June 2024 final report to the provost and faculty senate chair

Final report and recommendations from the Future of Teaching and Learning working group on instructional quality

June 18, 2024

The Future of Teaching and Learning initiative working group on instructional quality has concluded its work and submits this, our final report and recommendations, to the provost and the chairs of the faculty senate and the Faculty Council on Teaching and Learning (FCTL).

The charge

In their charge letter, provost Tricia Serio and faculty senate chair Cynthia Dougherty asked the working group to “gather broad input to create a truly shared understanding of quality instruction at the UW and, once finalized, provide bold yet practical recommendations to FCTL around how to implement a coherent, aligned approach to supporting instructional quality at the UW.” More specifically, the working group was charged with:

Gathering broad feedback
Analyzing feedback to identify common themes and update the draft
Make recommendations to the FCTL
Working with FCTL, other faculty governance groups to ensure alignment

We have completed the first three of these tasks (as outlined below) and are actively engaged with the FCTL on the fourth.

1. Gathering broad feedback

A draft set of five core elements of effective teaching was initially developed in AY 2022-23 by an initial working group established by Provost Mark Richards. That draft was vetted by over one hundred senior academic leaders. Our group updated the draft based on this initial feedback, shared it with faculty governance groups, and implemented a broader effort to gather additional feedback in Autumn quarter 2023.

UW colleagues, primarily faculty – 636 individuals in total – provided feedback on the draft core elements of effective teaching through feedback sessions and an online feedback form. Those who gave feedback hailed from all three UW campuses: 47% from Seattle, 19% from Bothell, and 15% from Tacoma. Another 19% attended mixed sessions where campus affiliation was not recorded, such as a Faculty Senate meeting.

We would like to thank the hundreds of UW faculty and staff who provided feedback and shared their insights.

2. Analyzing feedback for common themes and updating the draft

In Winter 2024, we compiled and analyzed the feedback, including responses to the online feedback form and comments from feedback sessions.

The vast majority of respondents expressed clear support for the five draft core elements of effective teaching. As evident in the following graphic, most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that each of the five core elements were key to effective teaching.

Feedback included general comments about the effort as a whole, detailed feedback on the language of the core elements, and suggestions to add new elements or cut elements. The working group carefully considered the verbatim comments and suggestions made by respondents. This feedback informed updates to the draft core elements.

The working group also used questions about implementation surfaced by respondents to create a FAQ page. Top of mind were questions about how the core elements would impact teaching evaluation processes and whether they would be coupled with adequate resourcing to support implementation. The working group incorporated these issues into its recommendations for the FCTL in section 3.

As they read through the many thoughtful comments contributed by faculty and staff, the working group was impressed by how deeply UW colleagues value effective teaching and how eager they are to improve the resources and policies that support it.

At the working group’s request, the provost charged an advisory council to oversee and offer guidance on the process of incorporating feedback into a final draft and drafting recommendations (see section 3 below). We would like to thank the members of the advisory council for their insights and guidance.

3. Recommendations to the Faculty Senate Council on Teaching and Learning (FCTL)

We, the Future of Teaching and Learning instructional quality working group, have recently completed a two-year-long process designed to review the current state of instructional quality at UW and develop recommendations for improving teaching effectiveness. In this process, several key findings emerged that inform our recommendations:

The current language in Faculty Code that describes the teaching dimension of a faculty member’s job was drafted over 50 years ago, although the exact date is uncertain.
A review of recent efforts at peer institutions to improve teaching surfaced the value of taking a more formative approach to teaching evaluation and highlighted efforts peers have made to articulate a shared understanding of effective teaching based on faculty input.
A review of the research base surfaced foundational elements that characterize effective teaching. Based on this research, the working group drafted a set of five core elements of effective teaching.
Feedback gathered from 636 UW colleagues, including 582 with faculty appointments (≅11% of all UW faculty – a phenomenal response rate at UW) confirmed that values around teaching have evolved, with most respondents embracing a more formative, iterative approach to teaching.
Faculty feedback surfaced concerns around how teaching is supported and evaluated at the UW.

