To the Santa Cruz Division:

The Committee on Teaching (COT) in conjunction with Eileen Tanner of the Teaching Support Office (TSO) and with the support of Janis Dickens, Director of Media Services, and Laurie Babka, Academic Senate Office, strove to maintain and expand the functions assumed by this committee to better serve the campus community in its mission of undergraduate instruction. Primary responsibilities lay in the review of instructional improvement grant applications, Excellence in Teaching awards, and in the development of new formats for exchange of ideas about teaching pedagogy.

COT began the year with a frank discussion regarding the direction which the committee could and should take with regard to the promotion of teaching which would best serve the needs of the faculty. The committee felt that continued efforts to balance the emphasis on teaching with that on research was needed without entailing additional bureaucratic mechanisms.

These concerns were woven into the overall agenda for COT.

At the close of the academic year, COT felt generally pleased with its accomplishments but expressed serious concerns about the remaining overall impression of the value of teaching. Events and programs which involve funding, promotion and tenure, and publicity tended to receive significantly more attention at many levels of the campus community. Those items which were more directly related to discussing and improving the pedagogy of teaching at the level of individual faculty received little support or attention. Higher-profile general discussions on the philosophy of teaching appear to attract a segment of the faculty but did not provide either general benefit to faculty or direct assistance at the level of the classroom. Programs supported by TSO and administration have made some improvements for a small segment of faculty but not for faculty generally. Campus faculty are deeply concerned with their teaching abilities but often feel that they are ill-advised in investing in high-quality, heavy time-commitment teaching in the current fiscal and administrative climate. If we are to retain our reputation as a superb campus for undergraduate instruction, it is essential that additional emphasis be given to the quality of instruction, a move which will necessitate a radical change throughout the campus.

An Instructional Improvement Grant allocation of approximately$120,000 was

allocated under the 1995-96 budget. These funds were designated as seed money for the improvement of undergraduate instruction. It was anticipated that this amount would be slightly increased due to roll-back of unexpended funds from previous allocations. These funds were for one-time projects with direct application to undergraduate instruction. On-going projects, funding for basic supplies, food and refreshments, summer salaries and salary augmentation were not covered.

After discussion of a suggestion proposed by the TSO, COT decided to divide the monies into three pools: 1) small grants of up to$1000, 2) grants up to $5000 available to individual or collaborative efforts, and 3) major awards of up to $15,000. An estimated $30,000was allocated to the first category, $60,000 to the second and$30,000 to the third category. In a marked change from the last few years, the "mini-grant" program was available throughout the academic year while larger grants were considered, as before, only during a single period with a January 31st deadline for submission. The Teaching Support Office was responsible for processing applications, assisting in assessing suitability, processing successful applications, and directing the establishment of accounts.

The level of commitment and involvement from faculty showed a dramatic increase in this academic year. Requests during 1995-96stand at 106 applications, compared to 61 in 1994-95 and 57 in1993-94. While this may, in part, be due to fiscal constraints on programs, it was felt that promotion of the awards along with the year-round availability and rapid turn-around of the mini-grants were largely responsible. COT recommends that some form of this funding structure be retained in the future. In addition, virtually all the allocated monies were expended for the first time in three years, all for application in the classroom.

Applications in all categories were assessed on their feasibility, innovative qualities, value to students, relevance of the project to the course, and integration with campus resources. Requests focused on the enhanced use of computer technology were particularly prevalent. To qualify for an award, such requests were required to include an incisive description of how the technology would enhance the educational experience, and the breadth of impact in terms of number of students reached. Duplication of equipment or other materials was avoided unless programmatic needs dictated acquisition of additional resources. All applicants were required to check with Campus Facilities where duplication or conflict of access could be an issue.

An informational session was organized on January 12th which outlined the application process, provided examples of funded projects, discussed excluded items from funding, and described the criteria used in evaluation of the applications. Approximately40 individuals attended. A videotape was also produced where ten previous IIG awardees explained the benefit of these grants to their teaching.

