Contents

• Introduction
• Strengths of CIDR
• Areas for Improvement in CIDR
• Opportunities for CIDR
• Opportunities for Institutional Leaders
• Conclusion
• Reviewers

 

---

INTRODUCTION

Dr. Donald Wulff, the director of the Center for Instructional Development and Research (CIDR) at the University of Washington, invited us to visit on November 29 and 30, 2001, in order to assess the Center’s current faculty development activities and future directions. This was neither an accreditation visit nor a mandated program review. Rather, the goal of the two-day visit was to help a nationally recognized teaching and learning center, under new leadership, to review what it has accomplished to date and what directions it might take in the future. Several questions guided the assessment: How well and in what ways is CIDR accomplishing its mission? Given campus priorities, what future directions or changes would be most important for the Center to consider?

As external consultants, we used two primary sources of information: written documents (e.g., CIDR materials on teaching development activities, annual report) and a site visit. Over two days, we interviewed approximately 80 individuals in 16 individual or focus group meetings—each convening for an hour or more. We met with graduate students, faculty members, department chairs, campus administrators, and professional and graduate student staff of CIDR. The interviewees’ backgrounds were wide ranging—new and seasoned teaching assistants, faculty in early-, mid-, and late-career, instructors in different disciplines and departments involved in various teaching and learning consultations and activities, administrators in various unit and institutional roles.

This report highlights findings from those conversations, focusing on CIDR strengths, areas for improvement, and suggestions for future planning. It should be noted that while the site visit interviews provided rich information and were marked by considerable openness and candor, the opinions of those interviewed cannot be said to be representative of the faculty and administration as a whole. Still the interviews were quite extensive and afford perspectives against which other data can be tested for evidence of intensity of feelings of support, relative merit of stated goals, and commitment to furthering faculty development on the campus.

CIDR is well regarded among campus users of faculty development services and also enjoys a national reputation in the field of faculty development. There is a range of reasons for CIDR's success, including reputation, professionalism and expertise of staff, collaborative philosophy of professional development, effectiveness in meeting goals, commitment to diversity, and commitment to graduate student preparation.

Reputation

Throughout the campus interviews, we heard strong affirmations of respect and appreciation for CIDR, its staff, and the work and support that the Center provides. We were impressed that everyone who has used CIDR’s services had only praise for the Center. In fact, many users spoke with strong affection for CIDR and its staff. Those at the University of Washington who know the Center and its work are strong advocates and supporters.

While many on campus admire the work of CIDR, University of Washington faculty and administrators may be less familiar with the excellent reputation that CIDR enjoys nationally. Each year, visitors from the United States and abroad request the opportunity to spend time at CIDR in order to develop ideas for their own campuses. If one were to rate faculty development and teaching centers throughout the country, the University of Washington would always be included in the top five most highly regarded centers. Its national reputation is based on the professional stature and contributions of its past and current director and staff, the extent of its focus and activities, and the quality of its work.

Professionalism and Expertise of the Staff

Virtually all of the users of CIDR faculty development services perceive the staff as highly professional and credible. Effective faculty development should be based on thorough knowledge of educational research and theory. CIDR staff members stay abreast of new knowledge, and are skillful in translating research findings and educational theory into suggestions that are useful in practical ways. Faculty, department chairs, and teaching assistants with whom we met commended CIDR staff for their ability to provide useful materials that specifically match clients’ needs. Many interviewees highlighted the staff's considerable knowledge of theory and practice in college teaching and learning across a wide range of topics such as multiculturalism and diversity, student learning, writing across the curriculum, and course design and assessment.

For example, CIDR staff have been called upon to consult on projects that require skill in the design of TA development programs, ABET accreditation processes, new faculty orientations, new student orientation, peer review of teaching, post-doctoral mentoring programs, calculus reform, and graduate level certificate programs. Of particular note is the staff’s expertise and reputation in TA development and in multiculturalism and diversity, including resources they have developed or made available in print and on the Web. An emerging staff strength is CIDR's partnership with other units in areas such as program evaluation and accreditation.

