Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Teaching and Learning Center

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Discipline-Based Teaching and Learning Center

Abstract

Program evaluation plays an important role in all developmental stages of a teaching and learning center. This evaluation informs program development, provides feedback for program improvement, and documents the impact of a center for accountability purposes (Plank & Kalish, 2010). Our first step in creating our Teaching and Learning Center (TLC) for chemistry and biology faculty was to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment. We collected information about existing professional development initiatives in teaching and learning, plans and goals for future initiatives, and ongoing challenges within the departments. This initial needs assessment shaped the TLC’s mission and planning. In addition, it has enabled us to tailor TLC programming to enhance existing initiatives and establish new initiatives based on our stakeholders’ goals and needs. Ongoing assessment has been integrated into all aspects of TLC programming and services to provide feedback on five different attributes: participation, satisfaction, learning, application, and overall impact (Colbeck, 2003; Kirkpatrick, 1994). This iterative process has informed our program planning and helped us to refine our activities over time. In this chapter, we discuss the role of program evaluation for a teaching and learning center and illustrate with examples from our evaluations of the TLC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The design of the STEP-pilot was informed by some items from the Higher Education Research Institute’s (HERI) faculty survey (Hurtado, Eagan, Pryor, Whang, & Tran, 2012). The HERI survey is available at www.heri.ucla.edu.

References

  • Aikenhead, G. S., Fleming, R. W., & Ryan, A. G. (1987). High-school graduates beliefs about science-technology-society. 1. Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71(2), 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument—Views on science-technology-society (Vosts). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2011). Vision and change: A call to action. Washington, DC: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952–978. doi:10.1002/Tea.10053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, A. E., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2013). The future of faculty development: Where are we going? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 133, 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, A. E., Sorcinelli, M. D., & McDaniels, M. (2007). Understanding new faculty: Background, aspirations, challenges, and growth. In R. Perry & J. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 39–89). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer Commission on Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America–s research universities. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York at Stony Brook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, M. A., & Crosby, R. (1997). Academic program evaluation: Lessons from business and industry. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(3), 81–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Kelley, B., & Haggar, F. (2013). Assessing faculty development programs: Outcome-based evaluation. Journal Centers for Teaching and Learning, 5, 107–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colbeck, C. L. (2003). Measures of success: An evaluator’s perspective. Paper presented at the CIRTL Forum, Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. doi:10.1080/0950069032000076652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, L. (2013). Innovative ways of assessing faculty development. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2013(133), 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G., Knapper, C., & Piccinin, S. (2008). Disciplinary and contextually appropriate approaches to leadership of teaching in research-intensive academic departments in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 416–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., . . . Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, S. R. (2009). Investigating faculty development program assessment practices: What’s being done and how can it be improved. Journal of Faculty Development, 23(3), 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hora, M., & Ferrare, J. (2014). The teaching dimensions observation protocol (TDOP) 2.0. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurtado, S., Eagan, K., Pryor, J. H., Whang, H., & Tran, S. (2012). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2010–2011 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucsera, J. V., & Svinicki, M. (2010). Rigorous evaluations of faculty development programs. Journal of Faculty Development, 24(2), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson-Rose, J., & Menges, R. J. (1981). Improving college teaching: A critical review of research. Review of Educational Research, 51(3), 403–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., McAdams, K., Benson, S., Briken, V., Cathcart, L., Chase, M., . . . Smith, A. (2010). A model for using a concept inventory as a tool for students’ assessment and faculty professional development. CBE Life Science Education, 9, 408–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., McGinnis, J. R., Pease, R., Dai, A., Schalk, K. A., & Benson, S. (2009). Promoting science for all by way of student interest in an undergraduate microbiology course for non-majors. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 10, 58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., Schaefer, K. L., Kumi, B. C., Friedman, L. A., Thompson, K. V., & Doyle, M. P. (2012). Development and evaluation of a prep course for chemistry graduate teaching assistants at a research university. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(7), 865–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., Schaefer, K. L., & Thompson, K. V. (2012). Faculty teaching philosophies, reported practices, and concerns inform the design of professional development activities of a disciplinary teaching and learning center. Journal on Centers for Teaching and Learning, 4, 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., Schaefer Ziemer, K. L., Thompson, K. V., & Orgler, M. (2013). New instructor teaching experience in a research-intensive university. Journal on Centers for Teaching and Learning, 5, 49–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., Shields, P. A., Kent, B. W., Higgins, B., & Thompson, K. V. (2010). Team teaching of a prep course for graduate teaching assistants. Studies in Graduate and Professional Students Development, 13, 44–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., Shaefer-Ziemer, K., Orgler, M., & Thompson, K. (2014, in press). Science teaching beliefs and reported approaches within a research university: Perspectives from faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2003). National Research Council, Bio 2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation (NSF). (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation (NSF).

    Google Scholar 

  • Plank, K. M., & Kalish, A. (2010). Program assessment for faculty development. In K. J. Gillespie & D. L. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (2nd ed., pp. 135–150). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf

  • Quardokus, K., & Henderson, C. (2014). Using department-level social networks to inform instructional change initiatives. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) annual meeting, Pittsburg, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, D. L. (2010). Establishing an educational development program. In K. J. Gillespie & D. L. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (2nd ed., pp. 35–52). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4),299–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senkevitch, E., Marbach-Ad, G., Smith, A. C., & Song, S. (2011). Using primary literature to engage student learning in scientific research and writing. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 12, 144–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618–627. doi:10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2008). The genetics concept assessment: A new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics. CBE Life Science Education, 7(4), 422–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorcinelli, M. D. (2002). Ten principles of good practice in creating and sustaining teaching and learning centers. In K. H. Gillespie, L. R. Hilsen, & E. C. Wadsworth (Eds.), A guide to faculty development: Practical advice, examples, and resources (pp. 9–23). Bolton, MA: Anker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Addy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stufflebeam, D. L., Madaus, G. F., & Kellaghan, T. (2000). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (Vol. 49). Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A. (2011). Top 10 reasons students dislike working in groups … and why I do it anyway. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39 (2), 219–220, 39(2), 219–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J. E., Hursh, D., Lankewicz, G., & Tang, L. (1996). Monitoring the pulse of the faculty: Needs assessment in faculty development programs. In L. Richlin (Ed.), To improve the academy (Vol. 15, pp. 95–113). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Maryland Office of the Provost. (2011). In Mission and Goals Statement University of Maryland, College Park. Retrieved from http://www.provost.umd.edu/Documents/UMCP-Mission-Statement-Final-2011.pdf. (Ed.).

  • Wieman, C. (2007). Why not try a scientific approach to science education? Change. http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/September-October%202007/index.html

  • Wieman, C., Perkins, K., & Gilbert, S. (2010). Transforming science education at large research universities: A case study in progress. Change. http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/March-April%202010/transforming-science-full.html

  • Wright, M. C. (2011). Measuring a teaching center’s effectiveness measuring a teaching center’s effectiveness. In C. E. Cook & M. Kaplan (Eds.), Advancing the culture of teaching on campus: How a teaching center can make a difference (pp. 38–49). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Gili Marbach-Ad, Laura C. Egan & Katerina V. Thompson

Authors
  1. Gili Marbach-Ad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura C. Egan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katerina V. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Marbach-Ad, G., Egan, L.C., Thompson, K.V. (2015). Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Teaching and Learning Center. In: A Discipline-Based Teaching and Learning Center. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01652-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation