Theme 1: Becoming a Teaching and Learning Community

Report on Theme I, Issue No. 3: Faculty Development

A. FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

The focus of educational effectiveness is learning and learning is the first goal of the CSUSB strategic plan. Goal 1 aims to formulate responsive curricular and programmatic initiatives, create learning communities, and meet the continuing education needs of the region, all within the context of a campus environment that supports learning and an engaging campus life (Goal 2, Strategic Plan). Learning as a strategic goal, and as a result of educational effectiveness, is enhanced when it happens within an organizational culture that supports faculty in its teaching, scholarly activities, and community service.

Faculty development is one institutional strategy that helps improve learning through effective teaching, through faculty's continuing professional growth and through partnerships with the community, thus, contributing to educational effectiveness. Faculty development at CSUSB provides support to faculty in three professional areas: teaching, professional growth, and service. The chart below summarizes the overall organizational structure, the units, and areas of support:

The above structure indicates faculty development that is supported on both the university level, and at the college level. This structure helps address faculty needs that are discipline-related, as well as those that help achieve university goals.

B. FACULTY DEVELOPMENT UNITS ON CAMPUS

Below is a listing and description of the various faculty development units on campus. It includes a summary of the various programs and services provided by each unit in the past five years, based on data provided by specific units through websites, reports, etc.

• Teaching Resource Center (TRC)

  TRC opened in 1996, charged with supporting instructional innovations and improvement. It sponsors an average of 15-20 teaching workshops a year, 3 quarterly brow bags luncheons, 2 annual campuswide teaching events, 6 teaching grant programs (annual average funding: $170-200,000), 5 regular support programs (e.g., video taping, consulting, etc.), and 4-7 special projects annually. It promotes at least 3 systemwide teaching initiatives annually, and has twice hosted the systemwide symposium on university teaching. It conducts needs assessment and faculty development surveys, and supports initiatives on the use of technology for teaching (including distance learning). It has a senate-appointed advisory committee (Instructional Quality Committee or IQC), helps coordinate the campus' Teaching Academy, and is represented at FPDCC.

• Faculty Professional Development Coordinating Committee (FPDCC)
  A senate-appointed committee, FPDCC is charged with making recommendations to the Provost, regarding allocation of funds for faculty development, specifically for research. Total funding averages $200,000 - $235,000 for 4 research grant programs, and 4-5 new or on-going initiatives that support professional growth (see Faculty Professional Development Coordinating Committee)..
  

• Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP)
  ORSP supports faculty and institutional development of grants, contracts, public and private partnerships, intellectual property and technology development and transfer, and other entrepreneurial activities complementing and strengthening the university mission. Its faculty development support includes annual workshops on grant concept development, grant funding source development, and basic elements of grant writing; new faculty support programs (New Faculty Orientation, Dissertation-to-Book Group): and its Proposal Development Financial Assistance Program. Its website provides these major services: a communication linkage system between and with university development personnel and their supervisors and associates, regulatory and risk management support for researchers and graduate thesis students and their supervisors, grant information links, and access to Office of Research and Sponsored Programs

• Colleges and Departments
  Faculty development support and programs in colleges and departments are set up to meet the teaching, professional growth and service needs of faculty in particular disciplines. The College of Social and Behavioral Sciences provides faculty development support through: mentor programs between senior and junior faculty; course release to faculty for research and teaching improvement; matching funds for external grants; release time for faculty to develop centers and institutes; and department funds for travel to professional conferences. Similar programs are found in other colleges.

• Centers and Institutes
  CSUSB has 7 institutes and a total of 14 college-based centers. These institutes and centers become venues for faculty development by promoting professional growth through programs that focus on research, grant writing, community outreach, training; and through which faculty could provide and apply their professional expertise. See appendix for a complete list of websites for institutes and centers.

• Community University Partnerships (CUP)
  CUP is a campus-wide initiative that was established in 1999 to build and advance partnerships that service the counties of San Bernardino and Riverside. The Office of Service-Learning (OSL) is housed under CUP. CUP supports faculty development through faculty fellowships, training workshops and its own resource material collection. Since 1999, 55 CUP fellowships have been awarded and CUP faculty have worked with over 230 community agencies. Over 150 faculty have participated in its workshops and 25 of these have received CUP fellowships. Office of Service Learning materials check-outs have doubled since its inception, with Service-Learning materials being most frequently used. The Office of Service-Learning also provides fellowships, scholars roundtable, and faculty training sessions. 26 courses have added service-learning as a result of the fellowships. It has co-sponsored 10 workshops with CUP. A searchable database can be seen at CSUSB Partnerships.

• Academic Computing and Media Center
  ACM supports faculty development by providing the technology and other types of media that are used in the classroom. It also provides, on a limited scale, media and technology support for professional growth (e.g., statistical software for research). Its major faculty development support and services include: smart classrooms, software training, hardware and software support, equipment/media library, technology/media assistance for distributed learning.