Mini-grants were available up to $1000 with the provision that this money had to be expended by June 1, 1996. Applications could be submitted at any time with review conducted by the Chair of COT and Coordinator of the TSO. Any cases where questions of merit or eligibility were perceived were referred to the entire committee at the next meeting. Estimated

"turn-around" time for these grants was less than one month, often within two weeks from the date of receipt until notification of award. The aim of this revision in the application process was to provide a funding source which was more readily accessible to faculty. It was evident that faculty often are able to better assess their needs for particular courses closer to the time when they will be actively teaching rather than one or more years in advance which was required under the previous procedures. This process also allowed time for extensive revision and clarification of applications through communication between the reviewers and the applicant(s).

A total of 48 mini-grants were submitted prior to the end of Spring quarter 1996 requesting a total of $42,196.82. Of these seven were denied, one is still pending and the remainder either fully or partly funded. Funding allocation for these proposals stands at $32,713.58. This is within the remaining funds given returning unexpended funds from prior awards.

Individual and collaborative grants (formerly at different funding levels) were combined with an upper limit of $5000. Forty-one applications were submitted for the individual and collaborative grants for a requested amount total of $160,694.88. All applications were read by the COT chair and at least two faculty members of COT. Grants were ranked at a general meeting and the level of funding was discussed. Of these applications, twenty-one were granted full or partial funding for a total of $66,031.87.

The major grants were targeted for substantial curricular revisions which could include applications of technology in the classroom or developing new courses or sets of courses. Seventeen proposals totaling $206,490.57 were submitted for review. Of these applications, five applications were granted full or partial funding for a total of $31,711.

The request for nominations for the Excellence in Teaching awards was announced on April 1st with a deadline for submission of nominating letters due on April 22nd. Nominations were to be written by students enrolled during the 1995-96 academic year and required five signatures. Requests were made to the boards to provide additional information regarding the quality and level of teaching contributions of the nominees. The nominees were also contacted and requested to submit a statement on their philosophy of teaching.

Nineteen nominations were received for the "Excellence in Teaching" awards. One additional nomination was not accepted due to the nature of the position which was held. It was also decided that nominations of UCSC Summer Session and University Extension instructors would not be considered in this award. The nominees included 10 lecturers and 9 ladder-ranked faculty. The strong representation on the part of non-ladder-ranked faculty are believed

to represent both the importance of their contribution to the educational process here at UCSC and the consequences of heavy research pressures which may hinder the quest for excellence in teaching by ladder-ranked faculty.

At the outset, the task of selecting nominees was daunting given the outstanding quality of the nominees as reflected in the letters and supporting documents. After discussion, the committee agreed on five candidates which included two ladder-ranked faculty and three lecturers. These awardees received a framed certificate and $500 in professional development funds. Given the high level of quality of all the nominees, COT was pleased to provide certificates of honorable mention for the other candidates as well.

Winners of the Excellence in Teaching awards were formerly announced at the final Academic Senate meeting of the academic year. Ina break from tradition, a separate award reception at University House was organized to highlight the importance of teaching on campus. This event took place on May 30, 1996. COT also felt that this would be more welcoming for the non-Academic Senate members who may be awardees. We were also desirous of

including family, students, colleagues and other members of the support network of each awardee in the award ceremony to some extent. COT does suggest that a reading of the list of awardees be presented at the Senate meeting in future years in addition to the reception.

Due to a scheduling squeeze, the ceremony was combined with that of the Division of Graduate Studies' Outstanding Teaching Assistant awards. The combined format was highly successful with a substantial attendance. COT was pleased that Chancellor Pister was able to address the gathering, providing opening comments, introducing those individuals who were to make the awards announcements, and distributing awards.

An announcement of a nation-wide U.S. Teacher of the Year award for undergraduate instruction was obtained in the Spring quarter and prompted discussion on UCSC involvement. COT was supportive of a nomination from UCSC, especially after our experience with the high level of quality of instructors on campus. Due to the limited time in which to amass the

required information and supporting documents, it was decided by COT to contact the Alumni Association about collaboration in support of their recent awardee, Michael Warren. This effort was headed by student representative Yvette Keller. In the end, this nomination was not submitted due to difficulties in reaching the students who had written in support of the original award.