Based on these findings, we present the following recommendations to the Faculty Council on Teaching and Learning (FCTL) for its consideration.

We recommend the FCTL endorse and adopt the following core elements of effective teaching to inform its work around instructional quality in the years to come. These core elements are foundational. They apply across disciplines, teaching contexts, and modalities. Schools, colleges, and departments may build upon them or add to them, but not excise or delete any element.

Details on the process for developing and refining UW’s definition of teaching excellence at the UW, including survey results and a breakdown of participants by role, can be found on the Future of Teaching and Learning webpage along with charge letters that list members of the instructional quality working groups and advisory council.
We recommend FCTL work with tri-campus instructional support units to provide companion information and easy to find, accessible, and broadly applicable resources that help instructors implement the core elements in a variety of teaching contexts and in ways that encourage growth and reflective practice.
We recommend that support focus on the following two areas:
- For instructors looking for support integrating the core elements into their teaching, we recommend resources be located on the new, tri-campus resource hub, Teaching@UW, and the team leading content creation for that site ensure development and maintenance of relevant supporting resources.
- For department chairs, deans or other unit leaders looking to build on the core elements at the unit level and use them to support and promote effective teaching in the unit, we recommend the FCTL lead development of a template, process, and recommended protocol for department chairs and other leaders to follow as they incorporate and build upon the core elements to advance effective teaching at the unit level.
We recommend the FCTL advocate for sufficient central instructional support resources for faculty as they integrate the core elements into their teaching practice. It is important that the UW is proactive in its response to faculty concerns voiced during the feedback process that an increased focus on teaching quality would add burden if it were not coupled with added resources for instructional support and mechanisms for supported time to improve courses.
To this end, we have reexamined and endorsed the recommendations around teaching resources and professional development found in the Future of Teaching and Learning working group on instructional quality’s report to the provost in May 2023. Those include the recommendation that tri-campus leaders:
- Agree on an instructional support infrastructure plan for UW
- Design infrastructure and secure resources for networked instructional support services
- Develop a communication and marketing plan for teaching and learning professional development across UW’s three campuses
- Align instructional support resources and programs to the core elements
Additional central support would build on existing tri-campus partnerships and across units with instructional support expertise. It would be focused on fostering and supporting better coherence and coordination across the UW’s instructional support ecosystem.
We recommend that the FCTL strengthen relationships with leaders of tri-campus instructional support units and strongly encourage those leaders to use the core elements as their “North Star,” aligning their resources, programming, consultation, and awards to reflect the language of the updated code and support faculty as they reflect and iterate on the core elements in their teaching practice. This would involve:
- Updating or reorganizing key online resources, such as Teaching@UW
- Offering workshops and consultations for individuals or units around the core elements and a formative approach to teaching more broadly
- Incorporating the core elements into the criteria for distinguished teaching awards
We recommend that FCTL foster, wherever possible, a formative approach to evaluation of teaching at the UW, one that emphasizes a growth lens when gathering and reviewing artifacts on reflective teaching. To this end, we recommend the FCTL build on its existing partnership with the Office of Educational Assessment (OEA) to pilot, refine, and promote student course evaluation and peer evaluation tools and processes that align to this work.
We recommend the FCTL introduce Class A legislation to update Section 24-32: Scholarly and Professional Qualifications of Faculty Members of the Faculty Code, section C, given that the current language in faculty code is over 50 years old and the Future of Teaching and Learning working group on instructional quality has just concluded a robust vetting process to develop a shared understanding of teaching effectiveness at the UW. These updates would not add to code, but rather refresh the existing elements articulated in the teaching portion of a faculty member’s responsibilities. The update would replace the existing language with the core elements of effective teaching that emerged from the working group’s outreach to faculty feedback in AY 2022-23 and AY 2023-24.
To facilitate the incorporation of these core elements into the faculty code, we provide here draft language for FCTL’s consideration to adapt as members see fit as they pursue legislation:

WHEREAS the University has just completed a two-year-long effort to update UW’s definition of effective teaching, resulting in broad consensus around an updated definition of effective teaching – a definition developed after a careful review of existing University language and peer institutions’ efforts; a robust tri-campus vetting process that yielded feedback on the drafts from over 636 instructors of all ranks, academic leaders, and instructional support staff; and input from a faculty advisory council during final edits and refinement…

WHEREAS this two-year-long effort surfaced the following broad themes that serve as both rationale and context for this proposal…
- All students admitted to the University possess the potential for academic success, and the core function of instruction is to cultivate that potential through effective teaching…
- Teaching has changed, and continues to change, including the students we serve, the contexts in which we teach, the shifting realities in the larger social context, and the established evidence base on teaching…
- Effective teaching is increasingly viewed as a reflective, formative practice that is refined over time…
- Many faculty already embrace a reflective approach to teaching and use teaching practices that effectively promote learning…
- Many academic units look to the faculty code as a framework for thinking about how to promote effective teaching in disciplinary contexts…
- Lifting the teaching mission of the University requires the support of the entire institution and requires alignment around a shared understanding of teaching effectiveness on the parts of academic leaders, faculty of all ranks, and instructional support and administrative staff…
WHEREAS this effort to update the definition of effective teaching at the University yielded the following, well-vetted core elements…
- Aligned: Effective teaching is intentionally designed and organized to help students meet course learning objectives.
- Inclusive and equitable: Effective teaching considers students’ experiences and creates opportunities for each student to thrive
- Active and engaged: Effective teaching creates opportunities for students to engage with ideas and each other.
- Growth-oriented: Effective teaching creates opportunities for students to learn through practice and provides feedback that helps them grow their knowledge and abilities.
- Relevant: Effective teaching helps students understand why what they are learning matters and prepares them for future learning and life after UW.
WHEREAS standards for teaching already exist in faculty code, they were last updated over 50 years ago, no longer reflect current research supporting effective teaching practices, and were written at a time when advising duties were the responsibility of faculty, not advising staff…

WHEREAS a shared understanding of effective teaching (embodied by a set of clearly articulated core elements) can be meaningfully applied in different contexts and disciplines, and understanding of the practice of teaching has expanded significantly during the last 50 years…

WHEREAS, the FCTL proposed a Class C Resolution Concerning the Use of Student Course Evaluations in Spring 2024 that reflects a formative, growth-oriented approach to teaching, stating that “The principal purpose of the student evaluation process should be acknowledged as assisting faculty to identify areas of improvement and growth to better serve the University’s teaching mission.”

BE IT RESOLVED that the faculty adopt the following edits to Section 24-32 Scholarly and Professional Qualifications of Faculty Members of the faculty code, section C:

(Additions are underlined; deletions are struck through)

