By Lori Carrell, communication education professor and SoTL coordinator

Teaching challenges survey

In spring 2004, the SoTL initiative conducted a survey of faculty and instructional academic staff to determine the primary teaching challenges on the UW Oshkosh campus. Response to the survey was strong quantitatively (N=144) and qualitatively (nearly all respondents wrote lengthy, often impassioned comments). These responses led to the determination of a top five “Teaching Challenges” list:

• Student motivation.
• Student writing ability.
• Grade inflation (grading pressure and unrealistic student expectations).
• Large classes.
• Differences in faculty and student expectations for academic life.

The list of challenges is being used for the following purposes: 1) to motivate SoTL projects, funded by the SoTL Initiative with Faculty Compact and OPID dollars; 2) to determine faculty conversation group topics; 3) to guide planning for a proposed Chancellor’s Teaching and Learning Summit; and 4) to assist in the needs assessment of the UW Oshkosh teaching community for the proposal of a Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence.

Faculty College purpose

Toward these ends, a Faculty College session was conducted in January 2005 with the following stated purpose: To determine through collaborative dialogue ways in which the results of the Teaching Challenges Survey can be maximized for individual and collective use on this campus.

Faculty College process

After introductory remarks situating the examination of these challenges in the scholarship of teaching and learning philosophy, the following process ensued. Participants selected one of the five challenges on which to focus. Seated at round tables, they shared stories related to the challenge, and then selected a representative story to present to the entire group. Following the whole-group sharing, each small group used the stories as a springboard to generate critical questions related to their identified challenge. These questions were posted around the room, and then all participants were allowed to add comments to the posted “Critical Questions” lists of the other groups. Small groups reconvened, examined feedback of the other participants, and then began brainstorming ways to seek answers to their questions and ways to apply those answers to classroom and institutional practice. Finally, groups were asked to select, rank order and share their top three recommendations with the large group. The agenda included:

• Motivational remarks.
• Sharing stories.
• Determining critical questions.
• Brainstorming ways to seek and apply answers.
• Sharing recommendations.

General results

During the Faculty College, three consistent recommendation themes emanated from all five faculty dialogue groups. Those general results will be provided, followed by recommendations and critical questions specific to each challenge.

A Chancellor’s Teaching and Learning Retreat to
address these challenges is strongly encouraged.

• Perception of administrative support for the value of teaching on this campus would be well-served and is greatly needed for faculty motivation and morale.
• Alignment of teaching/learning objectives (for individual classes and majors/programs) with governing ideas would be enhanced; formal dialogue about that alignment could begin.
• Identified teaching/learning challenges cross college boundaries (not college or program specific, but an all-campus issue at the center of our mission).
• Relevant institutional information could be shared (e.g. grade inflation data); such clarity would aid the scholarly nature of future dialogues and SoTL research on these issues and would counter misinformation/speculation.

A UW Oshkosh Teaching and Learning Center
for Excellence is strongly supported.

• A centralized teaching center with resources and research support related to each specific challenge would be extremely helpful in furthering excellence.
• “Best Practices” advice should emanate from scholarly work on teaching and learning (SoTL) rather than other sources (e.g. many of the identified “Critical Questions” have been addressed in published SoTL work. Those results should be readily available).
• Speculation about how other campuses perceive and address these issues was a part of each group’s conversation; a centralized teaching and learning center could store and disseminate such information.

Institutional research on these issues is strongly recommended.

While individual SoTL projects can address the issues in specific classes or programs, each group suggested an all-campus effort to ascertain answers to questions related to these challenges. In addition, all groups perceived the challenges as interrelated and needing to be studied in conjunction with one another.

Recommendations about how such research would be undertaken were not made. One possibility is the commissioning of a special UW Oshkosh Teaching/Learning Challenges Study supported by the Provost’s Office as a joint venture between the SoTL Initiative and Institutional Research. A faculty sabbatical could be a part of that SoTL investigation, with results to be published and disseminated to the campus community through a variety of practical mechanisms.

Specific Results by Challenge

Student Motivation

Specific recommendations:

• Survey incoming and graduating students about their motivation for pursuing higher education at UW Oshkosh and whether their initial expectation was accurate.

• Alignment of our courses and programs with the mission of the university.

• Formal, ongoing dialogue among faculty and students about the purpose and value of higher education.

