American higher education’s status, both at home and abroad, is secured by its traditional value and power. Perhaps most important now is its ability to adapt to changing conditions. No one knows what higher education will look like in coming years. The only certainty is that an open system will continue experimenting with forms and content, learning and revising as it goes, even while retaining the strengths it has developed over the past 375 years. The American people deserve no less from institutions that are part of the fabric of their society and manifestations of the nation’s self.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Desktop faculty development 100 times per year."
Over 49,100 subscribers at over 850 institutions in more than 100 countries

TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR(sm) eMAIL NEWSLETTER
http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php

Archives of all past postings can be found at:
http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php

Sponsored by
Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning
http://ctl.stanford.edu

Check out the Tomorrow's Professor Blog at:
http://derekbruff.org/blogs/tomprof/

Folks:

The posting below gives a nice summary of the history of American higher education and a look at what might be happening in the coming decades. It is from the section, Summary and Trends in the book, The Shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System, second edition by Arthur M. Cohen, with Carrie B. Kisker. Published by Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint. 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741—www.josseybass.com. Copyright © 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
 

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: How to Evaluate a Faculty Governance Structure

Tomorrow's Academia

---------------------------------------- 1,462 words -------------------------------

The Shaping of American Higher Education - Summary and Trends

This book has recounted the major trends in higher education since the Colonial Era, several of which slowed or showed distinct signs of reversal in the most recent periods. Institutions grew larger and more varied. Students gained access as institutional types emerged or evolved to serve all comers. Faculty professionalization progressed steadily, reaching a peak in the Mass Higher Education Era, before losing ground to part-time, fungible labor. The curriculum expanded, especially toward occupational studies. Institutional governance moved toward secularization and comprehensive, state-level units before decentralizing and taking on a corporate approach to management. Public funding for higher education increased throughout its first 350 years, then waned in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, forcing institutions to turn to private sources for support. Finally, research and outcomes moved steadily toward the service of the individual, the public, the professions, and the economy.

Which of the trends might have been predicted when the nation was formed? Large multipurpose institutions? No. The plethora of professions that would demand years of schooling prior to practice, and an economy that would allow young people to delay entry into the workforce until they were well into their twenties were not on the horizon. Student access? Yes, because it embodies the egalitarian, democratic ideal on which the nation was founded. Faculty professionalization (and then de-professionalization)? No. The first had to await the nineteenth-century German concept Lehrfreiheit and the professionalizing of several other occupational groups, and the second followed a global restructuring of work that required a more efficient and nimble (and thus less secure) workforce. A curriculum more directly related to occupations? Perhaps. The trend was on the horizon in the last few years of the Colonial Era, as the newer colleges attempted to provide a curriculum beneficial to a variety of commercial interests. Diversified financing? Yes, because from the start the colleges relied on combinations of public funds, tuition, and donations, although the eventual magnitude and then reduction of state contributions was not foreseeable. Secular governance? Yes, because governance was interdenominational in several institutions, and attempts were made early on to involve civic leaders. But state-level governance and multi-institutional systems would have been hard to visualize because the early colleges functioned independently in scattered locations. Expectations that higher education would ameliorate social problems and enhance the economy? No. The early colleges were influential in developing men of public affairs, but the economy did not depend on college-spawned inventions or a workforce trained in postsecondary institutions.

Which trends will remain intact in the decades to come? The growth of new institutions has slowed considerably and hardly any new nonprofit campuses will be built. State, federal, and private-philanthropic funds will be available to expand campus facilities but not enough to establish entire institutions. The concept of open access, well grounded in the Mass Higher Educations Era, will survive but with limitations; smaller percentages of students will have full-time, on-campus experiences. Faculty professionalization has already made a U-turn, retarded by the massive influx of both part-timers and full-timers without security of employment. Curriculum will continue broadening, as academic inquiry sustains its pattern of generating new subspecialities and as additional occupational groups seek higher education’s cachet; all the external pressures on curriculum favor vocationalism. Secular governance has become dominant, and the only private groups able or inclined to overturn it will be those managing a growing for-profit sector. State-level control has already started giving way to decentralization, and some institutions have gone further, seeking charter or enterprise status, effectively trading governmental restrictions for increased accountability requirements. Privatization has changed the conditions of institutional finance, as colleges and universities at all levels have been forced to seek other funds in order to mitigate the effects of state support that has not increased sufficiently to accommodate rising costs and enrollments. The tendency to view higher education less as a set of social institutions than as a business enterprise will continue. As such, the colleges and universities may find themselves judged according to the same standards that are applied to any business: “To what extent does this entity add value?...And can comparable value be added more efficiently by other means?” (Schuster and Finkelstein, 2006, p. 10).

We can predict only the most powerful trends, because unforeseeable events convert specific projections into little more than informed guesses. Will the national economy return to a pattern of low inflation, low unemployment, and a balanced budget—a set of circumstances that had characterized the American economy throughout much of the Mass Higher Education, Consolidation, and Contemporary Eras, but which had been totally altered by 2009? Inflation, depression, and increased competition from other agencies will continue affecting the funds available for higher education’s support, as well as the type and mode of postsecondary training desired by students.

The study of higher education remains fascinating, with many questions open in each topic:

• The Great Depression of the 1930s saw reductions in state appropriations, foundation grants, and faculty salaries, while student enrollments continued climbing as employment opportunities declined. However, the pattern of students borrowing large sums for tuition and other college expenses had not yet become pervasive. Will twenty-first-century students continue enrolling in postsecondary institutions through depressions and recessions, or will prospective students’ reluctance to take on large debt burdens lead to reduced enrollments?

• The comprehensive universities’ offering the doctorate and the community colleges’ opening baccalaureate programs indicate that the institutions’ compulsion to expand their markets were in full flower. What does the system gain or lose thereby?

• Professional training aside, one of higher education’s main benefits has been to encourage students’ entrepreneurial skills, teaching them to operate businesses and create new products and services. As the number of high-paying jobs available to college graduates diminishes, will greater numbers of students develop and act on tendencies to create jobs for themselves?

• For the past century research and scholarly productivity has been the gold standard for faculty seeking promotion in universities. And the concept trickled down to comprehensive institutions where the alliterative, “publish or perish,” became the facetious slogan with more than a grain of truth in it. Will faculty role differentiation, as in online course design and dedication to teaching, break this mode of evaluation down completely in all but the top fifty or so research universities?

• Pressure for subdividing curriculum has come mostly from faculty and professional groups. But curricular subspecialties are expensive to maintain. As the faculty as a whole is increasingly dominated by fungibles, will curricular specialties subside and recombinations grow? Which curricular areas are most likely to evidence these trends?

• Three percent (1.5 million) of American children are home-schooled, up from 1.7 percent in 1999. Will the growing number of home-schooled students and the increasing popularity of online courses develop to the point at which virtual universities become an appealing alternative to the residential college experience for a significant percentage of students?

• As more institutions seek charter or enterprise status whereby they agree to meet certain accountability requirements in exchange for freedom from some governmental restrictions, how might their image and functionality change? Is access likely to increase? To what extent will they be viewed less as agents of the state and more as independent contractors?

