the lakeland foundation€¦ · web viewmiami university also sponsors a faculty learning...

The Lakeland Foundation

Faculty Challenge Grant Application

The Faculty Challenge Grant Program encourages and supports innovative and creative activities for improvement of instruction, learning and professional development. The Lakeland Foundation=s grants may provide resources for the development, provision of and access to innovative programs within the projects described in the Foundation=s first major gift campaign case for giving and outside the scope of the college=s operating budget.

The Faculty Challenge Grant Program has been established to facilitate individual professional development that contributes to the needs of the institution. Group projects involving more than one faculty member may also be submitted. The program has four main objectives:

. Improved Teaching Effectiveness. Leading to increased student learning.

. Individual Professional Development. Providing an opportunity for faculty to enhance effectiveness in their subject specialty.. Improved Program Quality. Contributing to improving program vitality.. Improved Institutional Effectiveness. Enhancing Lakeland=s ability to meet the needs of its diverse student population.

Proposals for innovative teaching methods, special resource materials, and computing will be considered. Funds may be spent on travel, materials, equipment, or other resources.

The Lakeland Foundation may not fund release time for faculty or tuition and fees associated with a certification for faculty/staff.

This form can be found on drive G:/Development/Project Review Application Form (Word Document).

Instructions:Provide the following information on the proposed program/project to the Lakeland Foundation. The application must be completed in full in order to be considered. Decisions by the committee are made by the end of November and March each year. Thank you.

The Lakeland Foundation Faculty Challenge Grant Application

Name of Project: FACULTY LEARNING COMMUNITY

Division/Department: SOCIAL SCIENCE

Contact Person: ALICE J. WALKER

1. Briefly describe the project or program; [purpose and objectives, activities, who are the intended participants, location of and length of the program, etc.

Brief Synopsis

The present proposal is based on a “cohort-based” Faculty Learning Community model for full-time faculty to support the development of community among faculty who will be leading Lakeland’s education, culture, and governance into the next generation. The content of the group will be developed by the participants to include teaching and learning approaches relevant to their interest and skill levels. Faculty will select a focus course and develop a teaching project of their choice to complete during the course of this Community. Faculty will utilize learning centered evaluations that fit the instructor’s teaching goals to assess the impact of their project on student learning. Bi-monthly seminars will provide a time for feedback and collaboration on projects as well as exploration of other teaching approaches. Each member will prepare a mini-portfolio for their project to be housed in the library with the Excellence In Teaching materials. Three retreats will help keep the experience structured, focused, and innovative as we work with a national consultant throughout the year. Finally, a focus book selected by the group will provide additional material for reflection and discussion. The Community will have the opportunity to present their progress during Lakeland’s Conference Weeks as well as submit a proposal for presentation at a national teaching conference with the potential for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The Community will also have the opportunity to develop ideas and funding for a “scholarship of teaching” project or mentor a new Faculty Learning Community during the 2008-2009 academic year.

The grant writer will serve as the “champion, coordinator, and energizer” for the FLC (Petrone & Ortquist-Ahrens, 2004) as well as delegater for the operational and logistical aspects of the various program elements. Secretarial support will be requested from the college to assist with logistical elements.

2


The Reasons

Since joining with Lakeland’s mission nearly six years ago, I have witnessed a great migration. Most of the faculty who had been with Lakeland since it’s inception forty years ago have packed up their books and moved into retirement. They have been followed by many others who championed Lakeland’s growth as she established herself as a cornerstone in the community. Now there’s a new crew in town. Over fifty-percent of the full-time faculty have been here ten years or less. We bring with us the energy and enthusiasm of a new generation ready to enter what Parker Palmer calls the “community of scholars—colleagues with common roots in the depths of the intellectual tradition working together to seek new insights into the world’s wonders” (Palmer, 2002). We are looking for a sense of community with “shared purpose, shared commitment, shared relationships, and shared responsibility” (Bogue, 2002) for Lakeland’s future and the thousands of students who will pass through her doors. Unfortunately, what some of us have discovered is that academic culture is fraught with “fragmentation, isolation, and competitive individualism--a culture in which community sometimes feels harder to come by than in any other institution on the face of the earth” (Palmer, 2002).

Jane Tompkins (1992) explains, “During the school year only a fraction of the faculty are in their of offices at any one time. Now and then you might catch someone in the mail room and exchange a few words, but only a few, since everyone’s schedule is packed and no one has time to lose. When a faculty member comes to school, it’s not to socialize or exchange ideas, it’s to teach, answer mail, make phone calls, write recommendations, see students, attend meetings. And since everyone has a different schedule, there’s no guarantee you’ll see a given person from one year’s end to the next. Without mechanisms to ensure that faculty will interact regularly in a mutually supportive and fruitful way, it’s easy for a department to become atomized and for it’s members to feel adrift, navigating their crafts over an alien and yet still crowded area.”

In another vein, Lakeland has been actively engaged in a discussion of our governance process to increase awareness of how to effectively engage the existing structures, explore approaches to improve efficiency of problem-solving and decision-making networks, and enrich communication among all levels of the college. All these factors are crucial for maintaining and guiding the direction of the college in an era of faculty turn-over. Equally significant is Lakeland’s relatively new leadership team. Many of the administrative positions have been filled within the same time period of significant faculty retirement and replacement. Search committees have experienced great challenge in filling these administrative slots with qualified candidates and Lakeland is not alone in this challenge. Current research indicates that the need for community-college leadership will exceed the availability of qualified individuals to fill those positions within the next few years (Fulton-Calkins & Milling, 2005). Community-building in the spirit of learning and collaboration for both faculty and administration seems crucial for the college and her students as we move through this period of transition.