Philosophy of CIDR

A consistent philosophy guides the work done by CIDR and is much appreciated by faculty members, department chairs, and graduate teaching assistants who use the resources of the Center. Throughout our visit, we heard that professionalism, supportiveness, and respect characterize the work of CIDR. The philosophy of staff members is to work collaboratively with clients, building on the ideas, abilities, interests, and inclinations of each client. Furthermore, CIDR staff members are careful to avoid top-down approaches that undermine the confidence and knowledge of their clients. Don Wulff, Director, was mentioned many times by staff and users as setting a constant example of the kind of professionalism that exemplifies CIDR work. He encourages the staff in their own individual professional development, provides a decision-making environment that is inclusive and respectful of each member of the staff, and demonstrates the importance of on-going professional involvement and contributions at the national level. Staff members appreciate his collaborative leadership style and believe the tone he sets and philosophy he exemplifies are very important to the quality of their work.

Historically, the philosophy of CIDR has been to hold in confidence all work with faculty and teaching assistant clients. Users mentioned appreciating the sensitivity of the staff to confidentiality, but a number also mentioned that they would be quite interested in meeting and exchanging ideas with other members of the university community who are addressing similar topics and issues. As we discuss later in this report, we sensed that, while confidentiality should be respected when it is important to clients, the staff may want to consider ways to provide more opportunities for users of CIDR’s services to connect with each other and learn from common experiences.

Effectiveness in Meeting Goals

CIDR is perceived as effectively addressing goals at multiple levels: individual faculty, departments, programs and colleges, and the institution. Perhaps of greatest impact is the individual consultation process developed by CIDR. Interviewees were highly positive about the quality of individual consultation, describing it as a "safety net" for developing teachers, and a process in which the consultants are able to "encourage the fundamentals of good teaching," "articulate the needs of our students as learners," and "provide a depth and quality of feedback that is remarkable." Individuals reported that, as a result of consultations, they had changed their courses and the teaching of them in substantive ways.

Individual consultations often opened up opportunities for departmental discussions and consultations. A number of interviewees returned to CIDR for assistance in initiating departmental efforts to train teaching assistants, reform curriculum, or assess student learning outcomes for program evaluation or accreditation.

Equally important, many interviewees cited CIDR's key role in providing "the scaffolding" for many teaching and learning initiatives at the institutional level. While CIDR often was "behind the scenes," interviewees believed the unit deserved considerable credit for the success of initiatives such as the New Faculty Orientation, Teaching Academy, Quarterly Forums, etc. Interviewees also noted the value of continuing resources provided by the Center: newsletters, print resources on college teaching, and the CIDR Website.

Commitment to Diversity

The commitment of CIDR’s staff members to diversity and multiculturalism permeates all that they do. Not only does CIDR provide resources and training concerning diversity as it relates to teaching and creating more inclusive learning environments for students, in addition, CIDR staff members also have committed themselves as professionals to learn more about diversity and to infuse their knowledge about and commitment to diversity into all aspects of day-to-day operation of the Center. Work related to diversity is not an "add-on" activity; rather, it is a carefully considered value that is integrated into their consultation services and programs. The materials and resources that CIDR has developed concerning diversity (e.g. videotape, website) have attracted national attention and are being used on a number of other campuses.

Commitment to Graduate Student Preparation

The commitment of research institutions to the importance of preparing graduate teaching assistants for their duties varies greatly. Our site visit confirmed that the University of Washington's outstanding reputation in this area is well deserved. The campus has an unusually strong and comprehensive program that involves individuals at every level--faculty, departments, colleges, and campus administration. The leadership of CIDR and the Graduate School has been key to the flourishing of so many teaching and learning programs in support of TA preparation designed to enhance teaching and learning in undergraduate courses while simultaneously preparing the graduate students for their future careers.