• If charter or for-profit institutions are able to demonstrate that they can successfully produce similar or better outcomes in terms of student learning and research productivity than traditional public universities, are we likely to see other institutional types—community colleges, for example—becoming more like them?

Predictions aside, in the twenty-first century American higher education is the nation’s premier industry. By any measure, most of the world’s top universities are in the United States, which is the preferred destination for foreign students; American universities educate 30 percent of the total number of students who cross borders for advanced training. Furthermore, since September 11, 2001, more of them have developed overseas programs to serve international students who are unable to obtain student visas. Other rapidly developing nations such as China and India, even Dubai and Qatar, are opening new institutions, and Australia has been particularly aggressive in developing overseas programs, but it will be many decades before they can expect to attain world-class status.

American higher education’s status, both at home and abroad, is secured by its traditional value and power. Perhaps most important now is its ability to adapt to changing conditions. No one knows what higher education will look like in coming years. The only certainty is that an open system will continue experimenting with forms and content, learning and revising as it goes, even while retaining the strengths it has developed over the past 375 years. The American people deserve no less from institutions that are part of the fabric of their society and manifestations of the nation’s self.
 
References

Schuster, J. H., and Finkelstein, M. J. The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

* * * * * * *
NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor

You can UNSUBSCRIBE by hitting "return" to this posting with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

Folks:

The posting below looks at the importance of collaborative leadership in higher education institutions.  It is by Debra Humphreys, vice president for policy and public engagement, AAC&U and is from is from Peer Review, Winter 2013, Vol. 15, No.1. Peer Review is a publication of the Association of American Colleges and Universities [http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/index.cfm Copyright © 2013, all rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Using Narrative in Case Studies

Since the launch of its national Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) initiative in 2005, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) has commissioned four national surveys of employers (AAC&U 2007; AAC&U 2008; AAC&U 2010; and AAC&U 2013). In those surveys, business and nonprofit leaders across a wide array of sectors provided information about what new college graduates need to know and be able to do to succeed in the twenty-first-century global economy. Consistently, employers say that “teamwork skills,” especially deployed effectively in diverse settings, are essential for success in today’s world. More than 70 percent of those surveyed in 2010 said they thought higher education institutions should place more emphasis on developing this skill in all college graduates. In the 2013 study, more than 90 percent agree that “all students should have educational experiences that teach them how to solve problems with people whose views are different from their own.” Business and nonprofit leaders clearly believe that having employees that are adept at teamwork will assist them in succeeding in a volatile and competitive global economy. More and more, businesses are also encouraging and cultivating leaders who can collaborate not only within their companies, but also with other partner organizations and companies. Collaborative leadership is seen now as a competitive business advantage.

Higher Education and Collaborative Leadership

For years, many individual faculty members and academic administrators have been creating new classroom practices and curricular models designed specifically to advance the skills of teamwork and collaboration in today’s college students. Other earlier editions of this journal have highlighted some of the more successful of these programs (Carey 2010; Carey 2011; Carey 2012a; Carey 2012b). However, too little attention has been paid to date to how teamwork is deployed within higher education institutions themselves. How are institutions supporting and advancing forms of “collaborative leadership” to improve their own capacity to navigate an equally volatile and challenging environment?

Just as in the business community, today’s challenging environment in and for the higher education sector demands more collaborative leadership—especially put to use to bridge even more sectors and divides than in the past. The higher education sector is a unique and complex set of institutions—public, private, for-profit, nonprofit—which are highly regulated by a variety of entities. Higher education’s organizational structures and the pressures on its unique business models are poorly understood by nearly everyone outside of the sector and many individuals within the sector, including some of its leaders. The need to increase understanding of institutional goals and practices in higher education highlights even further the necessity of collaboration and the cross-sector communication it requires and enhances.

If we are to meet increasing demands for a more highly educated populace while also maintaining quality and navigating changes in technology, funding patterns, accountability frameworks, and the diversity of our student bodies, we urgently need more effective and widespread collaborative leadership. Only through collaborative leadership can we hope to (1) develop greater understanding of our enterprise among the public, policy makers, students, parents, and members of the media in order to garner the financial and regulatory support we need to maintain healthy institutions; (2) increase the efficiency with which we maintain the quality of our operations; and (3) develop more effective ways to actually educate a far wider proportion of the society to meet twenty-first century demands. Whether our current fiscal challenges really represent a “new normal” or not, we must accelerate the use of new forms of collaborative leadership to extend the advantages of a twenty-first century liberal education to more students and, thereby, help fuel both an economic and a democratic recovery.

The concept of collaborative leadership has been gaining traction in the business community for years (Kanter 1994) and—in its most basic form—encompasses an emerging body of theory and management focused on leadership skills that deliver results across organizational boundaries. Most recently, the concept of collaborative leadership has been deployed not only in business but also in public policy and community organizing through a concept called “collective impact.” In a recent blog post in the Harvard Business Review, Ben Hecht suggests that, while the concept of collaborative leadership is not a new one, “what we’re seeing around the country is the coming together of nontraditional partners and a willingness to embrace new ways of working together” (2013). This issue of Peer Review asks if we are seeing the same trend in higher education, whether it is having a positive impact, and, if so, whether it can be expanded to more institutions and more individuals within colleges and universities.

As with many “new ideas,” instances of collaborative leadership or collective impact have abounded for years within higher education. The challenge is to figure out which of these examples have the most promise to expand and have a more systematic impact on institutional practices and educational outcomes. One can point, for instance, to the decades-long focus on the “scholarship of teaching and learning” that challenges the idea of the separation of solitary research pursuits from the attempt to improve the learning outcomes for undergraduates at both the classroom and program levels. As Pat Hutchings and her colleagues recently noted in The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Reconsidered, “Problems that were once the province of isolated pedagogical specialists are increasingly the shared concern of all who teach in higher education….In short, a rather extraordinary development is underway: the emergence in higher education of a teaching commons…[and] communities of educators committed to pedagogical inquiry and innovation” (ix).

For decades, select leaders in student and academic affairs have exercised collaborative leadership to advance more experiential learning opportunities for students. Such efforts have resulted in community-based research and service-learning opportunities that research suggests have profound impact on increasing student retention rates and on advancing important liberal education learning outcomes (Brownell and Swaner 2010). Unfortunately, too many institutions still do not recognize the scholarship of teaching and learning in tenure and promotion policies, and community-based research and service-learning programs still only involve a small fraction of all undergraduates. Is it time to bring these collaborative practices into the center of our organizational and educational practices?

Beyond these long-standing examples of internal collaboration, are there new collaborations we can and should be developing? For example, how can higher education leaders collaborate far more closely with business and nonprofit leaders to build understanding of what quality undergraduate education really must entail in the twenty-first century and, even more powerfully, develop more opportunities for current students to apply what they are learning in real-world settings with guidance from both educators and workplace or community mentors? How can educational leaders work much more closely with policy makers—including system heads and state higher education executive officers as well as legislators at both state and federal levels—to craft sensible policies that advance multiple goals for greater efficiencies, increased graduation rates, and quality learning outcomes for more students? This issue of Peer Review examines some of these traditional and new forms of collaborative leadership, all with an eye toward more systemic change to advance increasingly urgent goals for higher education institutions to become more productive and efficient while also raising levels of student achievement.