This proposal is about providing a “mechanism to ensure that faculty will interact regularly in a mutually supportive and fruitful way” as this new chapter in Lakeland’s history unfolds. “It has been said, and I tend to believe it, that every movement in the history of the human race has begun with a small group of people committed to a common cause” (Tompkins, 1992). This proposal is

3

about providing “a collaborative arena in which colleagues have the time and opportunity to reflect on their The Lakeland Foundation Faculty Challenge Grant Application

teaching, their discipline, their institution, and themselves. Creating a safe environment for the honest engagement of ideas and feelings helps to move the faculty outside of their disciplinary comfort zones and into the realm of intellectual and interpersonal connections. Through this process, teaching and learning are meaningfully enhanced and often transformed….By supporting colleagues through fostering change, encouraging innovation, and inspiring community, [this mechanism] can have a profound impact not only on student learning but also on the quality of faculty members’ shared work environment” (Petrone & Ortquist-Ahrens, 2004). This mechanism is a Faculty Learning Community.

The Background

The concept of “learning communities” evolved out of the work of John Dewey (1933) who proposed an educational system of active, student-centered, and shared inquiry. Learning communities create an atmosphere of mutual interdependence and belonging that can create a “significant and unusual leap in intellectual development” (Gabelnick, MacGregor, Matthews & Smith, 1990) as well as improvements in social and personal realms1. Research within the past ten years suggests that learning communities are a viable and effective tool to advance faculty learning as well. According to Fulton & Licklider (1998), “Faculty, like their students, learn by reading, experiencing, reflecting, and collaborating with others.” When applied to faculty development, outcomes are similar to those observed in student learning communities: “increased collaboration across disciplines, increased retention, a more coherent curriculum, more active learning, more civic contributions to the common good, and over time, a campus community built around teaching and learning.”2

Much of the work around Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) has been done at Miami University in Ohio under the direction of Milton Cox. Over the past 15 years, provosts have tripled funding for the campus learning communities and the FLC program has twice received the Hesburgh Award for excellence in faculty development that increases undergraduate learning. During the 2006-2007 academic year, approximately 10% of the faculty will voluntarily participate in nine different faculty learning communities. Miami University also sponsors a Faculty Learning Consortium that lists 337 colleges and universities across the country with active Faculty Learning Communities. Ten of these are Ohio institutions and include: Bowling Green, John Carroll, Kent State, Miami University, Ohio State, Ohio University, Otterbein, Shawnee State, University of Akron, and University of Cincinnati-Raymond Walters College (Cox, 2004). According to a comprehensive survey compiled by Richlin and Essington (2004), “125 U.S. academic institutions3

were identified as having a total of 308 FLCs operating during the 2003-04 academic year.” Sixteen of these were Associate’s level colleges, among them Cuyahoga Community College and Lorain County Community College, representing 12.8% of FLCs reported but less than 1% of community colleges in the country.

Given the low percentage of community colleges participating in FLC programs, one is led to ask if this approach is appropriate for community colleges. The answer can be found in the old adage, “Follow the money.”

4

In 1990, Ernest Boyer and the Carnegie Foundation published Scholarship Reconsidered where a call was issued to “break out of the tired old teaching versus research debate and define, in more creative ways, what it means to be a scholar (Boyer, 1990).” This new definition of “scholar” reaches beyond the The Lakeland Foundation Faculty Challenge Grant Application

traditional established scope of research and creates a fresh vision for the continued development of our universities and colleges. He identifies four areas of legitimate scholarly inquiry that include:

* Scholarship of Discovery Pursuit of Knowledge* Scholarship of Integration Pursuit of Connections Within and Across Disciplines* Scholarship of Application Use of Knowledge to Address Societal Issues* Scholarship of Teaching Use of Research to Identify Best Practices in Teaching

where the focus is on learning as an outcome

This vision was embraced by universities and their professors, particularly at the Doctoral and Master’s levels (accounting for 77% of the FLCs reported in Richling & Essington, 2004)4, as it provided a new way to balance the responsibilities of teaching with the mandates of “publish or perish” by integrating the two domains in significant and interdependent ways (Hershberger, 2005). The Faculty Learning Community Facilitator at Bowling Green reports:

“In developing our community, we relied on our university’s academic plan and the words or our president who wrote, “We aspire to be the premier learning community in Ohio, and one of the best in the nation…through the interdependence of teaching, learning, scholarship, and service, and in academically challenging teaching, fully connected with research and public service.” Many tenure-track professors on our campus and others see the relationship between teaching and research as mostly antagonist, because they are often so busy preparing for their classes that they must carve out their research agenda from the time left over. Our learning community therefore sought to strike a balance between research and teaching in the professional lives of faculty.” (Hershberger, 2005).

Junior faculty were particularly drawn to learning communities as they provided the opportunity “to share their writings with peers, get critical feedback, and encourage one another to publish their work amid their busy schedules” (Hershberger, 2004; also see Cox & Jeep, 2000). It is entirely possible that the increased reliance of graduate schools on research and grant monies may have made funding FLCs more immediately feasible.