C. FACULTY DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS (1998-2003)

The following describes the results and improvements in faculty development support at CSUSB, based on the 2003 Faculty Development Survey and on reports submitted by specific units.

Data for the 2003 Faculty Development Survey was based on responses received from 113 out of 466 fulltime faculty, a 24% response rate.

• Teaching
  • Faculty rated the level of support for teaching as high (69%) or moderate (30%).
  • Improvement in support for teaching (compared to 5 years ago) was highest in facilities (42% = a lot; 23% = some) and in programs such as grants, workshops (40% = a lot; 28% = some). Only 17% of faculty considered that there was improvement, or some improvement (25%) in institutional rewards and motivation for teaching.
  • Biggest improvement was in design of courses (50%) and use of teaching strategies (50%). 30%-35% of faculty reported improvement in student learning and performance, student satisfaction, student evaluation of their teaching effectiveness, and their scholarship of teaching and learning. Similar percentages were given for "having somewhat improved.
  • Workshops were reported as having helped the most in advancing teaching. 69% of faculty has attended teaching workshops. Only 12% more plan to use this service, and 16% know about them but won't use them. No one reported of not having known or heard about the teaching workshops.
  • Teaching grants were also used by faculty and have contributed to advancing their teaching. 36% have used teaching skills study (travel) grants and 49% have used course development and/or team teaching grants.
  • Faculty reported that smart classrooms, technology training, media services, and training on the use of Blackboard (online course management software) have also helped them advance their teaching. This reflects high interest in and the popular use of technology for teaching.
  • When asked what faculty still need to help advance their teaching, the biggest number of comments was to continue current programs. Similar comments were also given (none, too much already, met, more of the same, impressive). Other comments were for more technology-related support (web support, advance tech support, smart classrooms, equipment, technical training, accessible servers). Assistance in terms of time, smaller class sizes, student assistants lighter teaching load got 1-5 comments. There were 1-3 comments on more specific workshops, scholarship of teaching and learning, and learning communities.

 

• Professional Growth (including Research, Grants, College, Centers and Institutes)
  • The level of support for professional growth was rated high (47%) or moderate (35%). 17% always avail of this support and 40% often use it. 38% occasionally avail of professional growth support and services.
  • The overall improvement (compared to 5 years ago) in professional growth support was considered "a lot" by only 19% (for programs), 14% (for facilities) and 14% (for reward and motivation). Some improvement was reported at 25%, 22%, 22% for programs, facilities, and reward/motivation, respectively.
  • Support for professional growth has somewhat helped improve research skills and activities (44%), publications and other peer reviewed work (37%), and scholarship in area of discipline (33%). However, percentages indicating "no improvement" were higher for publications (43%) and 39% for scholarship.
  • Most faculty comments cited grants (research, mini-grants, travel, etc) as having helped most with their professional growth. This was followed by grant writing support and other assistance provided by the Office of Sponsored Programs, as well as technology support. Individual comments cited Library electronic resources, support from deans or department, and Year 1 faculty orientations as being helpful.
  • A significant percentage of comments from faculty indicated that the following are needed for their professional growth: assigned time, lower workload, more grants, and better research facilities and space. Single comments included: mentoring for research development, research, and publishing, library support, student assistants, technical assistance (funds and staff), department help, knowledgeable and fair evaluators for RPT, computer workshops. Five of the comments received described what is available to be sufficient, that no more assistance is needed, and that we should to continue having more of the same.
  • When it comes to professional growth through external grant writing, 26-29% of faculty participated in grant writing workshops, grant writing assistance services, and grant proposal development assistance. 19% consider that their grant writing skills and activities improved. Faculty rated the overall improvement of programs at 23%, but facilities and motivation only got 12% and 10% improvement ratings, respectively.
  • Improvements in faculty development support were reported by the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Mentoring of junior faculty by senior faculty resulted in higher success rates in tenure and promotion. There was increase in instructional innovations, technology integration, and number of grant proposals (internal and external) submitted. Four new centers/institutes were also created in the past five years, which required support in terms of release time.
  • Centers and institutes continue to serve as venues for faculty development through programs and initiatives that require and contribute to improvement of individual faculty's specific areas of expertise.