Lessons from the Collective Impact Movement

The good news is that we do have examples that, while isolated, already are having an impact and can provide models for higher education. What are the ingredients for success we might identify in good examples that might help us to bring them to scale? In his blog post referenced above, Hecht suggests that the collective impact movement that is bridging traditional sectors and boundaries to solve complex social problems offers five lessons for making this kind of effort successful. These lessons seem apt for higher education institutions as well. Lesson one is the necessity of clearly defining “what we can do together that we could not do alone.” For instance, can we really advance the levels of cross-cutting capacities in today’s college graduates if we don’t create many more opportunities for faculty—both full-time and part-time—to collaborate with each other to design curricula and compare notes on individual classroom designs and assignments? Can we bring more students to higher levels of achievement with more collaboratively designed curricula that scaffold experiences that build one on another? Can we improve teaching and learning practices more quickly if faculty members collaborate with one another on actually testing what works and what doesn’t across different disciplines, with different students, in different classroom settings (e.g. large, small, online, face-to-face, blended, flipped)? Can we really advance the completion agenda without collaboration among educators and policy makers to craft a common understanding of what high-quality learning really means in the twenty-first century?

Lesson two from the collective impact movement is to “transcend parochialism.” Higher education institutions can no longer thrive as precious islands of intellectual contemplation for small groups of mostly privileged students. Smaller private and public institutions must collaborate with one another, create tighter connections to their own local communities, and use information technology to connect their students to broader learning communities around the world. Higher education institutions of all sorts must be open to learning from other institutions, including those from different sectors. Community colleges have much to teach four-year institutions about tight community connections, responsiveness to business and policy maker needs, and success in educating underprepared students or students from communities traditionally not served well by higher education.

Lesson three is to “adapt to data.” Colleges and universities are, indeed, collecting far more data than ever before about their students—what they think, what they can do, what they are learning, where they go after they leave college. Educational leaders, however, are well aware that we too infrequently use such data to actually change practices and policies. A recent survey of chief academic officers (CAOs) sponsored by Inside Higher Ed found that, while three-quarters of all CAOs report that their institutions are generating data on student learning outcomes, only about 30 percent rate their own institutions as effective in “using data to aid and inform campus decision-making” (2013: 11). We clearly have work to do to bring together the necessary groups of individuals to make the best use of the data we are collecting.

We also are probably too cautious in actually acting on data before the full analysis is complete. Outside of higher education, there is far more willingness to “make adjustments on the fly,” as Hecht puts it. Academic leaders, in particular, have a crucial role to play in enabling faculty members and student affairs professionals to take risks and redesign curricula and student experiences. As José Antonio Bowen put it in a presentation at AAC&U’s 2013 annual meeting, academic deans must be in the business of “curating risk.” Data-driven decision making can include significant structural changes based on years of data tracking. It can also, however, involve trying out a new approach based on very preliminary data—knowing that it might not work and/or that it is likely to require modification over a period of time. It requires new forms of collaborative leadership exercised by those in such areas as institutional research, outcomes assessment, teaching and learning centers, and enrollment management.

Lesson four is to “feed the field.” AAC&U and other organizations like it play a crucial role in spreading the word about which collaborations are working, which innovations seem to hold promise, what even small-scale research might tell us about how to improve outcomes. AAC&U’s publications, research, and meetings on how educators can act on emerging research on “high-impact practices” is a prime example of this “feeding the field” to generate innovation and scale (Brownell and Swaner 2010; Kuh 2008).

Finally, Hecht suggests that collective impact requires institutions to create and “support the backbone.” Collaborative efforts in any setting cannot be successful if they are built on purely voluntary efforts by the early-adopters and the “true believers.” Educational leaders must enable “full-time” individuals to include collaboration as part of their “day jobs.” Even though it is powerful and necessary, collaboration is also messy and time consuming. We must find ways to stop doing other things that may no longer be necessary in order to “support, nurture, and feed the collaboration.”

As with many other sectors of our society, new forms of leadership are emerging in higher education. Higher education has the opportunity to cultivate these forms of leadership both in our students and in ourselves. And we have good initial examples of collaborative leadership and collective impact on which we can build and from which we can learn.

References

Association of American Colleges and Universities and Hart Research Associates. 2007. How Should Colleges Prepare Students to Succeed in Today’s Global Economy? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

———. 2008. How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning? Employers’ Views on the Accountability Challenge. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

———. 2010. Raising the Bar: Employers’ Views on College Learning in the Wake of the Economic Downturn. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

———. 2013. It Takes More than a Major: Employer Priorities for College Learning and Student Success.

Carey, S. J., ed. 2012. “Frontiers of Faculty Work: Embracing Innovation and High-Impact Practices.” Peer Review 14, no. 3.

———. 2012. “The Liberally Educated Professional.” Peer Review 14, no. 2.
———. 2011. “Advancing What Works in STEM: A View from the PKAL Lens.” Peer Review 13, no. 3

———. 2010. “Internships and Experiential Learning.” Peer Review 12, no. 4.

Green, K. C. 2013. The 2011–12 Inside Higher Ed Survey of College and University Chief Academic Officers (Washington, DC: Inside Higher Ed).

Hecht, B. 2013. “Collaboration is the New Competition.” Harvard Business Review Blog Network (January 10, 2013).

Hutchings, P., et. al. 2011. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Reconsidered: Institutional Integration and Impact. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Jossey-Bass.

Kanter, R. M. 1994. “Collaborative Advantage.” Harvard Business Review 72, no. 4: 96–108.
 

* * * * * * *
NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor

You can UNSUBSCRIBE by hitting "return" to this posting with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

Folks:

The posting below is a summary by the author, Lisa Wolf-Wendel, professor, Education Leadership and Policy Studies Department, School of Education, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS  [lwolf@ku.edu] of some of the key points in her book, Academic Motherhood: How Faculty Manage Work and Family (published by Rutgers University Press, 2012). The book is the winner of the Outstanding Publication Award from AERA, (American Educational Research Association, Division J.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@sanford.edu
UP NEXT: Exam Wrappers

Institutions of higher education are increasingly recognizing that being “family friendly” is an asset in terms of recruiting and retaining top faculty members.  Over the last decade, an increasing number of colleges and universities have instituted a variety of policies for new parents including tenure clock extensions, reductions in teaching duties, and parental leaves, to name just a few.  In terms of policies and accommodations much of the focus is on junior faculty and accommodating birth; there is much less attention to the work/family needs of midcareer or more senior faculty – it is as if institutions assume that once faculty earn tenure and once children get older that managing work and family integration will come naturally and not require institutional support. Our research shows that this is not necessarily a safe conclusion, especially for women faculty with children. The academic career and parenthood are both lifelong commitments and institutions of higher education are best served by recognizing this and responding affirmatively. Failure to do so could result in continued gender stratification in the profession and possibly the loss of talented professionals in the field.

Brief Overview of the Findings

The early career results show that the academic career is consuming and greedy (as is parenthood), but that the autonomy and flexibility of the position make managing multiple roles possible. There is no question that being on the tenure track is intense and that the probationary period is stressful. There also is no question that taking care of an infant is a time-consuming task -- and mothers often bear the brunt of those duties. Time is a precious commodity for new mothers and for faculty on the tenure track and the tension comes from trying to fulfill one's multiple roles well within existing time constraints. Despite this pressure, tenure-track women faculty with young children find joy in their multiple roles.  During the early career stage, even when policies are available, faculty members are reticent to use them.
 
Midcareer faculty were less stressed about managing work and family but were, in general, not making the progress towards professional advancement as hoped.  Parenthood becomes a little easier as well. Family concerns shift from diapers and breast-feeding to carpooling and school activities. Faculty concerns shift, too. No longer is earning tenure the goal, now women are engaging in more service and more advising and are beginning to think about promotion to full professor. Mid-career women faculty are more settled and less stressed -- but they aren't always making the kind of progress towards promotion as we might like. They still need attention and support from their institutions and this is often lacking. Because the tenure process (and babies) is so time-consuming and stressful, there is a tendency for people and institutions to not focus on what happens next -- but being a faculty member and being a parent are lifelong commitments.

At both career stages, women were “making it work” through their own efforts and choices and relied little on assistance from their institutions or their departments. It is important for faculty to manage their own lives; but academic institutions play an important role in assisting junior faculty as they navigate the hurdles of tenure and mid-career faculty as they develop into successful senior scholars.  

Institutional Policy Recommendations

The most important thing campuses need to do is not just have policies, but to, more importantly, let people know they can use the policies. We refer to this as a "culture of use." Campuses need to make faculty aware of policies and let faculty know they can use those policies without fear of professional or personal retribution. This requires a cultural shift on behalf of all members of the campus, not just the faculty in need of the policy. Policies have to be known, easy to find, and useable.

In addition to promoting family-friendly cultures we also recommend the following as some things to consider with regard to policy and its use.
• Tenure and biological clocks click simultaneously -- campuses need to be aware of this biological reality for most women.
• FMLA is not enough -- it's a start, but it's not enough to have as a default. Family-friendly policies must be more comprehensive.
• Parenthood is not just a women's problem -- men and women are both dealing with work and family concerns, although women do have unique needs based
  on the physical realities of pregnancy, child birth, and breast-feeding.
• Move away from "making deals" -- equitable policy environments grant all faculty access to policies. Success at navigating work and family should
  not just be a matter of personal agency.
• One size may not fit all -- recognize that people are different and babies are different and people may need different forms of accommodation.
  Modified duty policies help chairs to provide accommodations.
• Engage in work and family conversations proactively. We found a lot of chairs were fearful to talk to pregnant female faculty in their department about taking leaves. Letting people know about policies and their use requires conversation.
• Review policies and practices and repeat often to make sure they are relevant, up to date, and effective.

Department Level Recommendations

Departments matter -- they set the culture and climate for faculty. The department is really the most important place at an institution because this is where the work gets done and this is where the review and evaluation process is most intense. Department chairs set the tone with their colleagues about policy. Senior men and women colleagues also play a prominent role in the review process and in creating an open environment. A positive work/family culture starts at the department level. One of the things we learned is that departments (and institutions) need to think about faculty needs and how they vary throughout the career. A lot of time, energy and policy are focused on pre-tenure faculty, but departments should think about how to support their faculty throughout the career. If we want women to progress in their career the focus needs to be holistic and on-going and not just end once people get tenure.

Individual Level Recommendations

The primary focus for people trying to get established as professors is timing. We often get asked, "When should I have a baby?" And we respond, "When you are ready." There is no right or wrong time to have a baby. It's also not a decision that is easily controlled (contrary to popular belief). So that is our first piece of advice. Once people have a child and are in a faculty job we offer the following bits of advice,
• Ask for what you need.
• Find allies and support.
• Do your work.
• Set reasonable priorities.
• Manage time wisely and efficiently.
• Plan and anticipate.
• Be a good colleague.
• Pay it forward.
• Take a life-course perspective -- you won't always be "junior" and your children won't always be babies.

We want to stress that if you want a child and an academic career, it is doable and there is joy in the job and in parenting. There are women doing it every day who make it work in different institutional types and different disciplines. If you want to have a baby and an academic career you can do both and be happy and productive and sane.

* * * * * * *
NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor

You can UNSUBSCRIBE by hitting "return" to this posting with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

Folks:

The posting below presents faculty beliefs that they can lower the standards of teaching in a course to get higher ratings by students, as well as established research results that refute these beliefs. It is from Chapter 3: SRI Validity—Teacher Controllable Biasing Factors? in the book, Student Ratings of Instruction: Recognizing Effective Teaching, by Nira Hativa, foreword by Christine Stanley at A&M University. Information about the book and pricing in https://www.createspace.com/4065507 or at amazon.com and Amazon Europe. ISBN : 978-1481054119. Copyrights © by Oron Publications. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Motherhood: How Faculty Manage Work and Family

Over the last few decades, a considerable body of research, commentary, criticism, and concerns has focused on issues related to the reliability and validity of student ratings of instruction (SRI). Despite impressive research support of SRI reliability and validity, unsubstantiated claims of potential biases continue to flourish and to be believed by faculty. Every so often, a study claims to have identified factors proven to bias SRI results whereas a large body of research evidence refutes these allegations.

Bias of SRI validity “exists when a student, teacher, or course characteristic affects the evaluations made, either positively or negatively, but is unrelated to any criteria of good teaching, such as increased student learning” (Centra, 2003, p. 498). Thus, in order to establish a factor as biasing SRI validity, it should satisfy two conditions:

1.     It should show significant relationships with, or have effect on, results of SRIs; and

2.     It should not relate to quality of teaching or to promoting student learning.

Some extraneous factors that have been accused of biasing SRI results are: For the instructor: academic rank, teaching experience, personal characteristics, physical attractiveness, research productivity, and having an Asian accent; For the student: year in college, and personality; For the instructor and student: age, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, and other diversity issues; For the course—the time of day it is offered, the number of rows in the classroom, and length of class meetings. However, established research shows most consistently (see Chapter 4) that none of these factors satisfies the two conditions as above (Centra, 2008; Remedios & Lieberman, 2008). In some cases, the studies identifying these biasing factors may have significant deficiencies.

This chapter examines relationships between student ratings and several factors that teachers can control. Faculty who believe that these factors can be manipulated to increase instructor ratings while not improving teaching or learning (that is, that they bias SRI validity) may adopt undesired teaching behaviors that would lead to damaging consequences.

Does instructor popularity/expressiveness/enthusiasm bias SRI validity?

Many faculty members believe that SRIs measure instructor expressiveness or style rather than the substance or content of teaching. They argue that “Most student rating schemes are nothing more than a popularity contest with the warm, friendly, humorous instructor emerging as the winner every time” (Aleamoni, 1999, p.154).