Critical questions:

1. What is an educated person? How do faculty and students (at various levels) differ in their answer to this question?
2. Why do UW Oshkosh students seek higher education?
3. What teacher behaviors motivate students in general education courses?
4. What is the relationship between student motivation and teacher motivation in specific courses?
5. Are UW Oshkosh students less motivated than students on other campuses?
6. It seems like UW Oshkosh students are less motivated to read and/or discuss what they’ve read than other students in other contexts. Is this true?
7. How many hours do UW Oshkosh students spend reading and studying?
8. How do teachers get students to want to learn, not just get grades?
9. What is the difference between the perception of student motivation for attending UW Oshkosh and the actual motivation for attending UW Oshkosh?
10. What is the connection between student motivation and learning?
11. Is it ever motivational for teachers to be mad/impatient/judgmental of students’ inappropriate behavior related to their own education (e.g. not reading)?
12. How do UW Oshkosh faculty and UW Oshkosh students differ in their descriptions of the value of becoming an educated person? How does that difference affect teacher and student motivation?
13. Do UW Oshkosh students perceive teacher affirmation to be motivational?
14. What attitudes/behaviors/perceptions are associated with UW Oshkosh students who demonstrate low motivation in class (e.g. perceived lack of instructor feedback, perceived lack of teacher affirmation, low value for education beyond job placement, lack of identity as a good student, etc.)?

Large Class Size

Specific recommendations:

• Institutional support to decrease class sizes or provide for TAs/break-out discussion groups.

• Formal, organized, ongoing efforts to enhance the teaching of those who routinely teach large classes (e.g. teaching-learning center, comprehensive manual of best practices, workshops, etc.).

• Further technological assistance [enhancement of testing center possibilities with large groups and enhancement of equipment in all pit classes (multiple screens, clickers, etc.)].

Critical questions:

1. Knowing that the traditional lecture format promotes “passive” learning and this is often not effective in terms of long-term student learning outcomes, what do we do?
2. How does one effectively incorporate “hands-on” active learning strategies into large classes while reducing student anonymity and not overloading “lone” professors?
3. How can UW Oshkosh provide institutional support for these classes (i.e. testing services, technology, etc.)?
4. How can we share effective ideas for “pit lectures” among those of us on campus (or similar institutions) teaching those courses?
5. Can someone create a “Faculty Resource Guide: Pit 101” (what works and what doesn’t) with examples from faculty who teach these classes?
6. How can we support students with weak study skills?
7. Is there any hope of computer-administered tests for large classes?
8. Why can’t Testing Services handle multiple-response answers? Or matching questions?
9. When will all “pit” lectures get two screens (outline on one and presentation on the other)?
10. Are teaching assistants/break-out discussion groups a possibility on this campus?
11. What are the best practices in using grades in behavior modification?
12. Are large classes a permanent budgetary reality? If so, what pedagogical strategies have been shown to enhance student motivation/learning?
13. How do we accommodate diverse learning styles?
14. How can we reduce anonymity? (Can we get pictures?)
15. How does online delivery affect motivation, attendance and learning?
16. Can we learn anything about pit teaching from distance-learning courses?
17. What are strategies for engagement when verbal participation cannot be used?
18. What are strategies for disciplinary problems?
19. How do you write good multiple-choice questions (higher level and conceptually driven)?

Student Writing

Key recommendations:

UW Oshkosh needs sustained institutional support for writing-intensive work. This would include:

• Writing-intensive courses (experiments or sustained).
• Writing across the curriculum program.
• Training/faculty development including writing consultants to assist faculty.
• Sustained interaction with high school/elementary instructors.
• Development of a common set of writing goals.
• Linkage to a center for teaching and learning.

Critical questions:

1. How do we determine and respond to the various levels of writing preparation students have as they enter UW Oshkosh?
2. What are realistic expectations about writing for both instructors and students?
3. What should students know and be able to do upon leaving the university?
4. How do we get students to be able to recognize the different writing needs of different audiences and/or rhetorical situations?
5. How do we deal with structural problems; all faculty (perhaps) should teach writing, but class size often makes that instruction impossible.
6. How do we intersect with secondary and elementary writing programs?
7. What’s the connection between what you read and how much you read and how you write? (Does reading teach writing?)
8. What are realistic expectations for teaching how to write research papers?
9. Currently, how are non-English Department faculty/academic staff grading written work?
10. How do we get students to value good writing?
11. How do we encourage consistency? Can there be university-wide writing standards?
12. What are the shortcomings in current grading of student manuscripts?
13. Do other UW campuses have successful writing programs they can share with us?
14. How do motivation and grade inflation relate to student writing on this campus?
15. For admission to UW Oshkosh, what are the expectations for written work?
16. What are realistic expectations for written work of first-year students at this campus?
17. What do we want students to be able to do as writers by the time they graduate?
18. What do individual departments expect in terms of written work?
19. What characterizes written work that is “unacceptable” for the college level? What do individual instructors/departments do with such work (re-write, “F” on assignment but still pass class based on other assignments, send to writing center)?