In Ohio, a second development appears equally significant in promoting Faculty Learning Communities. In 1999, the Ohio Board of Regents funded the Ohio Learning Network “to infuse new technologies into established course and programs at Ohio colleges and universities (Hansen, Kalish, & Hall et. al., 2004). About this same time, the Ohio Board of Regents funded the Ohio Teaching Enhancement Program to support the state-wide development of Faculty Learning Communities for junior faculty based on the successes of Milton Cox at Miami University (Cox & Jeep, 2000). In 2002, these two initiatives came together and sent out a call for proposals to develop Faculty Learning Communities centered focused on integrating technology into teaching

5

(Ohio Learning Network, 2002). “Twenty-three Ohio institutions (21 public and 11 private) received implementation grants as principal investigators for thirty-one FLCs” (Hansen, Kalish, & Hall et.a., 2004). Cuyahoga Community College, Lorain County Community College, Belmont Technical College, and Owens Community College were part of this initiative. Eleven of the thirty-one FLCs were awarded continuation grants. Seven of the The Lakeland Foundation Faculty Challenge Grant Application

original twenty-three Ohio institutions have maintained on-going, active Faculty Learning Communities. As such, these initiatives may have been linked to time-limited funding with no champion on the campus to pursue continued financial support.

Finally, there may be some difficulties inherent in the available statistics. Richlin and Eggelston (2004) report that (1) identifying institutions with FLCs was problematic as “there is no single type of office on all campuses that could be contacted” creating confusion and likely under-reporting; (2) not all institutions are familiar with the specific meaning of “Faculty Learning Community” as a model which may have impacted reporting; and, (3) the survey was conducted in late-summer when some FLCs were still being developed. The possibility of under-reporting appears substantiated by the unearthing (through an internet search) of seven community colleges with FLCs not reported by Richlin and Eggleston (2004) or Miami University’s Consortium5 leading one to believe there may be more out there. One thing is clear, however, regarding the organization of FLCs. They all seem to generally operate under the Miami University framework regardless of the institution classification (e.g., graduate, undergraduate, or associate). Graduate and undergraduate institutions appear to have an advantage when it comes to integrating the scholarship aspect of the FLC due to smaller course loads and the imperative for publication to ensure professional survival. Associate level institutions appear to have an advantage with the FLC focus on teaching and learning approaches but may be challenged by “large course loads that leave little time for the reflective practice and scholarly research that sustains and energizes teaching and learning.”6

The Goals

“The long-term goals of a FLC program at most institutions are similar to those at Miami University:

* Build university-wide community through teaching and learning* Increase faculty interest in undergraduate teaching and learning* Investigate and incorporate ways that diversity can enhance teaching and learning* Nourish the scholarship of teaching and its application to student learning* Broaden the evaluation of teaching and the assessment of learning* Increase faculty collaboration across disciplines* Encourage reflection about general education and the coherence of learning across the

disciplines* Increase the rewards for and prestige of excellent teaching* Increase financial support for teaching and learning initiatives* Create an awareness of the complexity of teaching and learning” (Cox, 2004)

The Project

6

More specifically, “A Faculty Learning Community is a group of 6-15 (a group of 8-12 is recommended) cross-disciplinary faculty, graduate students and professional staff engaging in an active, collaborative, year-long program with a curriculum about enhancing teaching and learning, and community building.”7 Membership is generally considered an honor. A seat at the table provides an The Lakeland Foundation Faculty Challenge Grant Application

exceptional opportunity to connect with colleagues in a process of exploration, experimentation, and exchange as each extends their capabilities to engage students in a likewise fashion. “Evidence shows that FLCs increase faculty interest in teaching and learning and provide safety and support for faculty to investigate, attempt, assess, and adopt new (to them) methods.”8

Faculty Learning Communities can be cohort-based or topic-based. Cohort-groups are structured experiences that operate by consensus to “engage complex problems as they energize and empower participants…[as well as] encompass the social aspects of building community…and focus on the ultimate beneficiaries of the program—the students in the participants’ courses”9 A topic-based group is designed around a particular teaching & learning need, issue or opportunity. Any of the potential seminar topics listed in Appendix A could be expanded into a Faculty Learning Community of it’s own.

The present proposal is based on a “cohort-based” group for full-time faculty to support the development of community among faculty who will be leading Lakeland’s education, culture, and governance into the next generation. The “Program Plan & Agenda” located in Appendix A is based on Miami’s Universities proven sequence of ten developmental steps designed to incorporate a “scaffolding, capacity-building, action research approach” (Hansen, Kalish, & Hall, 2004; also see Richlin & Cox, 2004). The content of the seminars and projects will be developed by the participants to include teaching and learning approaches relevant to their interest and skill levels. Faculty will select a focus course and develop a teaching project of their choice to complete during the course of this Community. Faculty will utilize learning centered evaluations that fit the instructor’s teaching goals to assess the impact of their project on student learning. Bi-monthly seminars will provide a time for feedback and collaboration on projects as well as exploration of other teaching approaches (see Appendix B for a list of sample seminar topics). Each member will prepare a mini-portfolio for their project to be housed in the library with the Excellence In Teaching materials. Three retreats will help keep the experience structured, focused, and innovative as we work with a national consultant throughout the year. Finally, a focus book selected by the group will provide additional material for reflection and discussion. The Community will have the opportunity to present their progress during Lakeland’s Conference Weeks as well as submit a proposal for presentation at a national teaching conference with the potential for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The Community will also have the opportunity to develop ideas and funding for a scholarship of teaching project or mentor a new Faculty Learning Community during the 2008-2009 academic year.