Indeed, interesting and engaging presentations are highly correlated with student ratings of Overall Teaching (Feldman, 2007; Hativa, 1999; 2008; Hativa, Barak & Simhi, 2001) but they are by no means the sole explanation of high ratings. Aleamoni (1999) found that students praised instructors for their warm, friendly, humorous manner in the classroom but frankly criticized them if their courses were not well organized or their methods of stimulating students to learn were deficient.

Expressive instructors may also receive higher ratings because their expressiveness stimulates and maintains student attention and thus helps students learn. Furthermore, expressiveness includes a range of specific behaviors related to good lecturing, such as speaking emphatically, using humor, and moving around during the lecture. Trained observers have found that highly rated faculty exhibit these behaviors more frequently than other faculty (Murray, 2007).

In sum, even if the factor popularity/expressiveness/enthusiasm is found to soundly correlate with student ratings, research evidence indicates that it tends to enhance learning and therefore cannot be considered a biasing factor (Cashin, 1995; Gravestock & Gregor-Greenleaf, 2008).

Does perceived course difficulty/workload bias SRI validity?

In almost all SRI studies, the level of course difficulty or workload is established not by direct measurement of actual difficulty or workload, but rather by student ratings of relevant questionnaire items. Thus, the accurate title for the factor “course difficulty/workload” should be “perceived course difficulty” or “perceived workload”.

Many faculty members are concerned that perceived course difficulty/workload substantially affect student ratings and thus bias SRI results. They believe that there is an inverse relationship between difficulty/workload and ratings on Overall Teaching, that is, the easier and the less demanding the course, the higher the rating on Overall Teaching. Nonetheless, the large majority of studies that examined this issue found almost zero (or very small and non-significant) correlations between course difficulty/workload and teacher ratings, that is, almost no relationships (Cohen, 1981; Marsh and Dunkin, 1997).

In summary, perceived course difficulty/workload shows almost no relationship or only weak relationship with teacher ratings so that it does not bias SRI results.

Do expected grades bias SRI validity?

Many faculty members strongly believe that students tend to rate them more highly when they expect to receive good grades, and that low ratings might reflect students’ retribution for low grades (Aleamoni, 1999; Beran, Violato, Kline, & Frideres, 2005). Marsh (1987) found that over two thirds of faculty members hold this belief.

We should note that “grades” in SRI studies usually refer to expected grades—those that students expect to receive based on their performance to the day of SRI administration, and sometimes on the instructor’s cues, or on rumors from students of previous offerings of the same course. “Grades” do not refer usually to actual grades because teacher ratings are generally administered during the last few weeks of the term, before students take the final exam and receive their actual grades.

A few studies (Greenwald & Gillmore, 1997; Wachtel, 1998) indeed found a direct relationship between expectations of high grades and positive teacher evaluations. They interpreted this as a clear indication that students reward instructors for lenient grading by increasing their ratings, and thus that grading leniency may bias SRI results. A different possible interpretation is that even if some positive expected grade-SRI correlations are identified, they may reflect a positive effect of expecting high grades on encouraging students to work harder and learn more. Students with these expectations may learn better and would rate the course and teacher highly (Centra, 2003; Feldman, 2007; Marsh & Roche, 2000; Wachtel, 1998). However, the large majority of studies on this issue (e.g., Abrami, 2001; Centra, 2003; Marsh & Roche, 2000; Theall, Franklin, & Ludlow, 1990) deny the existence of such relationships, showing that correlations between expected grades and instructor ratings are very small, almost zero.

Altogether, student expected grades and grading leniency are not biasing factors of SRI validity.

Do actual grades bias SRI results?

Because SRIs are usually administered before the final exams take place and grades are assigned, only few studies examined relationships between students’ ratings of their teacher and their actual final grades in that course. In studies that did use actual grades, the researchers gathered them at some later point in time. These studies show a very small and non-significant positive association between average class grades and teacher ratings.

Similar to the discussion above on expected grades, even if a small positive association is identified in some studies, it would not indicate bias of the ratings’ validity. Positive associations may well indicate that good teachers, those who help their students learn the most and consequently to do well on course exams, tend to be rated highly by their students. In this case, both the higher grades of students and the higher ratings of teachers are well deserved (Feldman, 1976).

All in all, student actual grades do not bias SRI validity.

Can students be manipulated to give faculty higher ratings?

The most popular beliefs among faculty are that they can “buy” higher ratings by lowering course requirements, that is, that “bribing” students by entertaining them, watering-down the course material, reducing difficulty/workload, and giving undeserved high grades will translate into higher student ratings (Franklin & Theall, 1991; Heckert, Latier, Ringwald-Burton, & Drazen, 2006; Marsh & Roche, 2000). Of the large number of faculty SRI-related beliefs, these are probably the most potentially damaging, because they may lead faculty to resort to counter-productive teaching strategies. Faculty may be tempted to grade higher and to lower the level of difficulty/workload in order to receive higher ratings from students (Centra, 2003). This, in turn, may lead to grade inflation and to a decline in the amount of effort that students put into their courses. The ultimate consequence could be the “dumbing down” of college education (Greenwald & Gillmore, 1997). Here are some examples for dumbing down course content:

     Building the subject slowly from the bottom up, giving lots of examples in class, dropping topics from the syllabus when convenient,
     and using homework problems as ‘models’ for exam problems (Zucker, 2010, p. 821).

There is some evidence that these damaging behaviors have already been adopted by certain instructors:

     This performance measurement has lead to both unethical grade inflation and coursework deflation as faculty try to entertain students
     rather than educating them… instructors ease grading, inflate grades and deflate course work when SET data is used for faculty
     evaluation purposes. By inflating grades, easing grades, and deflating coursework, an instructor games the system and thus, is more
     likely to receive positive evaluations (Crumbley et al., 2010, pp. 187-8).

Although many sources have discounted the likelihood of grade inflation resulting from instructors trying to ‘buy’ better student ratings of instruction, many faculty members still believe that there is widespread manipulation of grades (Franklin & Theall, 1991, p. 1). There is a negative ethical aspect to manipulating situations and students in order to raise ratings. However, one cannot blame SRIs if the real issue/problem is unethical teacher behavior.

The ironic point is that most of these manipulative behaviors have not proven effective in raising teacher ratings as shown below, but nonetheless they continue to be tried out by instructors. The assumption underlying these behaviors is that many students strive for high grades with easy course demands and a low workload. However, research does not support the generality of this belief and on the contrary, there is almost a consensus among experts refuting faculty beliefs about all types of manipulation, as next explained.

Can manipulating difficulty/workload level increase faculty ratings?

Workloads that students perceive as excessive may indeed negatively affect their learning. Overloaded students may develop feelings of stress and failure and adopt unhelpful learning strategies. However, contrary to faculty beliefs that decreasing difficulty/workload will increase their ratings, research evidence shows that if success is too easily achieved as a result of an overly light workload, students may lose interest and devalue such learning. Courses demanding the least amount of work tend to receive lower, rather than higher ratings. Students tend to value learning and achievement more highly when they involve a substantial degree of challenge and commitment and require investing time and effort (Marsh & Roche, 2000). Students seem to appreciate a workload that is of the right magnitude but is still sensible and presents a challenge. Courses for which students indicated that the level of difficulty or the workload was appropriate or that they had expended more efforts, were rated higher than other courses. The more effort expended, the higher students perceived the value of the course (Heckert et al., 2006; Marsh & Roche, 2000).