CIDR has stressed ongoing preparation that combines centralized with departmental resources and expertise. Participants praised services that include campus-wide orientations, custom-designed workshops, Huckabay Fellowships, Graduate School courses, Spring TA Training Planning Meetings for TAs, faculty, and departments, and training for lead TAs to assist in preparing TAs in their home departments. We made special note of the time and resources given to international graduate students. CIDR's International Teaching Assistant (ITA) Program is simply without match. It provides a four-day, Pre-Autumn Workshop, individual consultation, and ongoing observation and feedback for all international teaching assistants when they are newly appointed to teaching responsibilities.

While the accomplishments of CIDR are numerous and impressive, interviewees raised some issues that the CIDR might consider as it plans for the future.

Individual and Collegial Approach to Effecting Change

Faculty development studies confirm that faculty members need each other’s support and that many express the desire to work with colleagues within and outside of their discipline. In fact, "getting to know other faculty members and sharing ideas about teaching" is often described as one of the primary benefits of participating in faculty development activities. While interviewees noted that individual consultation should remain a cornerstone of the Center's work, they desired more emphasis on cross-disciplinary conversations under the aegis of CIDR. These might include a workshop series related to teaching and learning issues of interest, or a year-long community such as is modeled by the Lilly Teaching Fellows Program in which early career faculty members meet regularly to learn more about teaching and learning. Such workshops and communities would help to foster collegiality across disciplines, "help faculty find each other, across campus," and raise the visibility of CIDR.

CIDR’s Role in Relation to Other Units/Programs

Institutional structures and organizational arrangements always offer both advantages and limitations; for example, location determines proximity to some other units and distance from others. We note that the location of CIDR in the Graduate School offers important advantages and connections. We learned, though, that important initiatives to support teaching and learning also occur in other centers, offices and programs in the university. When such efforts are located in different reporting structures, there is always the challenge to link the various efforts in ways that are synergistic and mutually beneficial. As we talked with various faculty members and institutional leaders, we heard some suggest that CIDR staff should take a more formal leadership role in encouraging and fostering connections between various university initiatives pertaining to teaching and learning.

These comments cause us to raise several questions that institutional leaders may wish to consider: Is it appropriate for CIDR staff to take the lead in fostering such connections? If institutional leaders wish CIDR staff to lead such efforts, what kinds of support and additional resources would CIDR need? It seems to us that it would be difficult for CIDR staff to take on such a role without explicit support from senior institutional leaders and sufficient resources (such as staff time) to add such responsibilities without interfering with on-going CIDR commitments.

Image

Three aspects related to the image of CIDR merit attention. First, there are mixed messages about the core purpose of CIDR. Some users of services described the Center as "a place where the best teachers come together for opportunities to learn," and a "place that I connect with my most positive memories of my career at this University." Others, however, worried that the center is identified with "remediation," as a "clinic for sick teachers," and even as "the woodshed." Several interviewees noted that department chairs and deans were critically important in influencing how faculty perceived and used the resources of CIDR. Departments who perceived faculty development activities as opportunity-based rather than remedial tended to use the resources and support offered by CIDR more than others.

Second, CIDR staff members do not typically emphasize the amount and quality of work that they do, which may reduce the Center’s visibility and public image. One of the guiding principles of the CIDR is responsiveness to faculty members in a manner that "lets the faculty shine" while CIDR provides the essential background scaffolding. The reluctance of CIDR to take credit for accomplishments (and sometimes for other offices to give credit to CIDR) is generous and collaborative but it does not enhance the Center’s image. In times when resources are tight, it is appropriate for units to be fully recognized for their contributions. CIDR staff may want to consider how to retain their generous approach to supporting faculty work while simultaneously receiving appropriate recognition and credit for their expertise and efforts.

