Wednesday, Dec. 11

The University is operating on a regular schedule.

#renderEmergencyWidget( $widget )

Faculty Development

Resources

Grants and Fellowships

Educational Technology Grants
  • These grants are designed to assist faculty in learning educational technology and incorporating it into the curriculum to enhance teaching.
  • Eligibility: Full-time faculty
  • Amount of Award: Up to $5,000
  • Number of Awards: Variable
  • Selection Criteria: Applications will be evaluated according to the merit of the proposal, including the anticipated impact on one or more of the seven best practices in teaching and on the students' learning; the clarity and coherence of the proposal; the likelihood that the project will be completed; and the soundness of the budget.
  • Proposals Due: Mid-November (see website for specifics)
Engaged Learning Fellowships
  • Engaged-learning strategies include, but are not limited to, service-learning, problem-based learning, and learning communities. Engaged-Learning Fellows commit to implementing an engaged learning strategy in one of their courses during 2010-11. Fellows also commit to mentoring others who want to adopt the innovation, assessing the results of their innovation, and recommending library acquisitions where appropriate. Each fellow will receive a one-course reduction in the spring of 2010.
  • Eligibility: Full-time faculty
  • Amount of Award: Cost of a one-course reduction at University minimum adjunct compensation (Course releases requiring higher stipends may be underwritten by the collegiate dean.)
  • Number of Awards: Up to four
  • Proposals Due: Oct. 15
Greenberg Junior Faculty Grants
  • Made possible through the generosity of Arnold and Beverly Greenberg, the Greenberg Junior Faculty (GJF) Grants promote high-quality scholarship (e.g., research, creative activity) by faculty members who are just beginning their careers. GJF grants are intended (1) to provide seed funds for scholarly projects that may be submitted to outside funding agencies or (2) to fund worthwhile scholarly activities of a one-time nature.
  • Eligibility: Full-time tenure-track faculty members who will be within their probationary period, but not within their tenure review year, at the time the awarded funds are used. Normally, a faculty member will not be eligible for more than two awards within the probationary period.
  • Amount of Award: Award recipients are provided with up to $7,550 to be applied toward course releases during the academic year and up to $2,000 for scholarship-related expenses, for a total award of up to $9,550.
  • Number of Awards: Two
  • Selection Criteria: 
    • Originality
    • Potential significance of project outcomes
    • Probability of achieving project outcomes
    • Clarity and coherence of the proposal
    • Budget justification
    • Qualifications of applicant
  • Proposals Due: February
Harrison Faculty Development Grants
  • The Walter Harrison Faculty Development Grants are intended to serve the needs of mid to late career faculty and the University of Hartford by supporting significant scholarly efforts.  These efforts should advance the career of the faculty member, raise the profile of the institution, and advance the mission of the University of Hartford. Funds may be used for purposes consistent with the activities of the grant, including but not limited to:
    • Course releases
    • Conference expenses
    • Technology expenses not supported by other means
    • Software purchases
    • Student research assistants
    • Statistical/ Data Analysis consultant
  • Eligibility: Full-time faculty of the University of Hartford who have been awarded tenure or, in the case of ETC or Clinical/Applied faculty, passed the comprehensive review. Faculty members may not receive a Harrison Grant in conjunction with a Sabbatical Leave or a Coffin Grant. Faculty members are welcome to apply for all three of these funds but may accept only one.
  • Amount of Award: Award recipients are provided with up to $8,000 to be applied towards endeavors described in their application.
  • Number of Awards: Two
  • Selection Criteria
    • Potential to advance the faculty member’s career
    • Potential to raise the public profile of the institution
    • Consistency with the mission of the university and college
    • Clarity and coherence of the proposal
      • Clear goals
      • Verifiable outcomes
      • Clear methods of assessing success
    • Probability of achieving project outcomes
    • Budget justification 
    • Qualifications of the applicant for implementing the project 
  • Proposals Due: February
International Center's Faculty Grants
  • International Center Faculty Grants may be used to internationalize the content of a course, to develop a study abroad component to a course, to present a paper with international content, or to do international research.
  • Eligibility: Full-time faculty
  • Amount of Award: Up to $1,000
  • Number of Awards: Up to seven
  • Selection Criteria: Work that can be shown to have immediate impact on students' experiences in the classroom. This includes proposals to purchase teaching materials or to develop the faculty member's knowledge of particular international topics for inclusion in the curriculum.
    • Work that improves the international understanding of the campus community.
    • Faculty travel for research or presentation at conferences, particularly when this can be shown to foster the international goals of the University and the International Center (e.g., by promoting exchanges, developing new networks, cultivating new student markets or affiliations, etc).
    • Development of study abroad components for currently existing courses or other study abroad experiences for students.
  • Proposals Due: July 1
Sabbatical Leaves
  • The sabbatical project should be one that adds to the strength of the University through the professional development of the faculty member. Faculty members may apply for a one-semester sabbatical or a one-year sabbatical.
  • Eligibility: Full-time tenured faculty members may submit an application for a first sabbatical leave after having completed their sixth year of service at the University of Hartford. In exceptional cases, full-time faculty members serving on extended temporary contracts (see Section 5.3, Extended Temporary Contracts) may submit an application for a first sabbatical leave after having completed their sixth year of service at the University.
  • Amount of Award: As stipulated in the FPM (Section 12.3 [1]), faculty on sabbatical for one semester receive full salary, and faculty on sabbatical for one year will receive 60 percent of their annual salary.
  • Number of Awards: Variable
  • Selection Criteria:
    • The merit of the proposed project
    • How the proposed project will contribute to the strength of the University through the professional development of the applicant
    • The clarity and coherence of the proposal
    • The probability that the applicant can successfully complete the proposed project
  • Proposals Due: Early in the fall semester. Please see website below for detailed timetable. 
Summer Stipends
  • Overseen by the Faculty Senate, the Summer Stipend program is designed to permit free time in the summer to engage in scholarly or creative activity. The expectation is that this released time will be used to produce substantive scholarly or creative work normally leading to publication, performance, or exhibition.
  • Eligibility: Full-time faculty members
  • Amount of Award: Up to $2,500
  • Number of Awards: Variable
  • Selection Criteria
    • Quality and merit of the proposed project
    • Clarity, coherence, and effectiveness of the proposal
    • Probability that the applicant can successfully complete the proposed project
  • Proposals Due: Late January
Vincent B. Coffin Grants
  • Named for the first president of the University of Hartford and overseen by the Faculty Senate, Coffin Grants offset direct expenses associated with the pursuit of substantive scholarly and creative work. Such expenses may include
    • Supplemental travel expenses to a second or third conference, for international travel, or to a conference outside one's discipline.
    • Computer hardware and software
    • Other materials, equipment, and supplies
    • Staff assistance on the project
    • Adjunct replacement costs for one 3-credit course release for one semester
  • Eligibility: Full-time faculty members
  • Amount of Award: Up to $3,000
  • Number of Awards: Variable
  • Selection Criteria
    • Quality and merit of the proposed project
    • Clarity, coherence, and effectiveness of the proposal
    • Probability that the applicant can successfully complete the proposed project
  • Proposals Due: Late January

