepare school/department/unit facilitators on the context of the framework, workshop format and clarify expectations of the workshops (Appendix A). Working group members will also be available to facilitate or co-facilitate sessions as requested.
Recommended future directions:
- Refine and finalize the framework based on instructor input
- Handoff to FCTL for endorsement and consideration of revisions to the faculty code, as they see fit
- Work with OEA to incorporate into work on student evaluation of courses
- Work with instructional support units on alignment of resources and programs
- Roll out the new framework broadly with the intention of integration into campus culture
- Support efforts, as appropriate, to pursue legislation within faculty governance to solidify the framework as a baseline for teaching evaluation, professional development, and student success
Identify what instructional supports/resources currently exist for faculty that focus solely on the improvement of teaching and learning
Teaching resources and professional development subgroup
This subgroup completed a landscape analysis of current resources available to instructors across the three campuses. This information can be utilized to identify existing resources that are already aligned with the framework as well as highlight needs that should be addressed in order to improve infrastructure and create a robust network of tri-campus support needed to help instructors meet the expectations of the framework. The sub-group recommends work continue to identify gaps that emerged from the landscape analysis. A survey of faculty would further support recommendations on how to meet instructional needs and fill identified gaps.
Next steps and stakeholders
Tri-campus discussions about instructional support structures
Priority: We ask that leaders on the three campuses engage in discussion and come to consensus on how the three campuses will network instructional teaching support to provide training, consultation, and resources while still maintaining local opportunities for professional growth and campus/school specific programming. These decisions will guide how work will proceed not only within the teaching and learning instructional quality group but also can inform other, related initiatives like the teaching@uw online resource hub launching in autumn. The development of that resource hub has served as a test case for how tri-campus instructional support units can work together effectively (see draft purpose below):
Teaching@UW is designed to help faculty develop an effective, learner-centered teaching practice. Drawing on expertise from UW’s vibrant, tri-campus teaching community and dedicated instructional support staff, the site provides one-stop access to information, resources, and learning opportunities that promote student success in the classroom.
This site is the product of a deep collaboration between UW Center for Teaching and Learning, UW Bothell Office of Learning and Teaching, and the UW Tacoma Office of Digital Learning. Our goal is to leverage this collaboration to foster greater connection and belonging among UW’s wonderful teaching community.
Instructional support units (Seattle’s CTL and DLA, Bothell’s CLT, & Tacoma’s ODL) have made great strides in minimizing duplication of resources where appropriate. There is still opportunity to leverage staff expertise, and adopt tri-campus systems to promote and filter instructional support programming and training opportunities allowing for streamlined marketing, communications and registration for events. Faculty benefit from cultivating and maintaining both disciplinary connections and inter-institutional collaborations. Consensus from all three campuses on how instructional support infrastructure is developed and implemented is imperative to its success and sustainability – and to the ability of instructional support units to support and align with the framework for teaching excellence, once finalized.
This is a critical discussion that needs to occur before any further actionable recommendations are made or action taken.
While the sub-group did not draft specific future-state recommendations for instructional design support network or infrastructure, it reviewed the findings of a recent scan of CTL equivalents at peer institutions conducted by ASA and recommend those findings be added to the landscape analysis to inform next steps.
Recommended future directions:
- Tri-campus leaders agree on an instructional support infrastructure plan for UW
- Design infrastructure and secure resources for networked instructional support services
- Develop a communication and marketing plan for teaching and learning professional development across UW’s three campuses
- Align instructional support resources and programs to the framework, once finalized.
Examine/align current student evaluation practices
Student evaluations subgroup
This subgroup, under the leadership of Sean Gehrke, was tasked with understanding the role of students in influencing instructional quality. Working with the office of OEA, and in partnership with GPSS and ASUW, they surveyed graduate and undergraduate students across all three campuses via the spring quarter Husky Check-in to gather responses to questions regarding their experience with student course evaluations.
Next steps and stakeholders
Sean and his team will continue the analysis of the surveys and present those findings in autumn quarter to the working group. He will also continue to collaborate with the Faculty Council on Teaching and Learning (FCTL) in their work exploring alternatives to quantitative course evaluations. Key stakeholders, particularly from Tacoma and Bothell need to be identified and brought into this work. Concerns have been raised within multiple outreach conversations about systematic racial and gender inequity of instructional evaluation practices. It is recommended that these concerns be recognized, discussed, and addressed by soliciting involvement with relevant stakeholders from each of the three campuses before moving forward with a plan for redesign.
The goal of these multiple efforts is to align student course evaluations with the framework.
Examine/align current peer evaluation practices
Peer evaluations Subgroup
The examination of current peer evaluation practices across campuses is being managed by the peer evaluation subcommittee of FCTL. Kristin Gustafson is chairing the work and the group is finalizing plans to survey appropriate leaders of colleges/campuses to gather information about current peer evaluation processes. The survey is designed to gather information about processes and the metrics used to evaluate teaching, as well as how peer evaluations are used in promotion, tenure, and merit processes.
Next steps and stakeholders
This survey will be administered in autumn 2023. These survey results can be used to develop recommendations for peer evaluation processes aligned with the framework.
Examine/align current self-evaluation practices
Self evaluations subgroup
The goal of this subgroup is to develop recommendations for the use of a formative self-evaluation process that is aligned with the framework and the unit/department-specific qualities that are appropriate for each individual instructor. This subgroup has paused its efforts until the framework is finalized.
Next steps and stakeholders
Following the finalization of the framework, it is the intention that work will proceed to develop recommendations to incorporate self-evaluation processes into promotion, tenure, and merit processes.
Final thoughts
We ask that the charge of this group be extended for the next academic year to allow us to finalize a shared language around instructional quality at UW and capitalize on the support and momentum that has been created around this initiative thus far. Co-chairs for the instructional quality group are eager and willing to continue their roles as co-chairs. Feedback has indicated the need to expand key stakeholder engagement across the campuses (FCTL, FCAS, OEA, etc). We feel that there needs to be further discussion on membership within the main group and within the subgroups to gain representation across the three campuses, to ensure those with expertise or deep knowledge of topics being discussed are engaged, and to allow members to adjust their workloads as needed.
Common to all Future of Teaching and Learning committee and sub-group work moving forward is the need to continue to have transparency in process and ensure the tri-campus nature of the effort in which Tacoma and Bothell instructors, students and relevant stakeholders are represented, justly reflected in assessment and data gathering, and provided opportunities to actively engage in this work as it progresses.