COT considered recommendations for future nominations to this competition which included 1) automatic nomination of the Alumni Association Award, 2) open nominations from the campus specifically for this award or, 3) nomination of one of the award winners from the Excellence in Teaching awards. It is recommended that any selection process be started early in

the year, but committee members recognized the merits of adopting the Alumni Association candidate for the sake of expediency.

The Winter Convocation on Teaching, "Meeting the Challenges of the Culturally Diverse Classroom", was held on February26th at Oakes College. Marta Morello-Frosch, faculty mentor for the Humanities, moderated and panelists included Timothy Fitzmaurice(Humanities), Frank Talamantes (Natural Sciences), Carolyn Dean(Arts) and Barbara Rogoff (Social Sciences). Videotapes of the event are available through TSO.

A survey conducted at the close of the Winter convocation suggested the topics of most intense interest to the faculty were peer-review and self evaluation of teaching, development of teaching circles, teaching large classes, incorporating learning groups in the classroom, problem-based learning, and teaching using the Socratic method. The survey also suggested speakers who would be appropriate for future convocations.

At the request of Chancellor Pister, an additional convocation was held in spring quarter. He suggested the topic of "The Classroom of the 21st Century." The Spring Convocation was held on April 23rd in Classroom Unit I. The focus of this event was a talk by Dr. Bernard R. Gifford of Academic Systems Corp. Following his presentation, demonstrations of World Wide Web utilization for instruction were made by UCSC faculty from Art, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Economics and Russian Studies.

While supportive of the concept of campus convocations on teaching, COT recommends that future events move from a formal presentation by speaker or panelists to a format which would include in-depth discussions among resident faculty. One possibility would be for a half-day series meeting on the weekend. Childcare should be provided to lessen the difficulties faculty with family have in attendance outside of regular hours. One format could be for part of the time period used for a board-level discussion of teaching, possibly centering on syllabus-building within the discipline. This could be followed by a series of interdisciplinary focus groups which focused on specific issues of teaching (i.e. the role of graduate student teaching at UCSC). Students should also be involved in the planning and participation. Such a move maybe able to promote wider campus involvement with the discussion of teaching and utilize the already impressive skills of our own faculty.

A new Scantron-readable student course evaluation form developed by COT in previous years became available for classroom testing and distribution. This form includes a series of questions with scanable responses which cover student preparation and participation in the course, the course content and presentation, instructor competence and teaching skill and the usefulness of auxiliary materials and activities. The reverse of the Scantron form presents three broad essay questions to solicit open-ended comment on the course. Since specific needs of the boards and instructors cannot be accommodated within a standardized form, additional scanable question spaces are available which can be paired with instructor-provided questions. This evaluation form aims to meet the goals of a quantifiable assessment of the course and the qualitative assessment which is often critical to the improvement of future course offerings.

An initial printing of 5,000 forms was prepared by Scantron. Two COT members tried the Scantron evaluations in winter 1996for two courses. In the Spring this was expanded with nine requests for a total of 1771 forms. Student reaction, despite an initial level of horror at having to complete a Scantron form often in addition to the board-mandated form, was relatively

enthusiastic. Comments focused on the higher level of coverage compared to some board forms, the benefits of retaining essay portions, and the Scantron questions raised issues that the students may not have considered or remembered to mention.

The actual processing and interpretation of the forms was more problematic. Questions arose over the format in which the material should be presented, to whom should the results be provided, and the archiving of the results. The initial report was lengthy, and it was recommended that the format be compressed. The committee is concerned that the instructor ratings not be used as a numeric footrace across instructors, and that users of instructor's quantitative profiles appreciate the importance of interpreting ratings within instructors and within courses rather than across instructors and across courses, since ratings typically vary by course content. As a crucial element of user education, the committee recommends that guidelines for interpretation of the statistical assessment be provided which would discuss the problems of averaging across small samples of students and emphasize the more informative and accurate nature of distributions compared to averages. It also is recommended that additional copies of the compiled summary statement be supplied to the faculty member. This would serve to provide more immediate feedback to faculty about the quality and impact of the particular course offering. The copious databases produced in the processing was an unanticipated problem in that there was both the Scantron database and an Excel database into which the Scantron data is compiled. COT also recommends that databases be transferred to computer disk and thereafter archived by the Board.