As advised by Miami University, this first year’s proposal is basic and straight-forward to allow for relative ease in assimilating the process into Lakeland’s culture. The model itself provides unlimited potential for expansion and diversification to include both full and part-time faculty in both cohort and topic-based groups. Additional future possibilities include mentoring for the next

7

generation of faculty learning communities and coordinated projects in the scholarship of teaching and learning.

Faculty participants will benefit directly from the professional skill building, collegiality, and consultant support of the program. As an additional incentive for participation, participants will be provided with Pacific Crest’s Faculty Guidebook, seminar focus book(s), learner-centered faculty evaluations, seminar materials, and continental breakfast at gatherings as well as lunch at each retreat. Finally, participants who attend both the Opening and Winter Retreats; administer IDEA evaluations in Spring and Fall 2007; The Lakeland Foundation Faculty Challenge Grant Application

actively work on their Teaching Project; and, attend 80% of bi-monthly seminars will earn an all-expense paid trip to a national teaching conference (4 days in March, 2008 at League for Innovation Annual Conference). Information about the contractors who will be providing services for this project can be found in Appendix C.

2. How will the proposed activities of this project achieve one or more of the objectives of the program?

IMPROVED TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS

First, FLCs incorporate the “Ten Principles of Learning” articulated by the Joint Task Force on Student Learning10 to create a experience that maximizes learning outcomes for participants. The FLC will also serve to model the process of creating these conditions within any learning environment. As such, this experience will result in increased teaching effectiveness leading to increased student learning.

* Learning is fundamentally about making and maintaining connections

The FLCprovides several opportunities for making connections between:

* Lakeland’s mission/goals and their teaching and campus involvement* Cross-disciplinary colleagues’ goals/perspectives/teaching approaches

and their own goals/perspectives/teaching approaches* Lakeland FLC faculty teaching projects* Theory and practice* Research and practice* Reflection/discussion and application* The “scholarship of teaching” literature and their own classroom approach* Student evaluation and teaching improvements* Faculty development and student learning* Faculty development and AQIP principles* Faculty development and the planned Center for Teaching Innovations* Student challenges and solutions* Classroom needs and supportive services* Individual and collective growth* Lakeland’s faculty and faculty across the country

8

* Lakeland’s FLC faculty and other faculty on campus* Lakeland’s present and Lakeland’s future

* Learning is enhanced by taking place in the context of a compelling situation that balances challenge and opportunity

* Selection of meaningful teaching project relevant to individual professional goals that builds skills and relationships


* Collective growth where the well-being and success of each is valued* Interaction and collaboration promote creative tension* Year-long project and institutional support builds significance* Unlimited potential for expansion and diversification at the local, state, and

national levels

* Learning is an active search for meaning by the learner

* Active critical reflection promotes personal and professional growth* Retreats and seminars encourage exploration relevant to learner* Interactive discourse provides opportunity to clarify and deepen

perspectives

* Learning is developmental, a cumulative process involving the whole person

* Retreats provide sequencing and scaffolding for learning* Process cumulates in product that benefits faculty and college* Process encompasses assessment, learning, practice, and presentation

* Learning is done by individuals who are intrinsically tied to others as social beings

* Relationship building with colleagues creates social support* Mutually interdependent relationships build campus-wide cooperation,

collaboration, and commitment

* Learning is strongly affected by the educational climate in which it takes place

* Responsive, respectful, empowering climate deepens experience* Supportive atmosphere where mistakes are valued for learning potential* Group process values strengths and provides tools to improve weak areas

* Learning requires frequent feedback if it is to sustained, practice if it is to be nourished, and opportunities to use what has been learned

* Bi-monthly seminars and semester retreats provide frequent feedback* Year-long project provides ample opportunity to practice skills

9

* Potential for presentations, publications, and mentoring provide opportunities to utilize what has been learned for the benefit of others

* Much learning takes place informally and incidentally

* Development of mutually interdependent supportive relationships within context of social gatherings provides opportunities for informal and incidental “teachable moments” that build on current day-to-day experiences


* Learning is grounded in particular contexts and individual experiences

* Structured encounters examine actual classroom occurrences in the framework of on-going development

* Learning involves the ability of individuals to monitor their own learning

* Development of teaching project with student feedback models process of self-monitoring of professional growth

* Analytic reflection promotes process of self-evaluation* Peer coaching models process of professional review

Second, FLCs also meet the criteria for effective faculty development approaches established by Murray (2001) in his comprehensive review of faculty development programs at community colleges:

* A climate that fosters and encourages faculty development

FLCs create an atmosphere of safety, trust, openness, respect, responsiveness, collaboration, relevance, challenge, enjoyment, Esprit de Corps, and empowerment that provides opportunities for individual and collective growth.11 In addition, FLCs value and utilize the key process elements of a social theory of learning (Wenger, 2000):

* Meaning Learning as experience* Practice Learning as doing* Community Learning as belonging* Identity Learning as becoming

* A formalized, structured, and goal-directed development program

FLCs have a clearly outlined structure designed to produce observable results in specific areas identified in the Teaching Project.