Books on Teaching and Learning

  • Anderson, L. W., & Kratwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
  • Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Brookfield, S. D. (2006). The skillful teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Erikson, B. L., Peters, C. B., et al. (2006). Teaching first-year college students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Filene, P. (2005). The joy of teaching: A practical guide for new college instructors.Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
  • Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Lang, J. M. (2008). On course: A week-by-week guide to your first semester of college teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • McKeachie, W. J. (2005). Teaching tips: Strategies, research and theory for college and university teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  • Palmer, D. L., & Standerfer, C. Employing civic participation in college teaching designs. College Teaching 54 (4): 122-127.
  • Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Parini, J. (2005). The art of teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom. San Francisco: Anker Publishing.
  • Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Other Resources on Teaching and Learning

Essays on Teaching Excellence

The POD organization has decided to make all of its Essays on Teaching Excellence available
online, free of charge, including Volume 21, the newest collection. Feel free to share this news
and the link below with any colleagues who you feel might benefit from access. Please note that
these essays are available to all; POD membership is not required. It is hoped that this new
resource will help support and promote the work of POD members as well as the organization
itself. Please see the eight titles and authors of Volume 21 below. Look for Volume 22 in late
spring.

Essays on Teaching Excellence | VOLUME 21
  • Facilitating Group Discussions: Understanding Group Development and Dynamics by Kathy Takayama, Brown University
  • Transparent Alignment and Integrated Course Design by David W. Concepción, Ball State University
  • Multiple-Choice Questions You Wouldn’t Put on a Test: Promoting Deep Learning Using Clickers by Derek Bruff, Vanderbilt University
  • Engaging Students, Assessing Learning—Just a Click Away by Linda C. Hodges, Loyola University Maryland
  • Research-Based Strategies to Promote Academic Integrity by Michele DiPietro, Kennesaw State University
  • Using Undergraduate Students as Teaching Assistants by Joseph “Mick” La Lopa, Purdue University
  • The Value of the Narrative Teaching Observation by Niki Young, Western Oregon University
  • Deep/Surface Approaches To Learning In Higher Education: A Research Update by James Rhem, Executive Editor, The National Teaching & Learning FORUM

Workshops

Teaching and Learning Circles
Faculty members are invited to create or join a Teaching and Learning Circle. A faculty member serves as the convener and needs a commitment from 5-10 participants, although sessions are open to anyone. Circles should meet at least six times during the academic year and may focus on any theme or topic related to teaching and learning. Examples include service learning, problem-based learning, case studies, internships, teaching first-year students, and so on. Members of the group take turns sharing ideas, posing questions, or leading discussions. The Office of the Provost provides meeting space, logistical support, and light refreshments.
Past topics have included Service Learning, Teaching First-Year Students, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

Workshops on Collaborative Teaching and Engaged Learning
The Faculty Resource Network (FRN) at New York University is an award-winning professional development initiative that sponsors programs for faculty members from a consortium of over 50 colleges and universities. The Network hosts lectures, symposia, and intensive seminars, all of which are designed to improve the quality of teaching and learning.

Scholar in Residence
The Summer Scholar-in-Residence program allows Network faculty to come to New York University during the month of June to engage in research, develop curricula, and/or produce manuscripts for publication.

The Semester Scholar
in-Residence program allows Network faculty who are either on leave or sabbatical from their home institution to come to New York University to engage in research, develop curricula, and/or produce manuscripts for publication during the Fall or Spring semester.

University Associates
The University Associate (UA) program enables full-time faculty members of Network institutions to come to New York University throughout the academic year to use some of NYU's academic facilities. University Associates can make use of their semester-long tenure by auditing courses, researching in the University libraries, and by participating in open departmental or interdisciplinary colloquia, lectures, symposia and seminars.  University Associates may apply for one or all semesters in the academic year.

Network Winter/ Network Summer
The week-long, intensive seminars are convened by distinguished faculty members from colleges and universities throughout the country. The seminars run concurrently during a week and cover a broad range of disciplines. Through lectures, field trips, presentations, research, hands-on demonstrations, and interactive discussions, participants are exposed to the most recent scholarship in their fields while being given the opportunity to develop teaching and curriculum strategies for direct classroom application.  Successful applicants are provided with housing accommodations, breakfast and lunch, as well as reading materials required for the program.  Participants cover their own travel expenses.

Faculty Center for Learning Development
The Faculty Center for Learning and Development (FCLD) assists faculty with the incorporation of technology and new teaching methods into their established curriculum. The center offers a wide range of seminars on a variety of topics throughout the year, including e-learning and Blackboard, scanning, PowerPoint, copyright, digital video, and emerging technologies for teaching. FCLD also provides instruction and support for classroom applications, such as interactive whiteboards, SMART classrooms, and Personal Response System (a.k.a. clickers). Instructional workshops and seminars may be held at FCLD or, if facilities are available at a location within a particular department, school, or college. Whatever the application or technology, all of FCLD's seminars emphasize teaching first and are designed to engage faculty from all disciplines and all technical skill levels.

Faculty Awards

The HUMPHREY TONKIN AWARD
  • Purpose: Honoring a full-time University of Hartford faculty member for scholarly and/or artistic creativity.
  • Number of Awards: One
  • Deadline: Late January (see website for details)
Donald W. Davis All-University Curriculum Award
  • Purpose: Honoring a faculty member who is an effective interdisciplinary teacher and scholar; has contributed to the UIS program as a whole, for example, through course development; and is an advocate for interdisciplinary education.
  • Number of Awards: One
  • Amount of Award: $1,000
  • Deadline: Early march
Innovations in Teaching and Learning Awards
  • Purpose: Awards recognize innovative assignments and activities, in or out of the classroom, that positively impact student learning. Faculty who team-teach courses may apply as a team.
  • Eligibility: Any full-time faculty member from any school or college regardless of rank or tenure status
  • Number of Awards: Up to five
  • Amount of Award: $500 in faculty development funds
The Roy E. Larsen Award
  • Purpose: Honoring a full-time University of Hartford faculty member for excellence in teaching and contributions to University life.
  • Number of Awards: One
  • Deadline: Late January (see website for details)
Ramsey Award for Creative Excellence
  • Purpose: Named for Gordon Clark Ramsey, who served as secretary to the Faculty Senate for 18 years and was an adjunct instructor in English, history, RLC (Rhetoric, Language, and Culture) and the All-University Curriculum, this award honors the work of dedicated adjuncts who have taught and/or teach at the University of Hartford. An award may be given for either of the following:
    • Proposed scholarly or creative project related to classroom teaching
    • Prior sustained scholarly or creative work related to classroom teaching over several years
    • Eligibility
    • Open to any adjunct or part-time faculty member as defined in the Faculty Senate Bylaws (i.e., one hired under an F3, G3, or F4 contract who has taught or is teaching at the University of Hartford for at least two semesters).
  • Number of Awards: Three
  • Amount of Award: $250
  • Deadline: Spring (see website for details)
The Belle K. Ribicoff Junior Faculty Prize
  • Purpose: Established through a generous gift from Belle K. Ribicoff, a longtime supporter and life regent of the University, this prize recognizes an outstanding junior faculty member-a professor who is in a tenure-track position but is not yet tenured.
  • Eligibility: Faculty from any discipline may be chosen for the Junior Faculty Prize. To be eligible, faculty members must be in a tenure-track position but not yet tenured.
  • Amount of Award: $10,000
  • Deadline: Late March
The Oscar and Shoshana Trachtenberg Award
  • Purpose: Honoring a full-time University of Hartford faculty member for sustained service to the University of Hartford.
  • Number of Awards: One
  • Deadline: Late January (see website for details)
Sustained Excellence in Teaching Award for Part-Time Faculty
  • Purpose: To recognize outstanding contributions to teaching and learning by part-time faculty members.
  • Eligibility: Any part-time faculty member who has taught at least 30 credits at the University of Hartford
  • Number of Awards: Up to five
  • Amount of Award: $500
  • Deadline: Late September (see website for details)
Contact Us
T. Stores
860.768.4938
stores@hartford.edu

The Office of the Provost is dedicated to supporting University of Hartford faculty and their development throughout their career. Visit this website to learn more about grants, workshops, and awards available to University of Hartford faculty members, as well as resources for teaching and scholarships. 

Assessment

What is assessment?

The term assessment has been defined in various ways in the related literature: 
  • Assessment involves the use of empirical data on student learning to refine programs and improve student learning (Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Education, Allen 2003).
  • Assessment is the process of gathering and discussing information from multiple and diverse sources in order to develop a deep understanding of what students know, understand, and can do with their knowledge as a result of their educational experiences; the process culminates when assessment results are used to improve subsequent learning.
  • Assessment is the systematic basis for making inferences about the learning and development of students. It is the process of defining, selecting, designing, collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and using information to increase students’ learning and development (Assessing Student Learning and Development, Erwin 1991).
  • Assessment is the systematic collection, review, and use of information about educational programs undertaken for the purpose of improving student learning and development. (Assessment Essentials, Palomba and Banta 2014)
Common to each of these definitions is the collection, analysis, and use of data to improve teaching and student learning. Assessment can answer questions about the learning of individual students, the effectiveness of a single course or program, or even the entire institution. In general, faculty members have worked hard for many years assessing students at the course-level in an effort to understand what students know and are able to do. Faculty members ordinarily communicate the assessment results to students through grades assigned to tests, projects, papers, or a course. Recently, however, there are increasing calls from a variety of stakeholders to improve upon assessment at the program and universitylevels.

Program-level assessment
focuses on this essential question: What do we expect students in Program X to know and be able to do by the time they complete their studies? At this level, we are concerned about issues such as whether a program fulfills its purposes and whether the courses, individually and collectively, contribute to student outcomes as planned. We are looking here for learning what “sticks,” effecting real change in students, and what can be generalized or transferred beyond a single test or course.

University-level assessment
focuses on this essential question: What do we expect ALL students, regardless of major, to know and be able to do when they graduate? The answers to this question are less specific to a discipline and include more overarching abilities, such as those related to communication (written and oral), critical thinking, and problem solving.

Why do assessments?

In general, faculty members have worked hard for many years assessing students at the course-level in an effort to understand what students in their courses know and are able to do. Recently, however, there are increasing calls from a variety of stakeholders to improve upon assessment at the program and university levels. 

Accrediting Bodies Demand Assessment
Many of our academic programs are accredited by an external, discipline-based organization such as the National Association of Schools of Music or the American Psychological Association.  The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) accredits the University of Hartford across all programs.  There was a time when accreditation at the program and university levels was focused on inputs or the content delivered; we needed to show that our curricula covered certain areas. Now, however, NEASC and virtually every disciplinary accreditation agency have moved to outcome-based accreditation models. NEASC expects that every academic program specify what its graduates will know and be able to do, gather data on the extent to which students know and are able to do those things, and use those data to make program improvements.

Prospective Students and Parents Demand Evidence of Effectiveness
With educational costs rising and the economy slow to recover, students of every category are demanding to see the value proposition for their tuition. They want to know what they will know and what they will be able to do when they graduate, and of course what jobs they can hope to get. Systematic program and university level assessment are essential for addressing those concerns.

When Done Well, Assessment Leads to Program Improvement
This is perhaps the most important reason of all. Assessment at the program and university level requires focus, thought, planning, and steady effort. But when it’s done well, AND when assessment data inform regular conversations about curriculum, key assignments, and teaching methods, programs are bound to be better for the effort. Focusing on these levels of learning helps faculty members move from being solely concerned with “my course” to being concerned about “our program” and “our students.”

Learning outcomes

What is Program Student Learning Outcomes Assessment?
Student learning outcomes assessment at the program-level (or program assessment) is conducted for the purpose of understanding and strengthening the learning that takes place in an academic program as a whole. It provides faculty a means to ask fundamental questions about the programs they design and in which they teach.

By completing a given set of courses and other requirements, do students actually acquire, in the end, the particular knowledge, skills, habits of mind, and attitudes faculty intend? If not—or if not fully enough—what pedagogical and curricular reforms can be undertaken to improve student learning?
Assessment of student learning outcomes at the program level is based on aggregate data about student learning collected at various points in a program. Program assessment is to be distinguished from assessment of individual student learning at the course level, which results in feedback to students about their learning and grades.

Responsibilities of Academic Programs

The university assesses first year writing with the AACU rubric by sampling 25% of the students in RPW 110 each year. 

Programs will be assessed on these two essential outcomes every four years, following a schedule available from the Office of the Provost.

Annual Requirements
All undergraduate programs have been charged with identifying a product or products to be assessed for both Writing and Critical Thinking during the senior year.  When a program is scheduled for assessment, the faculty member in whose course the product is produced collects a sample of the products.  Sample size will be communicated ahead of time, but generally it is 25% of the seniors, but no less than 10 (unless there are fewer than 10 seniors, in which case they are all collected.  The product should be de-identified (any student identifiers removed) and instead given a number.  It is best to collect these products before they are graded, but if they have been graded all comments and grades should also be redacted.

The products are assessed separately for Written Communication and Critical Thinking.  The assessment should be conducted by a faculty member other than the one who assigned it.  Training workshops are help each spring to familiarize faculty members with the rubrics.  For Written Communication, faculty members who are new to the process will be paired with experienced writing coders.  For Critical Thinking, two members of the department should score the products and discuss their scores. 

All assessment results are reported to the Coordinator of Assessment using a spreadsheet designed for the purpose.  Since these spreadsheets are used to produce reports for colleges, we ask that they not be adapted or altered.

Essential learning outcomes

What are Essential Learning Outcomes?
Essential learning outcomes describe what every undergraduate should know and be able to do upon graduation, regardless of major. In order to achieve that goal, students need to be given opportunities to acquire and practice the knowledge and skills identified as “essential” in both their general education and in their disciplinary majors or programs of study.  

The selection of these outcomes has been a subject of discussion in a University committee for several years, and is currently under discussion as part of the Strategic Plan (goal one).  In principle, the university has chosen four essential outcomes for the time being:
  • Written communication
  • Oral communication
  • Quantitative literacy
  • Critical thinking

These outcomes, and their assessment, are being phased in over time.  As of the Fall of 2014, assessment methods have been chosen for Written Communication and Critical Thinking.

Responsibilities of Academic Programs
The university assesses first year writing with the AACU rubric by sampling 25% of the students in RPW 110 each year. 

Programs will be assessed on these two essential outcomes every four years, following a schedule available from the Office of the Provost.

Annual Requirements
All undergraduate programs have been charged with identifying a product or products to be assessed for both Writing and Critical Thinking during the senior year.  When a program is scheduled for assessment, the faculty member in whose course the product is produced collects a sample of the products.  Sample size will be communicated ahead of time, but generally it is 25% of the seniors, but no less than 10 (unless there are fewer than 10 seniors, in which case they are all collected.  The product should be de-identified (any student identifiers removed) and instead given a number.  It is best to collect these products before they are graded, but if they have been graded all comments and grades should also be redacted.

The products are assessed separately for Written Communication and Critical Thinking.  The assessment should be conducted by a faculty member other than the one who assigned it.  Training workshops are help each spring to familiarize faculty members with the rubrics.  For Written Communication, faculty members who are new to the process will be paired with experienced writing coders.  For Critical Thinking, two members of the department should score the products and discuss their scores. 

All assessment results are reported to the Coordinator of Assessment using a spreadsheet designed for the purpose.  Since these spreadsheets are used to produce reports for colleges, we ask that they not be adapted or altered.

Start Your UHart Journey Now