In the next year the merits of this form need to be assessed as well as the support structure which would be needed should it be adopted campuswide. Additional promotion or refinement maybe needed. Stability of funding for the production and processing of these forms on a campuswide basis also needs to be addressed by the administration.

Instructor course assessment (ICA) forms, introduced previously by the 1993-94 COT, chaired by John Schechter, were placed in a preliminary implementation phase. Individual COT members discussed the format for these forms (including the AAHE self-reflective essay of the peer review of teaching initiative) at a series of forums on the scholarship of teaching organized by Associate Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Education Laporte in Fall 1995. Faculty who had already completed the ICA discussed the time commitment involved and the benefits both in terms of improved teaching and enhancement of personnel files. There has been little done to generate general interest or even awareness among faculty despite the effort of the administration through the faculty forums. COT is concerned that without continued formal support from CAP or the University administration there will be little incentive for faculty to utilize this form given the time commitments under which faculty already work.

One of the initiatives of COT during the last few years has been encouraging discussions of teaching at a level other than campuswide. COT was pleased to see that during the academic year, at least two boards (Environmental Studies and Psychology) started board-level discussions of teaching. Both were reported to be highly successful, although taking different approaches to the topic.

In an effort to sustain the conversations begun with the Winter Convocation on Teaching and to address critical areas of concern which became evident in consultation with faculty, the TSO with the support of COT organized a series of teaching circles during Spring 1996. Two three-meeting sessions addressed: 1) the problems and approaches to teaching large classes, and 2) the role of faculty in the evaluation of teaching. These informal gatherings allowed faculty to exchange ideas and develop new approaches to deal with difficult situations. They were also designed to provide new faculty with a diversity of viewpoints.

While these teaching circles on topics of general interest appear to be extremely useful, relatively poor attendance would suggest that they do not meet the needs of the faculty. COT and the TSO should continue to explore means of facilitating attendance or tailoring these to more accessible formats.

A teaching "chatline" was proposed to allow communication and discussion within the campus on teaching. "Teachnet" is seen as a format in which the campus community could air gripes, connect instructors who share interests in teaching, answer queries, explore avenues through which administrative goals in terms of Managing Faculty Resources could or could not be met without adverse effects on the quality of teaching, and allow for discussion of the general future of education. COT was concerned that such a system could result in excessive workloads for those parties responsible for monitoring the discussion -- such as locating answers to queries or forwarding complaints to the appropriate units.

After investigation, it was found that such a forum, entitled "Teaching", already exists on campus. Various strategies for reactivating this forum were discussed and COT recommends that this be more fully explored in the next year.

The position of faculty advisor to the Teaching Support Office established in the previous academic year was abandoned due to lack of utilization by faculty. In its place,

Assistant Chancellor of Human Resources Julia Armstrong established a slate of senior faculty mentors, one mentor for each of the academic divisions. Given a lack of COT involvement in the establishment and oversight of this project, COT was unable to assess the utility of this program. COT should explore infusing a stronger role for COT in this program if it is continued.

COT strongly endorses the efforts of the Teaching Support Office in support of instruction and recommends that funding be fully maintained for this unit. In addition to its efforts in organizing projects in conjunction with COT, the TSO continued to provide mid-course evaluations and videotaping of lectures. A newsletter on faculty development at UCSC was also introduced by the TSO to provide a communication link to faculty. This newsletter was important in promotion of COT-sponsored activities. Classroom visitation was not continued as this did not appear to have been widely used in the past and required considerable effort in the compiling of the visitation lists.

June 15, 1996