1. 1 Michigan State University Name: Future Academic Scholars in Teaching (FAST) Fellowship Program Person responsible: Rique Campa, 20% FTE Time Commitment: 10-15 hrs/month Sept.-May # times offered: 1/academic year; academic year long program Primary Audience: STEM Doctoral Students Participants per offering: 10 (increasing to 12 for 2011-2012) Total participation: 44 (from 2006-07 to 2010-11) Program Details

2. 2 Michigan State University Goals: Provide opportunities for a diverse group of STEM doctoral students to have mentored teaching-as-research experiences and gain familiarity and expertise with materials on teaching and assessment techniques. CIRTL Learning Outcome Level: CIRTL Practioner (a few- CIRTL Scholar) Program Goals & Learning Outcomes

3. 3 Michigan State University Evaluation Questions: - What do fellows learn about teaching-learning, assessment, and academic life to become better educators? - How do they apply concepts/techniques in their own teaching? Evaluation Methods: -Pre- and Post-Program Online Surveys -Collect iterations of TAR project posters (over time) -Post-Program one-on-one interviews Evaluation Questions, Methods, Instruments

4. 4 Michigan State University Evidence: (based on post-program evaluations) - Students report that they are “satisfied” or “extremely satisfied” with the program. - 2 thematic areas of what students learn from the program: a) practical skills (e.g., assessing student learning, communication skills) b) learn new concepts and how to apply them (e.g., Bloom’s taxonomy-for objectives and assessment, Backwards Design, TAR projects) Evidence & Evaluative Claims (1 of 3)

5. 5 Michigan State University Evidence: (based on post-program surveys; interviews) - “MORE CONFIDENCE” – a common theme - Students reported they gained confidence in: a) conducting TAR (try new tools) projects b) articulating their role as a researcher (in their disciplinary field & in teaching) c) articulating their interests in teaching and explaining TAR projects to a diversity of colleagues (Steering Committee observation as well) Evidence & Evaluative Claims (2 of 3)

6. 6 Michigan State University Evaluative Claims: -Presenters for the FAST Program-common message-the importance of developing explicit objectives, appropriate assessment techniques, and align teaching with assessment. (a primary skill students commented that was learned) -Scaffolding students through TAR projects (and literature) allowed students to incrementally gain “confidence” and experience trying new techniques over time (i.e., academic year) Evidence & Evaluative Claims (3 of 3)

7. 7 Michigan State University Maintain a diversity of faculty and staff on the Steering Committee-diversity of experiences and expertise You can’t revisit the linkages between explicit objectives-assessment enough. Discuss and model it early and often! Don’t forget (take time) to talk about the unknowns of faculty life e.g., Having a personal life, Time for research vs. teaching What has been learned from your evaluation results that will improve future learning outcomes, programming and evaluations?

8. 8 Michigan State University 2006 Campa, R., Faculty (FW), GS Ebert-May, D., Faculty (PB) Estry, D., Faculty/Admin (CNS) Johnston, K., Staff (TAP), GS Speer, N., Faculty (DMSE) Urban-Lurain, M., Faculty (DMSE) Yuzbasiyan-Gurkan, V., Faculty, (VET) GS Evaluation Team: Brockman, J. Campa, R. Johnston, K. Nunez, T. Stoddart, J. Local CIRTL Team, 2006 & 2011 2011 Campa, R., Faculty (FW), GS Cherevelli, K., Faculty (FW/LBC) Ebert-May, D., Faculty (PB) Fata-Hartley, C., Faculty (LBC) Johnston, K., Staff (TAP), GS Morrison, E., Ph.D. student, (ZOL) Urban-Lurain, M. Faculty (DMSE/ENG) Vergara, C., Post-doc (PB) GS Evaluation Team: Campa, R. Jackson, J. Johnston, K. Helm, M. Huston, P. (student) Nunez, T. Stoddart, J.

9. 9 Michigan State University Encouraged/an opportunity to diversify the professional development opportunities for graduate students and post-docs—e.g.s: -FAST -Lyman Briggs College-Creating an Inclusive Laboratory Learning Environment for GTAs and LAs -College Teaching Certification Institute Diversify the content of existing programs (pillars) -e.g., networking and working in learning communities Impact of CIRTL on our institution?

10. 10 Michigan State University Opportunities to participate in a greater array of professional development opportunities than available locally e.g., CIRTL Network Exchange—trial interviews, Coffee Hours Leaders Learn from Leaders (to enhance local programs) e.g., MSU (Campa) to CU (Border) Spin-off collaborations e.g., Capstone Project-lessons learned about professional development Connectivity to the Network / cross-network activities

11. 11 Michigan State University Career and professional development programs offered for graduate students and post-docs (through PREP) are supported (staffing & operating costs) by the Graduate School -CIRTL provides some support for personnel associated with assessment, some operating costs for specialized programs (LBC) Evidence of Institutionalization

12. 12 Michigan State University New challenges facing future (national STEM) faculty require new mentoring (and professional development) models (Debra Stewart, CGS ) ***** Students participating in CIRTL-related programs report that they learn new concepts/skills and the opportunity to apply them that many do not learn within their respective units. Units may not have the resources/expertise to meet all the needs to mentor future faculty for their career goals-COLLABORATIVE MENTORING –success of future national STEM faculty Impact on the future teaching and learning of the national STEM faculty?