An Interdisciplinary Seminar for Preparing College Teachers

“Good luck on your first day as an assistant professor, Dr. Tanner! Have a great class!” On the wall above my desk, these words scream out from an otherwise encouraging note that is adorned with many exclamation points. This note has hung on my wall since my very first day as an Assistant Professor of Biology. As I was charging off to teach my first class, a senior faculty member who had been on my hiring committee slipped this note under my office door. In moments of pause years later, I still stare up at that note and breathe a sigh of relief that I had much more than luck to guide me on my first day as a college-level teacher. Although I continue to have much to learn—as all of us do no matter the number of years of teaching experience—I did arrive at the university with both formal and informal training in science education. I had had plenty of exposure to innovative pedagogical approaches, questioning strategies, and techniques for engaging diverse audiences in learning science. As a scientist educator, I had had the privilege of many years of collaboration with outstanding K–12 educators as well as a postdoctoral fellowship in science education. However, my training has been, to say the least, unconventional compared with that of my fellow junior faculty and unique in its preparation in regard to the teaching and learning of my discipline. It will not be news to anyone reading this article that university and college teaching is to a large extent a profession with no formal training. It’s startling but true that the majority of faculty members—and lecturers who often teach large numbers of students—have no formal training in the teaching and learning of their discipline. In fact, the hiring process in university science departments is structured primarily to evaluate a faculty candidate’s ability to be a productive researcher, with success measured in number of publications and magnitude of grant funds raised. Depending on the type of institution, for example, research university, state-level university, or liberal arts college, there may be a component of the faculty interview process that probes a candidate’s teaching ability, for example, requesting a statement of teaching philosophy and requiring the candidate to teach a sample lecture class. However, this sample lecture often screens for gross inadequacies, rather than looking for stellar innovations or pedagogical skills. This lack of formal, accredited training for university and college instructors stands in stark contrast to the requirements for a high school teacher who is charged with the education of students only a year junior to college freshmen. High school teachers in the United States must be credentialed as a secondary science teacher, demonstrate subject matter competency in every subject that they will be teaching, and must continually engage in professional development in the teaching and learning of their discipline throughout their career as a science teacher. With the 2002 federal No Child Left Behind legislation, the onus is upon each precollege science teacher to become “highly qualified” in terms of formal university-level training in science education. However, no such required professional training or measurable standards for teaching are required in institutions of higher education. Many policy documents have suggested standards of teaching practice in postsecondary science education (National Research Council, 1996, 1997; Siebert and McIntosh, 2001), but the extent of implementation of these ideals is unclear and has gone relatively unstudied, although national and regional accreditation boards do look at outcomes, asking colleges and universities to assess what their students have gained from four years of study at their institutions. Nonetheless, there is a striking reversal of accountability that happens when one crosses the precollege teaching to college-level teaching boundary (Table 1). During the K–12 school years, society expects K–12 teachers to be responsible for student learning. Salaries of teachers in many states are tied to student test scores, and poor student performance can potentially invoke penalties. At a college or university, several variables in the educational universe shift. Students are the ones responsible for learning. The evaluation and compensation of college-level teachers is not DOI: 10.1187/cbe.05–12–0132 Address correspondence to: Kimberly Tanner (kdtanner@sfsu.edu). CBE—Life Sciences Education Vol. 5, 1–6, Spring 2006