Finally, we heard considerable discussion about a tension on campus between the value of "faculty teaching faculty" versus "faculty development professionals teaching faculty." We don't think this is an either/or issue. On one hand, studies indicate that faculty development programs are most effective when they have strong faculty ownership and involvement, especially when provided by respected teachers and scholars. Faculty ownership can assure that activities remain responsive to faculty needs. It also provides a channel for the emergence of faculty members who can take a leadership role in teaching development and student learning. At the same time, outstanding programs are those that can join the experiences of outstanding teachers with the pedagogical expertise of faculty developers. In this way, a center can build linkages between theory and practice and among general and discipline-specific features of teaching excellence.

Administrative Support

While faculty involvement is crucial, so too is a campus administration that is committed to the concept of faculty development and takes an active role in creating a positive environment for teaching. Optimally, the administration provides the budgetary support for staffing and programs. Additionally, academic leaders--chairs, deans and campus administrators--give tremendous credibility and visibility to the program through participation in its activities (e.g., programs, award ceremonies, etc.).

We would like to have heard more from faculty members and campus leaders whom we interviewed about administrative support for CIDR and broad administrative leadership for teaching development, particularly in departments and colleges. Are chairs and deans across campus sufficiently aware of CIDR? Are they serving as real advocates? These are critical questions because the support of academic leaders at every level is indispensable to the future of CIDR. CIDR staff should make strong efforts to connect with and inform senior institutional leaders about their work, expertise, and contributions, and senior leaders should provide explicit recognition of and support for the work of the Center for Instructional Development and Research.

Respondents offered a range of aspirations and ideas for the future work of CIDR. Given the wide-ranging needs and interests expressed by interviewees, there will need to be further discussion and prioritizing of current and future activities. CIDR cannot simply add activities and initiatives to its already full agenda. The following are key issues to consider during strategic planning:

Enhance Collaborative Systems of Support

Despite the fact that teaching and learning resources are widely dispersed at the University of Washington, CIDR has made efforts to enhance existing faculty development activities and create new ones through a strategy of collaboration—of ideas and resources—with other campus offices and agencies. Given the range of requests to CIDR from other services, it seems appropriate to consider which alliances are most fruitful in terms of maximizing benefits to faculty and to the partnered services. In addition, CIDR should look for creative ways to use the energy and expertise of the advisory board, which is eager to support the Center.

Emphasize Faculty Ownership

One of CIDR's greatest assets is the number of faculty members who already have been involved in its teaching development efforts. Interviewees themselves constitute what one referred to as "a core of committed faculty working to address the issues of effective teaching and helping our students succeed." CIDR would be well served by strengthening such faculty engagement across ranks and disciplines. One strategy would be to seek out well-respected, seasoned faculty to join with the Center as faculty associates, informal advisors, etc. Such faculty members can serve as "allies" to the office, raise its visibility, and assist in shaping and implementing programs. We sensed that CIDR already has identified such teachers and now needs a formal mechanism or structure for creating linkages between such teachers and faculty development programs.

Create Linkages with Chairs and Deans

The development and growth of CIDR may hinge on continuing evidence of strong, credible allies among academic leaders at multiple levels. The Center would be well served by the ongoing support of department chairs and deans who are genuinely interested in faculty development, understand the needs and accomplishments of faculty, seek opportunities for demonstrating support for teaching development initiatives, and reinforce the good work of CIDR.

Build Communities and Networks

Interviewees suggested a need for even more "good talk about good teaching" among colleagues on campus, and CIDR might facilitate such discussion. One idea was to develop a workshop series on "themes" of importance across departmental boundaries in which CIDR and associated faculty could provide advice to special groups. Examples of such special groups are new faculty members, faculty teaching large classes, or faculty interested in "different pedagogies such as changing technologies." Another suggestion was to create longer-term communities that might stay together over the course of a semester or academic year. A central goal of such long-term groups is to reduce the isolation that often characterizes the teaching experience and to provide a means of letting colleagues know about useful innovations.