* A connection between faculty development and the reward structure

Some colleges and universities provide release time for participation, however, this

10

is not an option under the requirements of the Challenge Grant. Providing the opportunity for attendance at a major national teaching conference with a close-knit group of colleagues is clearly a reward for the significant time and effort spent in the FLC experience. The reward also establishes another layer of professional development that advances the college’s goal of growing a learner-centered focus in the classrooms.


* Faculty ownership

FLCs are driven by the interests of the faculty participants and are planned, coordinated, and facilitated by the faculty themselves. This particular FLC is also funded through a grant for which only faculty can apply.

* Colleagues’ support for investments in teaching

FLCs are a “continuous process of learning and reflection, supported by colleagues, with an intention of getting things done” (McGill & Beaty, 2001). They are also designed to provide responsive collaboration with colleagues in an atmosphere of trust, openness, and respect on projects relevant to each individual.12

* Belief that good teaching is valued by administrators

Funding this ambitious project focused on creating a community of faculty invested in active and deliberate improvement of teaching and learning clearly sends the message that the administration truly places a high value on Excellence in Teaching. This initiative could also serve as a prologue to the “Center for Teaching Innovations” planned for the A-2020 area.

Third, Miami University reports that faculty within these learning communities report improvements in student engagement, grades, use of critical thinking skills, use of learning technologies, technology proficiency, and teamwork skills.”13

IMPROVED INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

Milton Cox (2001) who has been at the forefront of Faculty Learning Communities states,

“In my 20 years of faculty development, I have found faculty learning communities to be the most effective programs for achieving faculty learning and development. In addition, these communities build communication across disciplines, increase faculty interest in teaching and learning, initiate excursions into the scholarship of teaching, and foster civic responsibility. They provide a multi-faceted, flexible, and holistic approach to faculty development. They change individuals, and over time, they change institutional culture. Faculty Learning Communities and their “graduates” are

11

change agents who can enable an institution to become a learning organization (note: “The estimated length of time needed for an institution to show a cultural change as a result of the community approach is at least five years”14)….they are likely to take responsibility for involvement in setting institutional goals, pursuing difficult campus issues, and contributing to the common good. And they persist in their efforts because they belong to a community of support.”


Faculty Learning Communities are consistent with and support the AQIP philosophy of continuous quality improvement to enhance learning (Hansen, Kalish, & Hall et.al, 2004) and the philosophy and institutional goals behind the planned Center for Teaching Innovations at Lakeland.

3. Participants: [special characteristics, how many will be involved, etc.]

The literature generally suggests a member selection process that includes a written application that covers teaching philosophy, objectives and approaches as well as contributions the prospective member could make to the learning community. “Selection criteria used to evaluate applications are commitment to quality teaching, level of interest in the community, need, openness to new ideas, potential for contributions to the community, and plans for use of the award year. Participants are chosen to create a diverse group representing a variety of disciplines, experiences, and needs (Cox, 2001).” However, in the spirit of inclusion and fairness, this proposal incorporates a lottery system for selection of 7-14 full-time faculty members (one seat is reserved for the grant writer) depending on the level of funding. All full-time faculty will be eligible to enter the lottery for a seat at the FLC table.

4. Describe unique or special features/results/products of this program/project.

Cross-disciplinary collaborative communityTime & opportunity for critical reflection and active, shared inquiryHonest engagement of ideas and feelings in a safe environmentIntellectual and interpersonal connections with colleaguesOpportunities to learn and practice innovative teaching techniquesBroaden the evaluation of teaching and the assessment of learningIncrease financial support for teaching and learning initiativesIncrease rewards for and prestige of excellent teachingFeedback and collaboration from colleagues and national consultantCohort-based group of 5-15 full-time faculty membersLottery system selection of participants from pool of volunteersIDEA Student Ratings of Instruction and Diagnostic Report at 3 points in timePeriodic off-campus Retreats (Pre, Mid & Post)Development of a Teaching Project with specific Learning Objectives

12

Focus course of participant’s choiceOn-line support with national consultantMini Course Portfolio for chosen focus courseBi-Monthly Seminar gatherings for support, collaboration, feedback, and instructionFocus Book chosen through consensus on a topic related to college teachingLCC Conference Week Presentations (2 Fall and 1 Winter)Attendance at a national teaching conferenceOpportunities to present at a national teaching conference (League for Innovation)


Opportunities to publish in peer-reviewed academic journalOpportunities to develop additional FLCs or scholarship of teaching projectsIndependent evaluatorUnlimited potential for expansion & diversification to include both full and part-time

faculty Unlimited potential for expansion & diversification to include cohort and topic groupsSupports AQIP principles of continuous quality improvementSupports institutional goals behind planned Center for Teaching InnovationsPotential for future external funding supportPotential for national exposure

5. Has this project/program been offered before and how is this proposed effort different from the prior one?

There has been no comparable program on Lakeland’s campus.