Most professors and administrators are aware that academic freedom is in danger of being brushed aside by a public that has little understanding of what is at stake. They may be only marginally aware that the defense of academic freedom is endangered by certain confusions concerning the nature of academic freedom, the criteria for its violation, and the structure of an adequate justification for claims to it. These confusions were enshrined in some of the central documents on the subject, including the 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure, agreed upon by the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges and endorsed by many professional organizations. Careful analysis of them will not do away with debate; it will bring the debate into focus, so that attacks on academic freedom can be appraised as near or far away from the center of the target and can then be appropriately answered. Nearly all the contemporary writing on academic freedom consists of attack or defense. The Concept of Academic Freedom is the first book to deal exclusively with fundamental conceptual issues underlying the battle. In the discussion of these issues, certain philosophical positions crystallize: radical versus liberal conceptions of the status and function of university teachers, specific versus general theories of academic freedom, consequential versus nonconsequential theories of justification. Partisans (and enemies) of academic freedom would do well to decide on which side of these divisions they stand, or how they would mediate between sides. Otherwise many questions will remain unclear: What is under discussion-a special right peculiar to academics or a general right that is especially important to academics? Is justification of that right possible? Can the right be derived from other rights, or from the theory of justice or of democratic society? Or is the argument for academic freedom one that more properly turns on the consequences for society as a whole if that freedom is not protected? The essays in this book explore these and other problems concerning the defense of academic freedom by radicals, the justification for disruption on campus, and the control of research. Contributors to the volume include Hugo Adam Bedau, Bertram H. Davis, Milton Fisk, Graham Hughes, Alan Pasch, Hardy E. Jones, Alexander Ritchie, Amelie Oksenberg Rorty, Rolf Sartorius, T. M. Scanlon, Richard Schmitt, John R. Searle, Judith Jarvis Thomson, and William Van Alstyne. All are outstanding in their fields. Many have had practical experience in the legal profession or with the American Association of University Professors on the issue of academic freedom.

The American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges

s or indexing language: Terms at the foot or head of the citation detail content or subject headings. Are any of these better terms?closer to the desired topic?to use for searching? The terms are another indication of what the article is about. If we can encourage students to read these, they will be more able to judge the utility of the article. Of course, an abstract is even better, given the same caveat. Author: What is the author writing about? What is his reputation, if any, in the field? Does he have credentials? What agenda is he following? For example: if one could compare articles by Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes about eco nomics, Marx's would be very different from that of Keynes. Title of journal or magazine: What is the reputation and point of view of the magazine? Again, extreme examples: Mother Jones as a publication is political ly almost diametrically opposed to the stance of National Review. Depending on the students' needs, either might serve as a source, but they need to be aware of a publication's purposes beyond providing information. Publisher: Who publishes a book or a journal may have influence on its content and its authority. This is considered as a factor much more often by faculty and graduate students than by undergradu ates, but it is worth mentioning. What is the level of coverage? Subject specificity, depth, and breadth of cover age are all important considerations. Who contributed or contributes to it? Where is it indexed? Who are the editors? Timeliness: Does the student need the most recent information, retrospective information, or just anything on the topic? Availability: Is the book or article in the library? If not, can the student afford to wait, or does she need a source that is currently on hand, even if it isn't quite as good? The handouts (in the boxes) give some explanation of these points, and can be used as a teaching aid and as a spark for discussion about the distinguishing marks of the jewels within the vast array of pub lications. Admittedly, nothing in the handouts covers how to tell a good periodical from a poor one: that is some thing that can be judged by the use of cer tain directories, such as Katz's Magazines for Libraries, by recommendation of li brarians or faculty, or by examples in class and examination of issues by the in dividual. Discretion or the ability to eval uate material as having relative rather than absolute truth is a function of the in dividual student's cognitive (Perry 1970; McNeer 1991) and sociohistoric status (Anderson and Adams 1992), but it is also a matter of exposure, experience, and training. If students are seeking articles from magazines or journals, then they need to know that how often a particular index is updated will affect its usefulness. If a stu dent wants an article less than a month old, or another wants articles from the McCarthy era, neither of them is likely to find any in most of the CD-ROM indexes

In essence, the English teaching process in colleges and universities is a learning process of foreign language culture. Teachers in colleges and universities just use this learning process to penetrate humanistic education into English teaching and to integrate with it, so as to help students to improve their humanistic quality. Given this, this paper first gives a statement onto internal relations between English teaching in colleges and universities and humanistic & spiritual education. Based on the special historical background of China at present, this paper discusses new requirements of new times for humanistic & spiritual education in English teaching in Chinese colleges and universities. Moreover, an analysis is made onto relevant causes for deficiency of humanistic education in English teaching in Chinese colleges and universities. Based on current conditions and existing deficiencies of English teaching in Chinese colleges and universities, effective countermeasures and recommendations are proposed in this paper for the implementation of humanistic education in English teaching in Chinese colleges and universities, with certain positive reference to the promotion of teaching practices.

The Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) initiative for graduate students was launched in the United States in 1993 as a partnership between the Council of Graduate Schools and the Association of American Colleges and Universities to prepare graduate students for faculty careers at different institutional types and to provide them with teaching-related professional development. PFF programs have proliferated U.S. universities over the last two decades, but there has been limited research on the long-term impact of these programs. This study at the University of Michigan examines the career paths and attitudes of graduate students who participated in an annual, intensive, five-week PFF seminar between 2007 and 2013. The descriptive study explores the following research questions: (a) What are the career outcomes for PFF seminar participants compared with nonparticipants? (b) Does the exposure to a variety of institutional types in the PFF seminar lead to a greater appreciation of and openness to job opportunities at diverse institutions? and (c) Does the PFF seminar assist graduate students in their job searches and their chosen career paths? The results of this study contribute to our understanding of what universities can do to effectively prepare graduate students for their future careers.

The Association of American Colleges and Universities calls for improvements in teaching preparation in graduate programs as a transferable skill for future faculty. However, the amount of institutional and faculty support for these programs is limited. For the relatively few programs that exist, rarely do they have their outcomes assessed in a data-driven manner. This is disconcerting considering that participation in professional development can improve work-life balance, and graduate students often work long hours, suffer from mental health issues, and face increasing career competition. In this case study, we explore how two teaching development programs impacted pedagogical knowledge, perceived quality of life, and sense of community in graduate students at the University of California, Irvine. Using a mixed methods approach, we demonstrate that participants in our introductory quarter-long Developing Teaching Excellence course increased their pedagogical knowledge, and participants in both our introductory course and our advanced year-long Pedagogical Fellows Program reported having improved quality of life and sense of belonging. Most commonly, participants framed these pedagogical programs/courses as providing a safe and inclusive space to explore teaching in an interdisciplinary manner; a network of like-minded and supportive peers; and an opportunity to develop greater confidence in teaching, mentorship, and other aspects of graduate life such as conducting research and entering the academic job market. Taken together, our results indicate that providing a structured, nurturing environment for graduate students to develop their pedagogical knowledge and practice may lead to improved quality of life and sense of belonging.

University teachers belong to the academic profession, and the research on the academic career development of university teachers has significant academic and practical value.This study explores the academic career development of young university teachers from three dimensions: academic career achievements, academic career competencies, and academic career identity.Through descriptive statistical analysis, the current state of development is described, and through independent sample T-tests and variance analysis, the differences in development under different individual characteristics are explored.The study suggests that Chinese universities need to pay attention to vulnerable groups, especially the career development of young teachers.

The rapid development of higher education in China has made the role of private universities in the education industry increasingly significant. As the main force engaged in teaching and research in private universities, the growth and development of young teachers directly affect the quality of education and the level of education. But in the real education ecosystem, young teachers in private universities often encounter multiple role challenges and confusion. They not only have to play the role of educators, but also become researchers and social service providers. This complex identity relationship often leads them to face problems of unclear role positioning and role conflicts. These problems not only affect the individual career development of young teachers, but also pose potential constraints on the long-term development of private universities. Therefore, in-depth exploration of the role confusion of young teachers in private universities has certain theoretical and practical significance for promoting their career development, optimizing the teaching staff of private universities, and improving the quality of education.

This report presents an experimental development of a test technique for measuring the ability to evaluate objective test items. Courses deal ing with the new-type classroom test should be designed not only to equip the student with a knowledge of the principles underlying the construc tion of objective test items but also to develop a critical attitude in the evaluation of such items. It is probable that more emphasis is usually placed upon factual knowledge in measuring the outcomes of such courses than upon the more intangible outcomes which are dependent upon but which do not necessarily accompany factual knowledge. A special mimeographed examination, consisting of fifty true-false and eighteen multiple-response items, was given to the writer's 1931 summer session class in i ' Construction and Validation of Objective Tests ' ' at the end of the unit dealing with item construction and evaluation. The class consisted of forty junior, senior, and graduate students, with the last group making up approximately half of the total enrollment. No time limit was set for the test except that imposed by the fifty-five-minute class period. The usual types of true-false and multiple-response items were utilized differently in this test than in the usual objective examination. The stu dent was asked to evaluate objective items from the standpoint of a teacher contemplating their use in a classroom test. Subject matter from geography, literature, educational measurement, and several other sources was employed in the items to be evaluated. The subject matter chosen was of such an elementary nature that each student evaluating the test elements was almost certain to possess adequate factual knowledge for their interpretation. Furthermore, as the directions for the test pointed out, the truth or falsity of the items (from the standpoint of the pupil who might encounter them in the usual test situation) mattered little, except as a possible supplementary basis for the student's evaluation of a few items.