Strengthen Visibility and Image

Those who use CIDR are strong and enthusiastic in their praise and appreciation. As mentioned earlier, however, we also heard that some units are not familiar with the opportunities and resources available through CIDR, and some department chairs erroneously believe that CIDR focuses on remedial work with faculty members or teaching assistants who may be struggling with teaching issues. We recommend that CIDR staff assess how they "spread the word" about what the Center offers, and how they can expand the Center’s visibility to all academic units throughout the campus. The CIDR director might visit each dean, and CIDR staff might arrange to be on the agenda of one department meeting for each department annually for purposes of briefly highlighting services available.

The CIDR Advisory Board members might be called on to help with strengthening the image and expanding the visibility of the Center. We note, however, that expanding visibility means that requests for help from CIDR are likely to increase. Since staff members seem to be working at full capacity, a plan to handle increased requests would likely need to involve some new ways to provide services. The use of faculty associates, the development of communities and networks of faculty working on similar issues, and the continued expansion of the use of the web site for providing information are examples of different ways to do some of the work that might be considered by CIDR staff as requests for their time, expertise, and resources increase.

Our assessment has shown that the work of CIDR is both highly regarded and significant in its impact. CIDR’s contributions are especially strong in the areas of consultation work with faculty members and U.S. and international teaching assistants; program development, implementation, and assessment; and resource development to meet particular course and departmental needs. As we interviewed users of CIDR services and UW institutional leaders, however, we heard suggestions for additional areas in which CIDR could work. These suggestions include: more resource development (e.g., web site development to provide expanded information on key teaching and learning topics on the web); more attention to grant writing and entrepreneurial activities; more addition to public relations and dissemination of information about CIDR; efforts to connect the work of various institutional units that are addressing teaching and learning issues; attention to creating communities among faculty members and teaching assistants who share interests in similar topics; and readiness to serve as the "institutional leader" around the cultural transformation of the university pertaining to teaching issues.

We propose that these suggestions demonstrate the extensive and deep respect with which CIDR, its director, and its staff are held by those who know its work. However, our assessment is that it would be impossible for CIDR to pursue all these new directions in addition to its usual work. Thus, any new initiatives should be considered in the context of institutional attention to important questions about priorities: What are the key priorities for the institution in terms of the work of CIDR? What resources are available to support any new responsibilities within CIDR? What are the costs and benefits of focusing on some endeavors over others? The answers to such questions require consideration by both CIDR leaders and senior-level institutional leaders.

CIDR has done an exceptional job in building a strong foundation for teaching development at the University of Washington. Based on our review, key strengths include the Center’s campus and national reputation, professionalism and expertise of the staff, collaborative philosophy, effectiveness in meeting goals, and commitment to diversity. We suggest that key areas for enhancing CIDR’s work might include: enhancing collaborations across campus and with the Advisory Board; strengthening faculty ownership and involvement in the CIDR through opportunities for faculty associates and advisors; creating stronger linkages with chairs and deans; building communities and networks among faculty members and teaching assistants around mutual interests and concerns pertaining to teaching and learning; and strengthening the visibility and image of CIDR across campus. All future endeavors require support from key institutional leaders as well as the commitment and interest of the CIDR director and staff. We conclude by emphasizing that UW’s Center for Instructional Development and Research is a national leader among such centers. The university should be proud of the range and exceptional quality of services and resources provided by CIDR. Plans for the future will build on a history, reputation, and proven record of outstanding performance.

It has been our pleasure to serve as external reviewers. It is professionally and personally rewarding to spend time with dedicated professionals and thoughtful faculty members and institutional leaders, and we have appreciated the opportunity to learn in detail about the excellent initiatives and resources offered by CIDR.

Ann E. Austin

Associate Professor Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824

2000-2001 President
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)

Tel: 517-355-6757
E-Mail: aaustin@msu.edu

Mary Deane Sorcinelli

Associate Provost and Director, Center For Teaching
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Amherst, MA 01003

2001-2002 President
Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD)

Tel: 413-545-1225
E-Mail: msorcinelli@acad.umass.edu