13


6. Funds requested: $ ___55,158.50____________ from the Lakeland Foundation

What is the total budget for this project/program? ____65,794.75__________

Please provide budgetary information on this project giving different levels of cost associated with levels of implementation. Identify other sources of funding, if available.

Program Budget

Please list Budget items(If salary is requested please includeBenefits total also

MinimalImplementation N = 8

ModerateImplementation N = 12

OptimalImplementation N = 15

National Consultant (Pacific Crest) $13,200.00 $13,200.00 $13,200.00Retreats (Lantern Court)

2,877.00 3,483.00 4,005.00

Learner Centered Evaluations (IDEA)

1,930.00 2,455.00 3,036.25

Seminars 1,295.00 2,040.00 2,396.25National Conference 19,560.32 29,340.48 36,675.75Reference Materials 500.00 500.00 500.00Independent Consultant 3936.00 5101.00 5981.00

Total Cost of the Program $43,298.52 $56,119.48 $65,794.75

Funds Requested from theLakeland Foundation

$37,626.00 $47,611.00 $55,158.50

Other Sources of Funding (if available)0 0 0

14


If this program is unable to be funded through the Lakeland Foundation, how/where will you seek support for it?

The Lakeland Foundation’s Faculty Challenge Grant for Excellence In Teaching is being pursued as the first funding request because the Foundation is uniquely suited to address the immediate needs of the campus. Securing funds from the Foundation would permit this program to be launched prior to the end of Spring semester 2007 allowing for administration of the first round of learner-centered evaluations (to serve as the baseline and basis for the development of the teaching projects) as well as initiation of planning, scheduling, and contracting for the first retreat. However, I am acutely aware that this proposal is much more ambitious than generally considered in this arena even at the moderate level of implementation. Therefore, I anticipate the need to seek out additional or other funding even though this will likely delay implementation until Spring 2008. The Fund for Strategic Initiatives may be the best second, or supplemental, route.

Several funding sources have been identified in the studies referenced in this proposal including: Ohio Board of Regents, the Ohio Learning Network, the Fund for Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), the James Irvine Foundation, the Lilly Endowment, and the Teagle Foundation. These sources often have specific target areas that may, or may not, meet Lakeland’s needs. However, there may be other national sources that could be identified and pursued.

7. How will the impact of this program be measured? [Relate to the grant objectives.] If funded, a brief one-page report will be required at the end of the project.

According to Petrone & Ortquist-Ahrens (2004), “The success of any FLC group is measured along three dimensions:

* Outcomes, the actual results;* Tasks, the efficiency, effectiveness, clarity, and adaptability of the process for

achieving those outcomes; and * Relationships, the level of mutual respect, trust, support, and cooperation group

members experience as they work together to accomplish the outcomes.”

Therefore, all three of these elements will be incorporated into the assessment and evaluation measures listed in the chart on the next page that address evaluation of teaching and institutional effectiveness.

In addition, an Independent Evaluator will be secured to provide objective observations and feedback on the process and outcomes. Ideally this individual will have direct experience with Faculty Learning Communities at a college with an active and on-going program. An evaluation plan will be developed in conjunction with Lakeland and the national consultant. The cost of this service is not to exceed 10% of the total cost of the project.

18


FACULTY LEARNING COMMUNITY EVALUATION PLAN

Evaluation Measure Data Source Time Frames

Changes in TeachingPractices & Attitudes

Survey (Likert & Open-Ended)Teaching Project OutcomesMini Course PortfolioLessons LearnedConsultant Feedback

Pre & PostMid & Post

PostPost

Pre, Mid, & Post

Effects on Student Learning IDEA Student RatingsJournal Reflections/Discourse

Pre, Mid, & Post

Throughout

Self-Assessment Reflections Journal/Summary Pre, Mid, & Post

Faculty Satisfaction Survey (Likert & Open-Ended)Discourse

PostThroughout

Value of Incentives Retreat & Seminar Attendance# of Trips Earned

ThroughoutPost

FLC Process & Program Elements Survey (Likert & Open-Ended)DiscourseConsultant Feedback

Mid & PostThroughoutPre, Mid, &

Post

Sources: Cox (2001); Hubball, H., Clarke, A., & Beach, A.L. (2004); Middendorf (2004); Richlin & Essington (2004); Sandell, Wigley, & Kovalchick (2004); Hubball, H., Clarke, A., & Beach, A.L. (2004)

19


APPENDIX A

FACULTY LEARNING COMMUNITYProgram Plan & Agenda

2007-2008

Baseline Assessment: IDEA Student Ratings of Instruction (see examples in Reference Folder)

* Participants administer the pencil and paper IDEA Survey Form the 12th week of Spring semester (2007) to students in all their courses to serve as a baseline

* Responses tabulated by IDEA Center & Diagnostic Form Report generated for each participant for each course

* This information will be utilized at the Opening Retreat.

Opening Retreat: 3 days in May (2007) at Lantern Court/Holden Arboretum

* Establish a sense of community and shared vision for the FLC* Review IDEA Diagnostic Reports and identify strengths and challenges* Introduce Teaching Project concept and process* Participants select a Focus Course and bring current syllabus* Participants design and write a description of their teaching & learning project* Participants prepare an initial learning plan with clearly stated learning objectives* Feedback and collaboration with participants and consultant* Teaching Project descriptions and learning objectives are compiled in a Project

Book for each participant

* Present process for compiling a mini-course portfolio* Identify potential areas for individual projects & collaborative efforts* Identify and select seminar topics for bi-monthly meetings and retreats* Develop seminar format* Choose focus book* Explore options for introducing FLC project at Fall Conference Week

Summer 2007

* Participants research teaching and learning approaches relevant to their identified challenge areas

* Begin formulating ideas for Teaching Project* Utilize on-line consulting to begin formulating clearly stated learning objectives for

the Teaching Project

20

Fall Conference Week (2007)Team presentation outlining project

Fall Seminars: Bi-Monthly at LakelandIDEA Student Ratings of Instruction

* Discuss findings from research on challenge areas* Presentations on topics selected at Retreats* Share progress on Teaching Projects* Feedback and collaboration* Utilize on-line consulting as needed* Discuss focus book chapter concepts* Participants administer IDEA evaluation to students in all courses during 12th week

of instruction to generate a second Diagnostic Form Report

Winter Retreat: 3 days in January (2008) at Lantern Court/Holden Arboretum

* Review IDEA Diagnostic Reports & compare with baseline report* Identify areas of strength, progress, and continued (or new) challenges* Compare information with baseline report* Feedback and collaboration among participants and with consultant* Revise Teaching Project as necessary in response to IDEA ratings* Presentation by consultant* Explore options for presenting FLC progress at Winter Conference Week* Explore options for presenting FLC progress at a national conference* Explore options for continued FLC funding or funding for a collaborative

scholarship of teaching project in 2008-2009 academic year* Assess FLC process & dynamics

Winter Conference Week (2008) Team presentation on progress

Spring Seminars: Bi-Monthly at LakelandIDEA Student Ratings of Instruction

* Presentations on topics selected at Retreats* Share progress on Teaching Projects* Feedback and collaboration* Utilize on-line consulting as needed* Discuss focus book chapter concepts* Pursue/prepare national conference presentation if this option was chosen* Participants administer IDEA evaluation to students in all courses during 12th week

21

of instruction to generate a third Diagnostic Form Report to be utilized at Closing Seminar

National Conference: 4 days in March (2008) at League for Innovation Annual Conference

* Expenses paid for participants who have attended both the Opening and Winter Retreats; administered IDEA evaluations in Spring and Fall 2007; actively worked

on their Teaching Project; actively participated in bi-monthly seminars; and attended 80% of bi-monthly seminars.

Closing Retreat: 3 days in May (2008) at Lantern Court/Holden Arboretum

* Review IDEA Diagnostic Reports & compare with previous reports* Identify areas of progress and continued (or new) challenges* Share lessons learned from Teaching Projects* Share mini course portfolios* Evaluate Teaching Project outcomes* Evaluate FLC process & dynamics* Develop suggestions for future FLC improvement* Participants or FLC as a group may prepare manuscript about the experience for

publication in a refereed multidisciplinary or disciplinary academic journal* If a new FLC is created for the 2008-2009 academic year, a 4th day will be added to

the Retreat for graduating members to mentor new FLC participants. Also, new FLC

participants will attend presentations of Teaching Projects

Fall Conference Week (2008)Team presentation on Teaching Projects, FLC outcomes and lessons learned

22


APPENDIX B

POTENTIAL SEMINAR TOPICS

This list contains examples of seminar topics from other Faculty Learning Communitiesand the Lilly Conference of College & University Teaching.

It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all potential topics.

Advising Student Groups Information LiteracyAssessment v. Evaluation Learner-Centered SyllabiCase Studies MentoringCollaborative Learning Marketing Your Major or ProgramCollaborative Teaching Motivation in the ClassroomCommunity In the Classroom Multi-Cultural TeachingCreativity in the Classroom On-Line TechniquesCritical Thinking Peer CoachingDepartment Chair Collaborative Peer CoachingDevelopmental Counseling PlagiarismDevelopmental Teaching Problem-Based LearningDisabilities Process-Oriented Guided InquiryEncouraging Civic Engagement Reflective TeachingEthical Dilemmas Scholarship of Teaching & LearningFirst Year Experience Service LearningGetting Student Buy-In Student EngagementGrant Opportunities Student Self-Assessment Journals

Team TeachingTechnology In the Classroom

23


APPENDIX C

External Contractor Information

National Consultant Pacific Crest

Learner Centered Faculty Evaluations IDEA

National Teaching Conference League for Innovation

Retreat Location Lantern Court at Holden Arboretum

24


ENDNOTES

www.units.muohio.edu/flc/what.shtml accessed 08/25/2006

2 www.units.muohio.edu/flc/recommendations.shtml accessed 08/25/2006

3 Representing 3% of all U.S. academic institutions

4 Baccalaureate Colleges accounted for only 8% of FLCs reported and under 2% of baccalaureate colleges in the country by Richlin & Eggleston (2004)

5 The Carnegie Project for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning COPPER cluster (Communities of Practice: Pooling Educational Resources) includes the following community colleges: Northern Essex, Middlesex, Holyoke, Valencia, and Iowa Western. Mesa Community College reports an Interdisciplinary Teaching Science FLC and Scottsdale Community College reported a Mathematics FLC in 2006.