This study sought to establish the influence of staffing on the quality of teaching in Uganda’s public universities. It was undertaken in the face of persistent stakeholder concerns regarding the declining quality of teaching and learning in these institutions that have occasionally culminated into student strikes and different kinds of protests. Basing on a mixed-methods approach, the study employed the descriptive cross-sectional survey design where both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from 14 academic managers, 111 academic staff, and 285 undergraduate university students of Kyambogo University, using survey and interview methods. The collected data from staff and students were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple regression techniques while content analysis technique was used to analyze qualitative data collected by interviewing purposively selected university managers. The study findings revealed that: first, staff recruitment (B=.182; p=.040), staff training (B=.340; p=.000), and development (B=.327; p=.000) have statistically significant influence on the quality of teaching. Meanwhile, staff deployment (B=.010; p=.914) has statistically insignificant influence on the quality of teaching. However, overall, the study revealed that staffing (R=.683; R 2 =.467; p=.000) significantly influences the quality of teaching in public universities in Uganda. Therefore, it was concluded that effective staffing would raise the quality of teaching in universities, other factors held constant. The study thus recommends that university managers and staff should stick to the prescribed recruitment policy, invest more resources in training and developing staff, and ensure that existing staff are generally well-managed. Article visualizations:

In December 2009 at Teachers College, Columbia University, Education Secretary Arne Duncan spoke of the need for change in teacher education to an audience of preservice teachers, their professors, graduate students and others. Mr. Duncan's speech began with recognition of the meaningful contribution of Teacher's College to the field of teacher education before turning listeners and readers of his words toward the future needs of education. I am a graduate student with a stake in the present and future course of teacher education, and I approached Secretary Duncan's speech with interest and expectation. However, I found that this speech by the Secretary did not suffice in addressing the depth of his subject. Because of his unique experiences and training, the Secretary understands that education is a multifaceted field with numerous discourses; a broader audience does not. Therefore, his speech could be little more than a snapshot taken to grab the attention of a distracted public. Much like themed photographs that are the products of advantageous photographers, neither a speech delivered by the Secretary of Education nor a meaningfully conducted research paradigm suffice in addressing the totality of educational discourse. The Secretary's desires to resolve the challenges of preparing teachers for the 21st century classroom in the nation's 1,450 schools, colleges, and departments of education, made me aware of the field of education's numerous stakeholders and how effective resolutions for the problems of the educational endeavor must involve more than just the Secretary of Education or an esteemed institution like Teacher's College of Columbia University. As I read Duncan's address again, I realized that the future will only perpetuate the same problems and resolutions unless we look beyond historical precedents and the contexts familiar to educational institutions. Secretary Duncan's snapshot, taken from the perspective of an experienced veteran of the educational discourse, managed to capture major themes associated with education, lending impetus to future change. Because the Secretary's words had the potential of shaping policy and funding, I, as a researcher began interrogating the traditions that shape the questions I ask and the results I share. The personal challenge was indirect, yet I wondered if I as researcher and member of a larger community would seize upon the potential opportunity not just to reform education, but to also redefine my own thoughts about education. It was tempting to engage the field of education like an expedient, intrusive paparazzi photographer seeking to claim a piece of the prize - an eye-catching contribution to the discourse. I already had an understanding of how to think according to design, and now I needed to think differently. I wondered what it would mean to research if I and other researchers would honestly seek to think outside the institution's walls and prescribed objectives. While talk of education and its system provided mental stimulation, my training, past and present, threatened to override the mental challenge I pondered. Would I as a researcher and teacher educator continue along the road of the status quo with its familiar practices and acceptance of self-defined or systemic agendas? I nodded and accepted the role addressed by Secretary Duncan, problematizing and resolving current institutional practices, high stakes testing and standardized achievement. However, I wanted to do more than recognize the familiar picture and nod in collusion. I wanted something new. I realized that research can become an unintended endorsement of the status quo and be further perpetuated by a desire to protect personal research interests. For the sake of the system and the reform that Secretary Duncan encouraged, I admit that this collusion cannot continue. …

