Chapter 1 is titled: Connecting Faculty Learning to Student Learning.
The chapter opens with the analogy of faculty development and student learning as parts of the "puzzle of understanding and improving the relationship between teaching and learning" (p. 1). Here are a few of my thoughts on this chapter:"As teaching improves, does student learning also improve?" as posited by the authors on p. 2. I have always believed so, as an intrinsic action. We take this for granted. Do we need research to show this is true? The down falls, the authors say, are found on page 2: "Without such key information faculty development programs remain vulnerable, tentative, even ephemeral at many, if not most, colleges and universities." Further, "taking a holistic view... promotes a systematic approach to improving teaching and learning but also... renders a better picture of the faculty learning process."
"...people who become college faculty learn far mroe about teaching as in-service teachers than they do as pre-service graduate students" (p. 2). This reminds me of the saying, "Practice makes perfect" or, "To really learn something, you must do it."
Another analogy of the double spiral on p. 3 shows the iterative nature of teaching. Both are self contained yet open to new influences.
Can Rich elaborate on p. 4 -- "Everyone knows faculty are rewarded for research...."?
P. 5: "When faculty learn more about teaching, logic dictates that they become better teachers; and when faculty become better teachers, their students learn more or experience better learning." Today, perhaps everyone can share a favorite quote from the book.
One important note is that faculty seek out development opportunities. What are the motivations of Chinese scholars to do so?
Benefits of this research are found on p. 12.
The book is a giant case for faculty development.
Chapter 2 is titled: Sites of Faculty Learning
Let's create a visual to compare Carleton College and WSU. On p. 22, "...it's offerings invite the whole community." This feels like a very collectivist approach.
Which is most like your university? Do you have a preference for either model?
It seems to me that our research CAN be our teaching. It's often called "practical theory" or "action research." How might we use computers, for instance, to help us teach writing more effectively? First, we'd need to define "effectiveness." Then, an assessment of how students interact with computers and what available tools students have. Thinking through, too, assessment measurement plans that, in the Chinese context, are management. I recommend checking out these OWI best practice principles, too, as online writing instruction can be applied to hybrid or face-to-face contexts as well. All of these things are worthy of research, and they all improve our teaching systematically.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/owiprinciples
As we talked about today, perhaps one strategy for using this book is thinking about how to bring back a plan for faculty development, connected directly to student learning objectives, as part of the "report" needed to discuss what you learned from being at TTU. There's time, and if you actively work on this now, Brandy and I can play a role in that report perhaps.
Nice thinking about the visual, Brandy. I'd love to see what others have come up with, too. That model that I drew, in part, comes from this:
http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/5.2/coverweb/papperreynoldsrice/index.htm
Rich