Can manipulating grades’ level increase faculty ratings?

Students are not as likely to be positively affected if an ineffective teacher seems to be trying to buy good ratings with easy grades. In fact, the attempt may boomerang (McKeachie, 1997). McKeachie brings as an example a faculty member whose grades were the highest in his department but who received the lowest student ratings. Assigning undeserved higher grades to students may have a negative effect on instructor ratings (Abrami, Dickens, Perry, & Leventhal, 1980). However, the assumption that giving higher grades can raise ratings may be correct if the instructor can convince students that they have learned more than is typical and therefore they deserve the higher grades.

Abrami, P. C. (2001). Improving judgments about teaching effectiveness using teacher rating forms. In M. Theall, P. C. Abrami & L. A. Mets (Eds.), The student ratings debate: Are they valid? How can we best use them? New directions for institutional research (Vol. 109, pp. 59-87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Abrami, P. C., Dickens, W. J., Perry, R. P., & Leventhal, L. (1980). Do teacher standards for assigning grades affect student evaluations of instruction? Journal of Educational Psychology(72), 107-118.

Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(2), 153-166.

Beran, T., Violato, C., Kline, D., & Frideres, J. (2005). The utility of student ratings of instruction for students, faculty, and administrators: A “consequential validity” study. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35(2), 49-70.

Cashin, W. E. (1995). Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited. IDEA Paper No. 32. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Center for Faculty Evaluation & Development.

Centra, J. A. (2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work? Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 495-518.

Centra, J. A. (2008). Differences in student ratings of instruction: Is it bias? Paper presented at the 88th annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student-ratings of instruction and student-achievement - a meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51(3), 281-309.

Crumbley, D. L., Flinn, R. E., & Reichelt, K. J. (2010). What is ethical about grade inflation and coursework deflation? Journal of Academic Ethics, 8(3), 187-197.

Feldman, K. A. (1976). Grades and college students' evaluations of their courses and teachers. Research in Higher Education, 4(1), 69-111.

Feldman, K. A. (2007). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 93-143). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Franklin, J., & Theall, M. (1991). Grade inflation and student ratings: A closer look. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Gravestock, P., & Gregor-Greenleaf, E. (2008). Student course evaluations: Research, models and trends. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, from http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Student Course Evaluations.pdf

Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring course workload in student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 743-751.

Hativa, N. (1999). Towards a conceptual framework of dimensions of effective instruction: The role of high-intermediate-and low-inference teaching behaviors. Instructional Evaluation and Faculty Development, 18, 3-10. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/Default.aspx?menu_id=168&id=914

Hativa, N. (2008). Lecturing for effective learning: Disc 1--Making lessons interesting. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 699-729.

Heckert, T. M., Latier, A., Ringwald-Burton, A., & Drazen, C. (2006). Relations among student effort, perceived class difficulty appropriateness, and student evaluations of teaching: Is it possible to" buy" better evaluations through lenient grading? College Student Journal, 40(3), 588.

Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 253-388.

Marsh, H. W., & Dunkin, M. J. (1997). Students' evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice (pp. 241-313). New York: Agathon Press.

Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (2000). Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students' evaluations of teaching: Popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 202.

McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1218-1225. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/52/11/1218.pdf

Remedios, R., & Lieberman, D. A. (2008). I liked your course because you taught me well: The influence of grades, workload, expectations and goals on students' evaluations of teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 91-115.

Theall, M., Franklin, J., & Ludlow, L. (1990). Attributions and retributions: The locus of student ratings and perceptions of performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston: MA.

Wachtel, H. K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-212.

Zucker, S. (2010). Evaluation of our courses. [Opinion]. Notices of the AMS (August), 821.

* * * * * * *
NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor

You can UNSUBSCRIBE by hitting "return" to this posting with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

Folks:

The posting below looks at the importance of service work in our academic lives.  It is by Bradley J. Cardinal* and first appeared on April 30, 2013 in the Journal of Physical Education,Recreation & Dance (Vol. 84 No. 5 May/June 2013) published by Taylor & Francis Group, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: 215.606.4334, www.tandfonline.com. Reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Can Faculty Misinterpretation and Misuse of Student Rating Results Lead to the “Dumbing Down” of College Education?

Imagine a job applicant asking the question, “If I come here, what is the least amount of service work I have to do to get by?” Or how would you feel if you were preparing to depart for a professional conference and a colleague said to you in passing: “You still go there? Why?” Or you are working with someone who volunteers to chair a committee but does nothing to advance the work of the group and is non-communicative and non-responsive when others attempt to communicate with her or him. Sadly, these are not make-believe scenarios. They are real-life experiences that I have witnessed during my own career. From talking with others, I suspect they are relatable and not necessarily the most egregious.

Is there a prevailing attitude of avoidance, disengagement, and entitlement brewing in our disciplines and professions? Are we socializing people—our students, our colleagues—to dismiss or neglect the service needs of our communities, institutions, and professional societies?

In this editorial, I draw attention to what I view as a diminishing “service” mindset and a growing “serve-us” mindset among people in our fields of study.Table 1 articulates the key differences between these typologies. In a nutshell, those with a “service” mindset voluntarily give of themselves for the betterment of others, whereas those with a “serve-us” mindset partake in activities reluctantly or participate in only those activities that result in a direct personal benefit to them (e.g., power, privilege, title).

Service and Society

Civic engagement, civility, and the interconnectivity among people in the United States hit a record low at the close of the 20th century, according to Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Putnam, 2000).

Eleven years after the publication of Putnam’s book, volunteerism rates in the United States were 26.8% (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2012). While this represents the highest rate of volunteerism seen in five years, it is still lower than the rates observed for all the years prior to 2006. Whether or not the 26.8% figure represents a bottoming out or reversal of the downward trend in volunteerism remains to be seen. Regardless, we are currently living with the consequences of a generation raised in an era of diminished volunteerism.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Focus of a “Service” vs. “Serve-us” Mindset (Note: I have changed the format slightly to allow for e-mail posting - RR)

Focus              “Service”

Advice
                    We are all stewards of
                    something larger than ourselves.
                    Seek out authentic opportunities
                    to better humanity by contributing
                    to your community, institution,
                    profession, etc.

Approach 

Commitment          

Contribution        

Orientation         

Outcome/expectancy  

Perspective        

Questions           

--------------------

Focus              “Serve-Us"

Advice              

Approach            

Commitment          

Contribution        

Orientation        

Outcome/expectancy  Personal gain, contempt, extrinsic,
                    wants personal credit, win–lose

Perspective         

Questions           

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This disengagement seems to extend to our professional work as well, in which service duties are often shirked and even basic things such as affiliation through membership remain low. For example, Buschner (2007) estimated that only 8% of physical education teachers employed in the United States are members of the National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Of those who do belong to professional societies, many are reluctant to volunteer their time or expertise to committee work, or to run for and serve in either elected offices or appointed positions (Asbell, 2007; Dowd, 2007).