The purpose of this study was to compare the results of teachers' self-evaluations of their teaching effectiveness with those of their students' ratings in industrial programs of a vocational senior high school in Taiwan. A self-developed questionnaire was administered to 820 teachers and 700 students in January, 2009, with returned responses from 548 teachers and 658 students. Specifically, the teaching effectiveness questionnaire with a total of 29 items has two editions: teacher edition and student edition. Both versions consist of six subscales, with each measuring one of the six factors including teaching self-efficacy, systematic presentation of instructional materials, effective instructional techniques, good teacher-student relationship, good classroom climate, and multiple teaching evaluations. For the teacher edition, the internal consistency a coefficients for the six subscales ranged from .744 to .825, with the overall a coefficient being .941. As for the student version, the internal consistency a coefficients ranged from .763 to .874, with 0.947 for the overall a coefficient. The data were analyzed with t-test, one-way ANOVA and one-way MANOVA. The exploratory factor analysis showed that cumulative variance was 62.92% for the teacher edition and 64.55 for the student edition. In addition, the overall performance of teachers' teaching effectiveness generally was satisfactory. There were significant differences in evaluation of teaching effectiveness among the teachers and their students with different background variables. Finally, for both the whole scale and the six subscales, the students' ratings on their teachers' teaching effectiveness, on average, were significantly higher than their teachers' self-evaluations of their own teaching. Based on the findings of the present study, some conclusions and recommendations were provided for administrative agencies, school authorities, school teachers, school students, and future studies.

This primary study uses of ICT in higher education, university teacher prospective analysis of categorical data using r programming tries to explore the satisfaction of ICT uses in higher education of university teacher on Prithvi Narayan campus Pokhara. The primary data were collected from February to March 2020. Although there was a large research gap in many researchers to analyze accurately if the variable is in categorical type. This research tries to meet the gap between the selection of appropriate tools for a categorical questionnaire survey of 32 university teachers. The satisfaction of teachers’ concepts regarding the use of ICT to enhance student educational quality had expressed on different Likert scale could be summarized with the count, 93 percent of university teacher was satisfied for ICT use in classroom teaching. The chi-square value p equal to 0.08 signifies there was not rejection evidence of avoiding the null hypothesis. The different bar plots with a colorful image and their percentage and count could easily plot using r programming.

School administrators and teachers recognize the pertinence of perceived, classroom enviroriiucui iui siuucm ucnaviui aim auncvc ment. To evaluate this environment, the Class Atmosphere Scale (CAS) assesses quantitatively the perceptions held by teacher and stu dents about their common class milieu. A sample of 30 classes (N=509) provides data to calculate percentile norms for each of the 12 CAS subscales. Further analysis suggests four discrete applications of subscale profiles. The CAS can be useful for future basic and applied research on classroom structure and behavior. TO EVALUATE the learning environment of the class room is vital. One promising approach is measurement of the atmosphere or perceived pyschosocial environment. (See the review of pertinent research by Randhawa and Fu (14).) An appropriate atmosphere scale would enable administrators and teachers to describe in environmental terms the pattern and impact of classroom interactions. Specifically, an objective typology could assess student classroom and teacher-classroom fit or mismatch and thus suggest necessary changes. Furthermore, objective norms could predict potential for progress in classroom learning. To quantify the environmental contributions by teacher and by students, and to provide feedback on changes in class atmosphere seem attainable goals. Classroom environments vary. Different subjects, teach ers, and students generate diverse social ecological milieus affecting classroom behavior. Analytically, settings may be compared on the basis of objective characteristics or in terms of perceptions held by participants. These two fac to s are not necessarily congruent. For example, a teacher may in fact be quite strict, though perceived by students as permissive. However, perception is the primary determinant of manifest classro m behavior (9). The Class Atmosphere Scale (CAS) (15) measures perceived environment in order to specify degree of consensus and, inferentially, the strength of behavioral press along several dimensions.2 The CAS discriminates statistically among teachers, subjects, and classes, as well s among classes conducted by the same teacher. In addition, this instrument is composed of sub scales that have adequate internal consistency, external validity, and profile stability. CAS subscales are identical to those of the Ward Atmo phere Scale (WAS) (10) and those This content downloaded from 157.55.39.235 on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 06:02:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms