Sally KuhlenschmidtFaculty Center for Excellence in Teaching

Western Kentucky UniversityOctober, 2009 POD, Houston Texas

OverviewBackground/Method

Definition of Educational Development Unit (EDU)

Demographic DataUsing the Data/Discussion

Powerpoint & handouts athttp://www.wku.edu/teaching/ctl_lists/

Tiny (to declutter) numbers are “N.” See original.

Test YourselfHow many postsecondary institutions

are there in the USA?What percent inst. have a unit devoted

to teaching development?Where are most “ctls” located?What type of school (doctoral, etc.) is

most likely to have a “ctl”?

Goals of StudyStrategic Tools for CTLs

normative data-based arguments. Research on what factors make for a

successful center at what levelRandom Samples from Population

Strategic Positioning for teaching development organizations (e.g., POD). Patterns, trends.

Pick a position

Background/MethodStarted master list of all CTLs to

create Google Custom Search Engine for POD. POD membership, Hofstra, U Kansas, U Victoria

Web lists, POD listserv, etc. Added NCSPOD list. Reviewed each site to see if

matched definition

Searched remaining schools3,000 plus USA institutions

Google Custom Search Engine with only the “Non-CTL” schools.

For search terms:“Center Teaching Learning” Then… Copied home page text of a random sample.

Most common words in the text.Searched using set of terms until no

new hits in 10 pages.

“Educational Development Unit” (EDU)?Majority are “centers” devoted to instructional

excellence. But found units doing teaching development

includingCommittees, System offices,/consortia, Research/assessment, Technology & teaching units, Staff & student & faculty development, GTA offices, libraries, etc.

PostSecondary Level Instructors:

Faculty, GTAs, Adjunct, Part-time

Mission includes some “Pure”

Pedagogy : Seminars, Consulting.Not just on

Technology but more than Tech.

Not just a list of resources.

Service Learning Units?

Definition of EDU

A unit, in the region (could be virtual), has been assigned teaching development responsibility by the institution

CaveatsTime located: Oct 2009. Sample weighted toward those

Mentioned on the Web (but 66 have no URL)

That are not behind firewalls.Still have to check.

More systemsThe “For profit” schoolsAssociate Human Resource offices

The sample:N=1,261 total Educational

Development Units, including known international. N=201 non-USA units.

N= 1,060 total EDUs in the USA. N=899 “one per institution” in USA.

Matched to Carnegie Data (6/19/09) on PostSecondary EducationCarnegie (With IPEDS: Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System) N=4,391 institutions in USA

Combined w/my databaseN=881 unique institutions having an EDU & in Carnegie database.

The number used for calculations.

Questions1. Normative:

What % of x variable occurs in the national sample?

E.g., How many doc/research institutions are there in the USA?

2. Description: What does the field of EDU “look” like? What % of x variable occurs in my sample of

EDUs? E.g., How many EDUs are at doc/research

institutions?

Questions (continued)3. Impact:

What is the penetration of EDUs into a category of institutions?E.g., What percent of all doc/research

institutions have an EDU?4. Global:

How do the rates compare to the national rate (20%)?

ResultsWhat % of USA institutions have an

Educational Development Unit? How far have EDUs penetrated higher ed?

At least 20% (lower bound estimate--minimums)Strategic Tool: Argument of Uniqueness.

Carnegie Basic 2005 classification1.

% Carnegie (N=4364)

2. % EDUs(N=881)

3.% EDU/

Carnegie[881]/[4364]

Doctorate & Res.

6.5%(N=283)

23.3%(N=205)

72.4%(205/283)

Masters 15. 2% (663) 29.7% (262) 39.5%

Baccal. 17.6% (766) 12.0% (106) 13.8%

Associate 41.6% (1814) 30.2% (266) 14.7%

Special Focus

19.2% (838) 4.8% (42) 5.0%

Enrollment

1. % Carnegie (N=4340)

2. % EDUs(N=880)

3. % EDU/ Carnegie[880]/[4340]

=<1000 39.8%(1727)

2.8% (25)

1.4%

1001-3000 26.5% (1152)

17.6% (155)

13.5%

3001-10000 22.1% (961)

41.7% (367)

38.2%

10001-25000 9.2% (401)

28.1% (247)

61.6%

25001+ 2.3% (99)

9.8% (86)

86.9%

What is the correlation between FTE degree seeking students & the presence of an EDU?r = .52** (p<.0001)

Explains roughly 27% of the variance of whether an institution has an EDU.