The scope of faculty teaching is broader than conventional classroom instruction; it comprises a variety of teaching formats and media, including undergraduate and graduate instruction for matriculated students, and special training or continuing education; and the instructor’s availability to students beyond the classroom environment. The educational function of a university requires faculty who routinely reflect on the effectiveness of their teaching practice ~~can teach effectively~~. ~~Instruction must be judged according to its essential purposes and the conditions which they impose. Some~~ Core elements in assessing effective teaching shall include:
- ~~The ability to organize and conduct a course of study appropriate to the level of instruction and the nature of the subject matter;~~
- ~~The consistency with which the teacher brings to the students the latest research findings and professional debates within the discipline;~~
- ~~The ability to stimulate intellectual inquiry so that students develop the skills to examine and evaluate ideas and arguments;~~
- ~~The extent to which the teacher encourages discussion and debate which enables the students to articulate the ideas they are exploring;~~
- ~~The degree to which teaching strategies that encourage the educational advancement of students from all backgrounds and life experiences are utilized;~~
- ~~The availability of the teacher to the student beyond the classroom environment; and~~
- ~~The regularity with which the teacher examines or reexamines the organization and readings for a course of study and explores new approaches to effective educational methods.~~
- Aligned: Effective teaching is intentionally designed and organized to help students meet course learning objectives.
- Inclusive and equitable: Effective teaching considers students’ experiences and creates opportunities for each student to thrive.
- Active and engaged: Effective teaching creates opportunities for students to engage with ideas and each other.
- Growth-oriented: Effective teaching creates opportunities for students to learn through practice and provides feedback that helps them grow their knowledge and abilities.
- Relevant: Effective teaching helps students understand why what they are learning matters and prepares them for future learning and life after UW.
A major activity related to teaching is the instructor’s participation in academic advising and counseling, whether this takes the form of assisting students to select courses or discussing the students’ long- range goals. Taking into consideration disciplinary and instructional contexts, the assessment of teaching effectiveness shall consider all five core elements and shall include student and faculty evaluation. ~~Where possible, measures of student achievements in terms of their academic and professional careers, life skills, and citizenship should be considered.~~
We recommend that FCTL build into its processes a regular cadence for review of this section of the code so members are prompted every ten years, or as needed, to review and update the UW’s definition of effective teaching.

4. Working with FCTL, other faculty governance groups

Our group’s final charge was to work with the FCTL and other faculty governance groups as they pursue legislation and to help them establish the core elements as a baseline for professional development, teaching evaluation, and student success at the UW. Throughout our process, we have been proactive in reaching out to faculty governance representatives, anticipating faculty and faculty governance concerns, and preparing a smooth transition of this work from our group to the FCTL. This integration was aided by the fact that members of FCTL and FCAS were also members of our working group and advisory council. Similar proactive outreach was conducted with academic leaders on all three campuses, including deans, chancellors and associate deans for academics, and faculty governance bodies.

The working group’s efforts to gather feedback were conducted in consultation with these groups and worked to ensure both broad representation of faculty and to gather perspectives that could be shared with the FCTL to inform next steps. In addition, the Future of Teaching and Learning faculty advisory council was designed to advise this group and then shift to advising the FCTL going forward to provide early input and continuity to this effort as it moves forward.

The partnerships developed during this effort have been successful in fostering deep collaboration – within the working group, with the advisory group, and with faculty governance groups. We anticipate these partnerships and relationships will long outlast this initiative as faculty, leaders, and instructional support staff continue to collaborate in the course of their duties.

As the working group concludes its work, we, its members, remain ready and willing to support the FCTL and faculty governance groups’ efforts in the coming years. We will both champion this work and implement the relevant aspects of our recommendations within our respective units.

This effort has been an extensive and fruitful opportunity to move the University towards greater alignment around instructional quality. Thank you for trusting us with this important work.

Sincerely,

Lynn Dietrich, assistant dean, Undergraduate Programs and teaching professor, College of Education (and former chair, Faculty Council on Teaching and Learning)

Mary Kay Gugarty, associate dean for Teaching and Learning and Nancy Bell Evans professor in Nonprofit Management and Philanthropy, Evans School of Public Policy and Governance

Cinnamon Hillyard, associate vice chancellor and dean for Student Success and associate professor, School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, UW Bothell

Darcy Janzen, director, Digital Learning and affiliate faculty, School of Education, UW Tacoma

Penelope Moon, director, Center for Teaching and Learning, Academic and Student Affairs and affiliate associate professor, History, College of Arts and Sciences

Joel Ross, associate teaching professor, Information School and member, Faculty Council on Academic Standards

Casey Self, associate teaching professor, Department of Biology, College of Arts & Sciences and chair, Faculty Council on Teaching and Learning

Ken Yasuhara, director and instructional consultant, Office for the Advancement of Engineering Teaching and Learning, College of Engineering

Marisa Nickle, senior director, Strategy and Academic Initiatives, Academic and Student Affairs