Service Sustains

We are not socializing people to engage in or value service (Napper-Owen, 2012), and by not doing so, we are doing our charges and pledges a disservice, harming our fields of study, and depriving the communities, institutions, and organizations that we live in, work for, and affiliate with of our time and expertise. The scenarios highlighted in the opening paragraph are indicative of this. Service work is often described as a colossal waste of time, an unrewarded chore, and something to protect oneself from—especially early on in one’s career (GMP, 2010). Even if well intentioned on some level, encouraging this perspective or suggesting that others take this approach to life and work does more harm than good. If service work is desirable or eventually expected, necessary, and/ or required of a person after a probationary period of time, then it only makes sense to socialize people to engage in service work early in their careers. Learning how to balance service work among other commitments, duties, obligations, and responsibilities reflects personal and professional maturity.

Additionally, authentic service work has a multitude of psychological and sociological benefits (e.g., affiliation, belonging, interpersonal skill enhancement, knowledge acquisition, loyalty, networking, outreach, understanding, visibility). It is also associated with living a longer, healthier, and more satisfying life (Okun, August, Rook, & Newsom, 2010). However, there is an interesting catch to this. The service rendered must be for other-oriented reasons (“service”) rather than personal gain reasons (“serve-us”) for the benefits to hold true (Konrath, Fuhrel-Forbis, Lou, & Brown, 2012).

It’s Not All Fun and Games

Now, before being accused of glorifying service work to the detriment of one’s own personal life or professional career, let me also be clear that service work can at times be daunting, frustrating, and time consuming. For this reason it is important to make certain that the service assignments accepted or pursued are authentic, meaningful, and personally relevant. As the muse Kira, played by Olivia Newton-John in the movie Xanadu, said, “It must be frustrating to waste your talents on things that don’t really matter to you” (Danus, Rubel, & Greenwald, 1980).

Of course, there are core functions that go along with any service assignment, and sometimes these are not glamorous— perhaps akin to cleaning your house. Indeed, such tasks may go unnoticed when done well, but if not done or done poorly, people will notice. Therefore, it is important to be attentive, caring, and responsive to the core functions of any service assignment assumed. Doing so reflects one’s dependability, humility, and level of responsibility. And people notice this, too. If you cannot give something the effort that it deserves, then it is better to pass on the assignment in the first place. Attempting to do something that your heart is not in or that you truly do not have time for creates more work for others and deprives other people of opportunities, and it can tarnish your reputation. Knowing when and how to say “no” is also a sign of personal and professional maturity. If you are interested, but the timing is not right, let people know that, too.

Our Service Realities Vary

The context of each of our lives is different.The needs of our communities, work environments, and the professional societies we belong to are unique.The expectations placed upon us and others vary as well. For example, women and minorities are often over-burdened with service duties while other groups do comparatively little, or when they do serve, they take on the larger and more visible roles (Massé & Hogan, 2010). It would be easy to dismiss this as a simple timing issue; however, the unique interplay among gender, ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation in relation to our service realities are difficult to disentangle.This is something of which to be mindful and attentive.

Cynicism sometimes becomes associated with service work, too. Those who serve must not be doing something else. Or, those who serve do it to compensate for other areas of weakness or because it is an accessible way to contribute. Of course, such assumptions are biased and fraught with prejudice. Conversely, some question the point of serving if their time and efforts are in vain or the results futile. For example, sometimes committee accomplishments go nowhere or are superseded by administrative decisions. When this happens, it counteracts the finding of meaning in service, which can result in mistrust and disengagement.

One result of our growing and, at times, fragmented fields of study is that there are infinite demands and needs for our services. A biomechanist may judge a science fair, a dance educator may help write state dance standards, a physical educator may testify to state legislators, a sport psychologist may consult with a team, and so on. There are more journals, requiring more editorial services; and more professional organizations needing to fill their boards and committees with devoted and dedicated professionals. Moreover, greater expectations, accountability, and documentation are required in the work we do.That said, service work remains important to the long-term success of any community, institution, or professional society.

Take-Home Message

Like mortar between bricks, service is paramount to stabilizing and sustaining our structures. It is also the intersecting point between all the bricks. The bricks sit in isolation, separated from one another by the mortar. The bricks need the mortar, and the mortar needs the bricks.They are interdependent; the presence of one without the other results in structural instability and weakness.

People should be encouraged to assume service assignments, rather than discouraged from doing so. Approaching life with a service-oriented spirit and participating in authentic service-oriented activities is reflective of a life well lived. As a reminder of this, one of Coach John Wooden’s favorite maxims was, “Be more concerned with what you can do for others than what others can do for you. You’ll be surprised at the results” (Wooden & Jamison, 1997, p. 200).

References

Asbell, A. C. (2007, Fall). Volunteering – What it means – Where has it gone? Oregon Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Journal, 12–13.

Buschner, C. (2007). Peak professionalism. California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Journal, 70(1), 13–14, 24.

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2012, December). Volunteering and civic life in America 2012: Key findings on the volunteer participation and civic health of the nation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/ assets/resources/FactSheetFinal.pdf.

Danus, R. C., Rubel, M. R. (Writers), & Greenwald, R. (Director). (1980). Xanadu [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Studios.

Dowd, K. J. (2007). Involved in your profession and making a difference. California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Journal, 70(1), 11–12.

GMP. (2010, June 18). Serves you right. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered. com/advice/jungle/jungle1.

Konrath, S., Fuhrel-Forbis, A., Lou, A., & Brown, S. (2012). Motives for volunteering are associated with mortality risk in older adults. Health Psychology, 31, 87–96.

Massé, M. A., & Hogan, K. J. (Eds.). (2010). Over ten million served: Gendered service in language and, literature workplaces. Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press.

Napper-Owen, G. (2012). Raising the next generation. Quest, 64, 131–140.

Okun, M. A., August, K. J., Rook, K. S., & Newsom, J.T. (2010). Does volunteering moderate the relation between functional limitations and mortality? Social Science and Medi- cine, 71, 1662–1668.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone:
The collapse and revival of Ameri- can community. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Wooden, J. R., & Jamison, S. (1997).
Wooden: A lifetime of observa- tions and reflections on and off the court. Lincolnwood, IL: Contempo- rary Books.

Bradley        J.Cardinal(brad. cardinal@oregonstate.edu) is a professor in the College of Public Health and Human Sciences, School of Biological and Population Health Sciences, Program in Exercise and Sport Science, at Oregon State University in Corvallis, OR.

--------------
* Bradley J. Cardinal, Ph.D. Professor, Social Psychology of Physical Activity Co-Director, Sport and Exercise Psychology Lab Program in Exercise and Sport Science School of Biological and Population Health Sciences College of Public Health and Human Sciences
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-3303

* * * * * * *
NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor

You can UNSUBSCRIBE by hitting "return" to this posting with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

Folks:

The posting below looks at ways to improve students' quantitative reasoning skills.  It is by Mary Wright* and Joe Howard*, and is adapted from a Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, blog post (http://feeds.feedburner.com/CRLT_blog), April 5, 2013. © 2012 The Regents of the University of Michigan. Reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Service vs. Serve-Us: What Will Your Legacy Be?