• Community Partnerships and Service
  • The level of support for faculty development in community partnerships and service learning was rated high (30%) or moderate (50%). However, only 11% of faculty avail themselves of this support and 17% consider having improved in their services and partnerships with the community. Similar figures indicated having used Service Learning (14%) and Community partnerships (17%) grants and fellowships.
  • There was a high percentage of faculty who indicated that they know about these grants and fellowships but do not plan to use them (46% for Service Learning and 38% for Community Partnerships).
  • Although faculty reported that there was improvement in programs (a lot =29%; some = 24%) and facilities (a lot = 15%; some = 25%), very few (10%) think there was a lot of improvement in recognizing (rewards, motivation) community partnerships and service learning. 22% believe there was some improvement and 41% believe that there was little or no improvement at all.
  • Community University Partnerships (CUP), and its Office of Service Learning (OSL) were cited as having been helpful, including their workshops, grant programs, and fellowships, which provided some release time. Single comments also cited the Water Research Institute, peer guidance and support of department chair as helpful.
  • What faculty still need in this area are release time and RPT/evaluation recognition of community partnerships and service learning. An equal number of comments were also given that the support available now is sufficient and none/nothing more is needed for now. Single comments included: "educate" administrators, S-L consortium as an academic instead of economic enterprise, lower teaching load, disciplinary partnerships among colleges, dissemination, workshops on how to build lasting partnerships, and streamlining current guidelines/bureaucracy.
  • In their reports, the directors of CUP and OSL indicated increase in fellowships and grant programs that have been funded, considering that these did not exist five years ago. The number of workshops, and grants/fellowships awarded are reported in an earlier section of this document.

   

• Technology and Media Services
  • The use of media services, technology training and smart classrooms is high among faculty (68%, 65% and 65%, respectively). The percentages of faculty who have not heard of these services are 6% for media services, 1% for technology training, and 4% for smart classrooms.
  • Faculty cites technology as one of the things on campus that has helped most in advancing their teaching. This includes smart classrooms, web-support, technology training, and Blackboard. Faculty expressed the need for more technology support and advanced training. Technical support for discipline-based research was also needed.

D. ANALYSIS

Below is a summary and analysis of reports and survey results. (Information in parentheses refers to WASC Standard/s being addressed/met, with major ones in boldface.)

• Faculty development is well supported at CSUSB. The past 5 years have seen significant improvement and this was evident in the faculty development survey of 2003. Although the degrees/levels of improvement varied for teaching, professional growth and service, all three professional areas were found to be contributing strongly to faculty development. (Standards 3.4, 4.7, 2.8, 2.9)
• Teaching seems to be the area where faculty expressed satisfaction with the support provided. The level of engagement in programs is high and many use the support services for instructional innovations and improvement. (Standard/s 2.8, 3.4, 4.7)
• Technology is also playing a significant role in teaching. Technology support and more smart classrooms were needed. There will be increasing demand for the use of technology and for training on better use of technology for teaching-learning. Research on the impact of the use of technology as a teaching-learning tool will also become necessary. (Standard/s 3.7)
• Teaching workshops were very helpful to faculty. However only 12% more plan to use them. This implies that careful planning is needed to keep workshops being cost-efficient, because this could mean smaller audiences and lower numbers in attendance for a very labor-intensive and potentially expensive (if outside speakers are invited) program. Further, strategic planning is needed to reach out to the 17% who know about workshops but do not plan to use this program. Strategic planning to advance (or maintain) the teaching skills and interest of the 69% who have already attended workshops will also be needed. (Standard/s 3.4, 4.7)
• The level of support for teaching needs to be maintained. Current programs will also need to be reviewed to meet the changing needs of faculty. (Standard/s 3.4, 4.7)
• Faculty need for assigned time was more pronounced in the area of professional growth (research and grant writing). Faculty teach for12 hours a week per course, 3 courses per week. Equivalent time of 12 hours is used for course preparation and another 12 hours for paperwork, grading and assessment. Then add in the 4 hours required for keeping office-hours, and the 40-hour week is already committed to teaching. Preparation time is expected to decrease as a course is taught for the 3rd, 4th or 5th time. However, with teaching innovations and new program demands for curricular changes, this time may not actually be there for faculty to spend on professional growth activities and service. The need for more time to do research and grant writing indicates that faculty prioritizes teaching first, in order to accomplish the mission of the university and its role as a teaching university. However, research is also a requirement for promotion and tenure, as well as to stay current in one's field, so more support is needed in this area. (Standard/s 2.8, 2.9, 1.1)
• Another need that was strongly voiced in the faculty development survey was the lack of research facilities, space, and technical support. This affects faculty in disciplines that require lab research and whose professional growth depends heavily on research activities conducted in such facilities. Their faculty development (tenure, promotion) in turn, depends more on professional growth than teaching and service. (Standard/s 2, 3)
  Ø Faculty development units that support teaching and community partnerships/service, are centralized in one office or center. For professional growth, however, support is not centralized and is carried out in various offices and centers, including a Senate committee. Some faculty have expressed concern about the lack of a central office for coordination and support of research and have interpreted this as not having strong support for professional growth. (Standard/s 2, 3)
• Support for Community Partnerships and Service Learning is now available, and this is a major improvement, considering that this support did not exist five years ago. The number of faculty who availed of these programs is still not as high as those in teaching and professional growth. It could be that, since this area has only been recently formalized, it still needs to be recognized in the same level as teaching and professional growth. This is consistent with comments regarding the lack of recognition for community partnerships and service learning activities that faculty voiced in their survey responses. (Standard/s 1.1, 3.4)

E. SUMMARY

Below is a summary of faculty development effectiveness towards achievement of CSUSB strategic goals and the 4 WASC standards of educational effectiveness.

