1. Understanding Faculty Practice & Perspective for a Learning- Centered Campus Ashley Finley, PhD National Evaluator, Bringing Theory to Practice Director of Assessment for Learning, AAC&U

2. Survey Overview 1) To what degree and in what ways are faculty innovating (re-envisioning courses, implementing new pedagogies) on campus? 2) How do faculty view the culture of teaching and learning at their institutions & in academia? 3) What is the relevance of a learning-centered culture on faculty outcomes? 6 Major Sections: Teaching Practice & Innovation Institutional Reward Structures Scholarship of Teaching & Learning Promotion & Tenure Job Satisfaction & Commitment Mental Health and Stress Peer reviewed & revised Web-based Anonymous 5 institutions: 4 private, liberal arts; 1 public university Spring Administration

3. Sample Characteristics Sample size = 302 Response Rate = 31% 48.6% Female, 51.4% Male Most respondents bet. 35-65 35-44 (27.2%), 45-54 (25.2%), 55-65 (28.2%) Primarily white (93.1%) 3.8% = Two or more races/some other race Black/Afr. Amer.(1.4%), Asian (1%), Am. Ind./Alaska native (.7%) Rank Assistant = 27.8% Associate = 33.0% Full = 23.4% Non-ten.= 15.8% Discipline 37.8% = Humanities 20.8% = Prof. & App. Sciences (agric., archit., health science, law, library science) 19.4% = Social Sciences 13.5% = Natural Sciences 5.6% = Formal Sciences (comp sc., logic, math) 2.8% = Other Avg years at instit. approx. 7-10 yrs

4. In what ways are faculty innovating?: Frequency of Innovation & Revision Avg. 87.7% of faculty make some revision to course (syllabus, readings or assignments) at least once a year Vs. 1.6% who Almost never or Never do this Over half change syllabus or revise assignments AT LEAST once a semester Avg. 34.2% implemented/adopted new pedagogy (service, experiential learning, learning community once a year 19.1% Almost never, 37.5% have NEVER done this (56%) Least likely to have taught learning community course 40.1% of faculty implement experiential component at least once a semester Virtually no diff by rank or gender

5. What limits innovation? Primary limitations (strongly/mostly agree) Research (71.3%) Family (68.4%) Not enough information from colleagues (66.2%) Not sure what could do to be more innovative (84.6%) Do not wish to be more innovative (75.7%) Differences by rank: Research (Asst. vs Full) & family (Non-ten. vs. Full) Differences by gender Institutional service men more likely to suggest this as limitation than women

6. How do faculty view the culture of teaching & learning?: At Their Institution

7. …among faculty research interests? …at their institution? To what degree is the scholarship of teaching & learning valued… …within their disciplines?

8. Overall, undergraduate teaching efforts are valued for…

9. Existing Institutional Incentives/Rewards VS Rewards that Influence in Teaching Of % No/Not sure (2/5): Teaching Award (51%), Consid. for P&T (33%), Supp. for tech. enh. learning(29%), Fac. Cult. that values teaching (49%)

10. What is the meaning of a learning- centered culture for Faculty Outcomes? What is the relationship between institutional factors & perceptions of institutional culture and job satisfaction? Commitment? Position Institution Profession Mental health? Stress factors The absence of mental illness is NOT the presence of mental health – Are faculty flourishing? Positive emotion + Positive functioning (psychologically & socially)

11. Job Satisfaction & Commitment

12. Faculty Stress & Flourishing Factors that are the greatest sources of stress = Job security (65%) Concerns about tenure/promotion review (56%) Social stressors (49%) Overall Stress = Avg. 18/36 Diffs by rank between Asst. & Assoc. vs. Full No sig. difference by gender Mental Health – Flourishing Avg Score = 47.2/70 10% Languishing Significantly more @ Assoc. Rank 31% Moderate Mental Health 59% Flourishing

13. Relationship of Institutional Culture of Teaching & Learning w/ Faculty Outcomes Greater freq. with which faculty adopt new pedagogy = higher flourishing score. Greater freq. of course revision associated with lower stress score Consideration of teaching for tenure Higher overall job satisfaction Greater commitment to ones position & institution Consideration of teaching for promotion = Higher overall job satisfaction Greater commitment to ones position, institution & profession Higher flourishing score Greater total # of teaching incentives offered by instit. = Higher overall job satisfaction Greater commitment to ones position & institution Higher flourishing score

14. Mental Health Job Satis. Commit. To Position. Commit. To Instit, Commit to Prof. Excellence in teaching is priority ++++ Innovation in teaching is priority +++++++++ Scholarly teaching is priority +++++ ++ Opps for new teaching +++ Hear from colleagues about teaching ++ ++ + = p<.05, ++ = p<.01, +++ = p<.001

15. Mental Health Job Satis.Commit. To Position. Commit. To Institution Course Release ++++++ Consideration for Tenure &Prom. ++++++ Assist. w/ Tech. Enh. Learning +++ Help w/ curr. Dev./innov. +++ Faculty Culture Values Teaching ++++++ Certif. Exc./Recog. Mtg + --- + = p<.05, ++ = p<.01, +++ = p<.001 Annual Teaching Award Stipends

16. So what?: Messages for Institutional Change Faculty are innovating in ways that are often overlooked & undercompensated Culture matters = But all incentives are not built equally Awards always sound good -- at first -- until people start to feel overlooked, or until it's…obvious that awards are used to make the award-givers look good. - Faculty member FACULTY in themselves are a resource Incentives do not have to be resource intensive It's shocking how common sensical these approaches are, and how few of them (beyond a teaching award) are implemented here. – Faculty member Communication may be the best (and cheapest) resource Transparency/clarity of practice, process, and expectations

17. It's not hard - acknowledge it, support it, and reward it. Most 'teaching'-focused faculty want to do innovative things for their students but if the reward system is skewed towards research, they will either move in the research direction or stop innovating. – Faculty member