6 http://cit.necc.mass.edu/ofsd/sotl.shtml accessed 09/29/2006

7 www.units.muohio.edu/flc/what.shtml accessed 08/25/2006

8 Ibid

9 Ibid

10 Created by the American Association of Higher Education, the American College Personnel Association, and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators

11 www.units.muohio.edu/flc/qualities.shtml accessed 08/25/2006

12 Ibid

13 www.units.muohio.edu/flc/what.shtml accessed 08/25/2006

14 www.units.muohio.edu/flc/recommendations.shtml accessed 08/25/2006

5 Creating the Future of Faculty Development: Learning from the Past, Understanding the Present

25

http://www.units.muohio.edu/flc/recommendations.shtml

http://www.units.muohio.edu/flc/what.shtml

http://www.units.muohio.edu/flc/qualities.shtml


http://cit.necc.mass.edu/ofsd/sotl.shtml

http://www.units.muohio.edu/flc/recommendations.shtml



REFERENCES

Bogue, E.G. (2002). An agenda of common caring: The call for community in higher education. In

W.M. McDonald (Ed.), Creating campus community; In search of Ernest Boyer’s legacy (pp. 1-20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professioriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Cambridge, B.L. (2001). Fostering the scholarship of teaching and learning: Communities of practice. To improve the academy, 19, 3-16. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company,

Inc.

Cox, M.D. (1999). Peer consultation and faculty learning communities. New directions for teaching

and learning, 79, 39-49.

Cox, M.D. (2001). Faculty learning communities: Change agents for transforming institutions into learning organizations. To improve the academy, 19, 69-93.

Cox, M.D. (2003). Proven faculty development tools that foster the scholarship of teaching in faculty learning communities. To improve the academy, 21, 109-142.

Cox, M.D. (2004). An introduction to faculty learning communities: Utilizing FLCs to solve problems and seize opportunities. New directions for teaching and learning, 97, 5-23.

Cox, M.D., & Jeep, J.M. (2000). Taking your best faculty development program statewide in the 21st century: Mentoring other campuses regarding junior faculty. Paper presented at the 25th annual conference of the Professional and Organizational Development Network, Vancouver, Canada.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Filipczak, B. (1994). Weathering change: Enough already. Training, Sept, p. 23.

Fulton-Calkins, P., & Milling, C. (2005). Community-college leadership: An art to be practiced: 2010 and beyond. Community college journal of research and practice, 29, 233-250.

Fulton, C., & Licklider, B.L. (1998). Supporting faculty development in an era of change. To improve the academy, 19, 51-66. Stillwater, OK: New Forums.

Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R.S., & Smith, B.L. (1990). Learning communities: Creating connections among students, faculty, and disciplines. New directions for teaching

26

and learning, 41, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hansen, S. Kalish, A., Hall, W.E., Gynn, C.M., Holly, M.L. & Madigan, D. (2004). Developing a statewide faculty learning community program. New directions for teaching and learning, 97, 71-80.

Hubbal, H., Clarke, A., & Beach, A.L. (2004). Assessing faculty learning communities. New directions for teaching and learning, 97, 87-100.

McGill, I. & Beaty, C. (2001). Action learning (2nd Ed.). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Middendorf, J. (2004). Facilitating a faculty learning community using the decoding the disciplines model. New directions for teaching and learning, 98, 95-107.

Murray, J.P. (2001). Faculty development in publicly supported 2-year colleges. Community college journal of research and practice, 25, 487-502.

Ohio Learning Network. Request for proposals. As cited in Hansen, Kalish, & Hall, et.al. (2004)

O’Toole, J. (1996). Leading change: The argument for values-based leadership. New York: Ballantine Books.

Palmer, P. (2000). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patrick, S.K. & Fletcher, J.J (1998). Faculty developers as change agents: Transforming colleges and universities into learning organizations. To improve the academy, 17, 155-170. Stillwater, OK: New Forums.

Petrone, M.C. & Ortquist-Ahrens, L. (2004). Facilitating faculty learning communities: A compact

guide to creating change and inspiring community. New directions in teaching and learning,

97, 63-69.

Potter, D.L. (1999). Where powerful partnerships begin. About campus, May-June, 11-16.

Richlin, L., & Cox, M.D. (2004). Developing scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and

learning through faculty learning communities. New directions in teaching and learning, 97,

127-135.

Richlin, L., & Essington, A. (2004). Overview of faculty learning communities. New directions for

teaching and learning, 97, 25-39.

27

Sandell, K.L., Wigley, K., & Kovalchick, A. (2004). Developing facilitators for faculty learning communities. New directions for teaching and learning, 97, 51-62.

Shulman, G.M., Cox, M.D., & Richlin, L. (2004). Institutional considerations in developing a faculty learning community program. New directions for teaching and learning, 97, 41-49.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Tompkins, J. (1992). The way we live now. Change, 24(6) accessed Academic Search Premier.

Wenger, E. (2000). Learning as social participation: Why we must change our assumptions about how we learn and share knowledge. Knowledge management review, 6, 30-33.

HEREBY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

_________________________________ __________________________Signature of Program/Project Director Signature of Dean

____/_____/________ ____/_____/________Date Date

Foundation Use Only:

Proposal No. ___________ Date received ____/____/____

28

Approved: G Yes Amount $_______________

G No Date ____/____/____

29

the lakeland foundation€¦ · web viewmiami university also sponsors a faculty learning...

Documents