• Faculty Development and CSUSB Strategic Goals - The following faculty development activities supported the campus' strategic goals.

  Goal 1: Becoming a Teaching and Learning Community

  • The Teaching Resources Center has expanded its activities, is well integrated into our faculty development program, and is especially effective with newly hired faculty. Many workshops, mini-grants, and projects are offered each year.
  • There is a very significant amount of grant activity, both in terms of number of proposals written, grants funded, and number of dollars awarded.
  • The Community University Partnership has supported extensive faculty and student research, developed a large number of service learning courses, and forged a significant number of meaningful partnership with community groups and organizations.
  • We have established of a new Teaching Academy to assist the development of intentional learning communities and focus attention on improvement of teaching and learning, while the new Learning Research Institute will emphasize fundamental research on the scholarship of teaching and learning.

   

  Goal 2: Ensuring a Safe, Supportive Campus Community

• There has been significant growth in the number and amount of grants and scholarships to support faculty and students.
• Research conferences and campus-sponsored workshops have reflected positively on the University.Goal 3: Adopt a long-term strategy for University engagement in community partnerships.

 

Goal 3: Adopt a long-term strategy for University engagement in community partnerships

• The Community University Partnership Institute has made a tremendous number of contacts, develop numerous relationships and begin meaningful partnerships. Many other independent units and projects are underway with varying points of contact and areas of community interest.
• Most notable are the many Centers and Institutes in existence, such as the Inland Empire Center for Entrepreneurship, the Center for Economic Education, the Center for Scholarship on Spirituality, Center for the Study of Hate Crime and Extremism, the Institute for Applied Research and Policy Analysis, The International Institute, the Institute for Criminal Justice Research, the Water Resources Institute, the Office of Research Development and Technology Transfer and major annual events such as the Environmental Expo, Career and Education Job Fairs, and the many major conferences organized and hosted by the Extended Learning, the academic colleges and departments.

 

• Faculty Development and WASC Standards

• Standard One: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives - The above section specified how faculty development is aligned with and contributes to the institution's goals and purposes and meets Standard One. Improved support for faculty development points to the campus' clear sense of mission as a teaching university, and its conscious effort to achieve its goals.
• Standard Two: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions - Through its various faculty development units, CSUSB's core functions of teaching and scholarly/creative activities are supported effectively and contribute to the campus' efforts to attain educational effectiveness. Faculty reports indicate improved teaching, maintenance of scholarship in their disciplines, and a growing level engagement in community partnerships/ service-learning.
• Standard Three: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability - One indicator of the campus' commitment to faculty development is the average amount of at least $400,000 that it gives out to faculty each year through teaching, research, and community partnership/service-learning grants and fellowships. The campus has a specific faculty development center for teaching (TRC) that provides programs for supporting innovative instruction and for disseminating good teaching practices. The impact of TRC in improving teaching was confirmed by survey responses where faculty indicated having improved in their course designs and teaching strategies. Support for professional growth is provided at different levels and for various scholarly and creative activities (e.g., research, grant writing). The campus also has a formal structure to support community partnership and service.
• Standard Four: Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement - Faculty development programs not only provide support, but also they also include built-in mechanisms for accountability and feedback. This information then gets processed back to improve support services and programs, which then contributes to educational effectiveness. Grant awardees are required to submit a report, and to disseminate their results and findings in campuswide events (e.g., poster presentations, colloquia, brownbag luncheons). Faculty development surveys are periodically conducted. The campus has a consultant for research design and statistics as part of a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) program and the course development grant program. The campus is set to launch its Learning Research Institute, a unit that will promote faculty research on learning, as a cognitive field and as an applied field. It has a Teaching Academy that both serves as a think-tank as well as a sounding board for issues related to teaching and learning.

 

Appendix of Supporting Materials and Links for Theme I, Issue No. 3

Stages of Faculty Development at CSUSB

Faculty Professional Development Coordinating Committee

Faculty Survey 2002 Report and Data

Academic Computing and Media Center

Office of Research and Sponsored Programs

Websites of Institutes and Centers

Teaching Academy

Annual Report 2003 on Centers and Institutes

Faculty Focus Newsletter

PT3 Technology Project Newsletter

CSBS Dean's Report

CUP Director's Report

OSL Director's Report

CSUSB Partnerships