?Does having an EDU lead to more enrollment? Or more enrollment to an EDU? Or a 3rd factor?

How about between number of full time faculty equivalents?

r = .39** (p<.0001)Explains roughly 15% of the variance of whether

an institution has an EDU.

Public/private1. % Carnegie (N=4390)

2. % EDUs(N=881)

3. % EDU/ Carnegie

[881]/[4390]

Public 39.6% (1737) 68.2% (601)

34.6%

Private Not for Profit

39.7% (1744) 30.6% (270)

15.5%

Private for Profit

20.7% (909)

1.1% (10) 1.1%

Diversity?1. % Carnegie

2. % EDUs(N=881)

3. % EDU/ Carnegie[881/x]

HBCU (N=4390) 2.3% (100)

2.5%(22)

22.0% (22/100)

Tribal (4390) 0.7% (32)

0.0% 0.0%

HispSI (4380) 8.8% (385)

6.6% (58)

15.1%

MSI (4380) 18.0% (787)

10.7% (94) 11.9%

Women’s (4380) 1.2%(53)

0.8% (7)

13.2%

Land grant, Liberal Arts, Medical Schools?1. % Carnegie 2. % EDUs

(N=881)3. % EDU/ Carnegie

Land Grant(N=4380)

2.8% (123) 7.0% (62)

50.4%

COPLAC (Lib. Arts)(N=4380)

0.5% (21)

1.5% (13)

61.9%

Med schl.(N=4313)

3.8% (162) 12.3% (108)

66.7%

Graduate Degrees in Undergrad Fields?1. % Carnegie (N=1571)

2. % EDUs(N=564)

3. % EDU/ Carnegie

No Coexistence (all Grad or all UG)

31.3% (491)

12.8% (72)

14.7%

Some Coexistence

52.9% (831)

54.6% (308)

37.1.0%

High (at least half)

15.8% (249)

32.6% (184)

73.9%

Region? Accreditation? Undergraduate Focus? See handoutList of all EDUs in this study & this

Powerpoint/handouts: http://www.wku.edu/teaching/ctl_lists/

Conclusions:Enrollment has a greater impact on presence

of an EDU than number of full time faculty equivalents.What does that say for arguments for keeping

centers?

Conclusions: Typical?Descriptive (my sample)

Penetration (most fully adopted by)

Master’s/Associates institutions,

public schools, enrollment in the 3-

10,000 range, in the Southeast,

North Central or Southern accreditation

Doctorate/research institutions

public schoolsenrollment 25,000+

New England (but also US Service Schools)

Northwest accreditation

Conclusions: Typical?Descriptive Penetration

have grad programs that overlap with some but not most undergrad programs,

the ratio of Arts & Sciences to Professional degrees is balanced.

grad programs match undergrad at more than a 50% level

More A&S degrees are delivered or are balanced w/Prof.

Conclusions: National Rate, etc.In comparison to the national 20% penetration,

Fine at HBCU institutionsBelow average at HSI, MSI & Women’s; Poor at Tribal colleges (0/32). Perhaps also poor in Outlying Areas (0/94) –

Spanish?Land grant, Liberal Arts, & Medical Schools are

fertile ground for EDUs. Schools w/>80% professional degrees are under

represented. (?Law, Faith, Business, schools? Do well in Medical.)

How does this change our “business”? More effective benchmarking

Given out samples of Medical, STEM, GTA, enrollment size, Assoc, not active

Defining “CTLs”, create a taxonomy?Accreditation of units?Sidebar: Generic name preference: EDU or

Teaching DU?”

Discussion1. Strategic Tools for centers –

normative/comparative data. Ideas how you could use this information.

2. Research on the nature of centers Hypotheses to investigate. (e.g., org life cycle)Random sample is possible.

3. Strategic Positioning for faculty development organizations (e.g., POD).

ReferenceCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching, Carnegie Classifications Data File, December 18, 2008. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=809

Thanks to:PODNetworkNCSPODHofstra University Center for Teaching and

Scholarly Excellence, the University of Kansas, Center for Teaching

Excellence, and the University of Victoria, Center for Teaching &

Scholarly ExcellenceMy student workers who entered the early data:

Jenni West; Jaime Trotter.