Whether mathematically inclined or not, today’s college graduates will be expected to “navigate a sea of numbers on a daily basis” in their careers and daily lives (Grawe, 2012, p. 30). A majority of employers interviewed in a recent study noted that they want universities to enhance their quantitative reasoning (QR) skills, or students' ability to work with numbers and understand statistics (Hart Research Associates, 2009). Key competencies embedded in QR include (Dwyer, Gallagher, Levin & Morely, 2003; Rhodes, 2009; Wolfe, 1993):

· The ability to make sense of information displayed in a number of formats (graphs, tables, diagrams, equations) and to convert information from one
  format to another.

· Competency in mathematical calculation.

· The use of evidence in drawing conclusions about numerical data and the ability to assess the limitations of the evidence.

· The ability to describe and evaluate assumptions for estimation, data analysis, and modeling.

Many schools and colleges have some curricular QR requirement to help students build these skills. What teaching strategies are working best in such courses? In 2009, the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, at the University of Michigan (U-M), collaborated with the College of the Literature, Science, and Arts to assess its QR requirement. The assessment findings were based on a study of nearly 2,000 students (Wright & Barber, 2009). After the 2009 assessment, CRLT staff conducted follow-up discussions with U-M instructors about the findings and their own teaching approaches.

These discussions indicate that many faculty are maximizing student learning by using strategies that research has proven effective for strengthening students' QR skills. Here are some examples:

· Use active note-taking to promote problem-solving skills : Brenda Gunderson, in U-M's Department of Statistics, uses a customized notepack with equations, definitions, and “Try It!” problems. Therefore, students do not need to spend time writing down equations or definitions, and Dr. Gunderson can instead engage students in problem-solving throughout the lecture. In addition, Gunderson uses a personal response system (iClickers) to scaffold difficult questions with peer discussion. Doing so, she notes, “mandates a sense of engagement” among her more than 1700 students.

· Provide multiple assessment opportunities with feedback : Research tells us that multiple opportunities for student assessment – when paired with instructor feedback – foster a rich learning environment. In the Communication Studies course, "Evaluating Information," Michael Traugott and Nick Valentino have assigned weekly quizzes, along with multiple papers and exams scattered throughout the semester. Assignments occurring later in the term are weighted more heavily, allowing students the opportunity to make mistakes as they grow in confidence and capability. Professor Ed Rothman, in "Statistical Principles for Problem Solving: A Systems Approach," assigns 14 memos in which students must apply a statistical concept to a real-life situation. Some memo assignments require the student to orally defend their reasoning to Rothman, allowing the student the opportunity to receive feedback and suggestions for improving future memos.

· Capitalize on collaborative learning opportunities : Collaborative learning is one key educational practice that has been shown to increase student engagement and retention (Rhodes, 2010; Treisman, 1992) . In U-M's Calculus I, nearly all of the instruction is orientated to group problem-solving. Student gains on the Calculus Concept Inventory for U-M are significantly higher compared to calculus courses at 25 other colleges and universities, suggesting the approach is particularly effective ( Calculus Concept Inventory, 2009) .

· Use real-world problems: Despite strong research findings that this is an effective technique for teaching QR, the 2009 U-M assessment found that many LSA students did not perceive that their instructors were using (or effectively using) "real-world problem solving" in their courses. However, there are several examples of successful incorporation of such practices. For instance, Brian Arbic, a U-M professor in Earth and Environmental Sciences, incorporates problems based on issues studied by oceanographers into his “Introductory Oceanography” course. Students are encouraged to bring laptops to class, and they work in teams on questions, such as how long it would have taken for the 2004 tsunami to travel from its source in Indonesia to given points on the Indian and African coasts.

The scholarship on student learning provides many additional examples of faculty teaching QR through real-world problems, from multiple disciplinary perspectives:

* Schield (2008) developed and uses a 10-element model to help students dissect current news stories which contain statistical information in a course titled “Quantitative Reasoning and Statistical Literacy.”
    
* Atkinson and colleagues (2006) use real-world data in their introductory sociology course at North Carolina State University. Students analyze recent population studies to unearth sociological “knowns” such as income disparity and its relationship to education, gender, and race.
    
* In his history course at Miami University, Gene Metcalf has students research and mock-up a full scale floor plan of a typical Puritan house (using masking tape on the floor). In doing so, students come to learn that the average six-person family lived in a space of about 300 square feet, prompting discussions about the cultural implications of these factors. According to Metcalf, the exercise “gave them a better feel for life in a Puritan community and the relationship between the material world and culture” (Wolfe, 1993, p. 6).

In today’s data-rich world, the importance of QR skills will only grow, yet these courses can be difficult to teach. If you’re interested in learning more approaches, consider visiting the National Numeracy Network, Carleton’s QuIRK Initiative, Statlit, or SIGMAA-QL. These organizations provide a wide array of resources for faculty looking to enhance their QR pedagogy.

Thanks to Jim Barber, College of William and Mary; Allyson Bregman, City University of New York, and Theresa Braunschneider, CRLT, for their assistance with this project.

References

Atkinson, M. P., Czaja R. F., & Brewster, Z. W. (2006). Integrating sociological research into large introductory courses: Learning content and increasing quantitative literacy. Teaching Sociology, 34 (1), 54-64.

“Calculus Concept Inventory.” (2009). ContinuUM , University of Michigan Department of Mathematics Newsletter: 6.

Dwyer, C. A., Gallagher, A., Levin, J., Morley, M. E. (2003). What is quantitative reasoning? Defining the construct for assessment purposes . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Grawe, N. D. (2012, Spring). Achieving a quantitative literate society: Resources and community to support national change. Liberal Education : 30-35.

Hart Research Associates. (2009). Raising the bar: Employers’ views on college learning in the wake of the economic downturn . A survey of employers collected on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: Hart Research Associates.

Rhodes, T., Ed. (2010). Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using rubrics . Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Schield, M. (2008). Analyzing numbers in the news: A critical-thinking structured approach . Unpublished paper presented at the National Numeracy Network Conference, New London, NH.

Treisman, U. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look At the lives of minority mathematics students. College Mathematics Journal, 23 (5), 362-372.

Wolfe, C. R. (1993, Winter). Quantitative reasoning across a college curriculum . College Teaching, 41 (1), 3-9.

Wright, M.C., & Barber, J. (2009). LSA quantitative reasoning assessment: Summary findings . Available: http://www.crlt.umich.edu/assessment/lsaqrassessment
--

*Mary Wright, PhD, Director of Assessment and Associate Research Scientist , Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (CRLT) , University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI. 48109-2218 <mcwright@umich.edu>

* Joe Howard, Ph.D. student, Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, University of Michigan

* * * * * * *
NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor

You can UNSUBSCRIBE by hitting "return" to this posting with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.