Grade Inflation

Key recommendations:

• Make distribution of grades visible so our grade means are clear. Disseminate DOG reports for public inspection.

• Have departments establish GPA guidelines.

Critical questions:

1. Are we fostering mediocrity?
2. How does the grade inflation situation on this campus intersect with the faculty perception of low student motivation and low student academic preparedness?
3. What is the grade distribution for each class/faculty member/program/college/the whole campus?
4. What have other schools done to address grade inflation?
5. How can we reward faculty for having standards?
6. How easy is it to get high grades at UW Oshkosh? (Student perception – do you have to buy textbooks? Read textbooks? Study beyond attending class? Etc.)
7. Is there a relationship between SOS scores and high grades?
8. Are grades associated with/predictive of quality?
9. What does the ideal grade distribution look like? What is average?
10. Are high grades valid?
11. Is grade inflation a problem across campus or only in certain programs?
12. Should teachers reveal past grade distributions to current students to assist them in forming realistic expectations?
13. Is there agreement that an “A” represents “Excellent” work, and should be used sparingly for models of intellectual accomplishment rather than to reward completion or adequacy? If not, why not? What factors drive other interpretations of “A” on this campus?
14. Does the grade inflation problem warrant grading guidelines such as limits to the number of As or consistent grading scales within programs?
15. What is the relationship between clear, consistent grading expectations and student motivation?
16. If a department desires consistent grading procedures, does that impede the academic freedom of individual faculty?
17. Does easy grading encourage students to work more hours because they don’t perceive the need to study/read? (Faculty complain that students on this campus work too many hours to do an appropriate amount of studying/reading; faculty perceive many students have higher motivation toward their employment than their studying – would tougher grading impact that perceived situation?)

Differences in Faculty and Student Expectations for Academic Life

Key recommendations:

• Survey of student expectations for education as they enter and exit UW Oshkosh.

• Clarity of faculty regarding expectations (within programs and individual classes, aligned with mission, etc.) and clear communication by faculty of expectations to students.

• Creation of a mechanism for ongoing faculty-student dialogue on this issue.

Critical questions:

Do these differences in expectations impact faculty perception of institutional quality?

How do these differences impact students’ attendance, reading, participation and long- term learning?

To what extent does this perceived difference impact faculty morale and motivation?

How do these differences intersect with the perceived challenges of student motivation and grade inflation?

Do we really communicate what we expect from students?

Are there unique characteristics of UW Oshkosh students that impact this situation?

How do we rid ourselves of the dichotomy?

How do we make students feel empowered to claim their education?

What level of education do students have?

How many hours of study/work do faculty and students expect for each in-class hour?

Do faculty members influence what the students think of academic life?

Is this as widespread a perceived challenge on other campuses?

Can we create a faculty-student dialogue on this issue?

Can we ascertain these perceptual differences in a formal way?

What are the differences in defining education between faculty and students? (What is the end product of a UW Oshkosh education? – a changed person or the same person with an “in” to a good job?)

Survey commissioned by SoTL Steering Committee and conducted by Lori Carrell (SoTL Coordinator) with considerable assistance from Miles Maguire.
back to story >>>

Forty-one participants registered for the January 11th, 2005 Faculty College. All participants reported in their anonymous evaluations that the Faculty College “Exceeded Expectations” in at least two of the following categories: organization, use of time, presentation, participation opportunities, purpose driven, overall value, and relevance to professional life.
back to story >>>

“We are committed to a teaching perspective that values scholarship on teaching and learning as the foundation for addressing classroom challenges.” (SoTL Faculty College, January 2005)
back to story >>>

See appendix for complete agenda and supporting materials.
back to story >>>

The primary contributors to these suggestions related to student motivation were Susan Nurenberg, Fumiko Fukuta and Denise Robson.
back to story >>>

The primary contributors to these suggestions related to large classes were Dana Vaughan, Stephanie May de Montigny, Maureen Muldoon and Sandra Neuendorf.
back to story >>>

The primary contributors to these suggestions related to student writing were Tara Pauliny, Lisa Tatonetti, Charles Hill, Polly Montgomery, Miles Maguire and Susan Kirkham.
back to story >>>

The primary recommendations related to the grade inflation challenge were provided by Lee McCann, Linda Eroh, Rob Cimera and Bryan Lilly.
back to story >>>

Recommendations for this category were provided primarily by Helen Bannan, Lucia Matos, Stephanie Rolain-Jacobs and Donna Charley-Johnson.
back to story >>>