- A center for teaching excellence can ease the transition to the 21st century classroom by responding to faculty needs.
- The University of South Carolina's Center for Teaching Excellence investigated faculty's training needs in order to integrate technology into the classroom.
- A survey of assistance needed, including support and training, resulted in suggestions for helping faculty integrate technology pedagogy.
Teaching students in the 21st century has new implications for today's classroom at all educational levels. Accompanying these implications are expectations that faculty must engage students through instructional strategies and activities of value to students. Twenty-first century learners live in an age of new technologies and information sharing. Cell phones, laptops, handheld PCs, electronic devices, and social online communities are a few examples of students' constant immersion in technology (see Figure 1). The exception to this constant exposure can be found in the classroom. One might reasonably ask, "How are faculty integrating technology into the curriculum to enhance learning?"
Figure 1. Students Use Ultra-portable Tablet PCs, iPhones, and Kindle E-Book Readers
The integration of technology at the postsecondary level varies from campus to campus depending on funding, student populations, and faculty interest. Recent studies suggest that although some schools have technology tools available to teachers, "variables such as availability of time, support, and staff development can either hinder or further the process."1 The use of faculty development programs or centers for teaching excellence as a means to train and familiarize faculty with technology can be effective in achieving 21st century learning. Furthermore, when a center for teaching excellence can assess the needs of faculty in pursuit of technology innovation, teaching may improve and more learning outcomes might be achieved. The University of South CarolinaCenter for Teaching Excellence surveyed faculty to obtain information about their specific needs in the areas of online, classroom, and software tools to enhance learning.
The everyday use of technology in the business and social environment provides for a "pedagogical shift."2 As the transformation begins in schools and classrooms across the nation, many postsecondary faculty are encouraged to integrate new technology through instructional strategies in an effort to help students achieve course learning outcomes. As students arrive on campus, they come "with the expectation that technology will play a major role in their education, and as consumers they demand the same service quality that they demand elsewhere: lower costs, better service, higher quality, and a mix of products that satisfy their definition of a good education."3
However, faculty may develop increased apprehension when the pressure to integrate technology within the curriculum encounters a lack of familiarity with technology. Moreover, the lack of research, training, and support can lead to resistance and reluctance to use newer technologies.4 Yet, whose responsibility is it to provide faculty with training and support for technology implementation? Is it faculty's responsibility to acquire the knowledge or the institution's responsibility to provide it? "Teachers cannot — and should not — be expected to increase their learning, without the materials and resources required to do so."5 As students' learning styles transform along with changes in technology, the roles and responsibilities of faculty may need redefining.
Redefining the role of the faculty to match the needs of technology-savvy students entails a type of pedagogical shift that requires reexamining the role of the traditional teacher.6 While some faculty take the initiative to become life-long learners, others might need more guidance and encouragement. Ambiguity arises when discussing compensation for taking on new responsibilities, meeting new expectations, and obtaining tenure and/or promotion. With the "rapid and unpredictable" cost of time, money, and effort in creating new workload models to support new technologies, faculty find the implementation of such technology frustrating.7 "Despite good planning, there is a steep 'learning curve' and a high risk of error inherent in true innovation."8 Moreover, increasing expectations of faculty without providing adequate training and support can lead to poor faculty retention.9
An international study covering faculty development programs from eight different countries found that proper faculty training "can increase the extent to which faculty take student-focused approaches to teaching and can, thereby, improve their students' approaches to learning."10 When targeting 21st century learners, implementing technology should have strong implications for better learning outcomes.11 If implementing technology has the potential to change how students learn, then the implementation must occur so that students are "empowered to succeed as lifelong learners in an information-rich environment."12
The demands of producing research often distract faculty at research universities from improving teaching excellence.13 In response, universities have developed faculty committees, programs, or centers to improve teaching and thus more effectively improve student performance.14 Communities where faculty can share ideas and collaborate were a product of the 1970s, when universities were encouraged to create programs to improve teaching excellence.15 Such communities have evolved over time into centers for teaching excellence or a variety of teaching support areas spread throughout various units within universities. However, many faculty are at different developmental stages in striving for teaching excellence. It has been noted that teachers must transition from Stage 1, teaching is telling; to Stage 2, teaching is hoping students will learn; through Stage 3, teaching is transmitting knowledge; and on to Stage 4, teaching is a complex interaction which is unique and dynamic.16 Therefore, teaching centers should offer a variety of programs such as:
- Observing and consulting in the classroom
- Resources on teaching
- Campus events, lectures, and workshops
- Grants for developing new courses, conducting research on teaching, or investigating instructional strategies
- Mentoring programs for teaching improvement, tenure, and promotion17
Centers for teaching excellence must provide assistance in the transition as faculty become better teachers. Programs must also transition from a supportive resource to a large-scale development program. Columbia College Chicago has completed this transition by providing a range of opportunities for part-time and tenure-track faculty:
"Like teaching and learning centers elsewhere, our center approaches faculty development as an ongoing reflective practice for all faculty at all stages of their career, not simply as remediation for faculty in difficulty, nor reserved for faculty new to teaching."18
The center for teaching excellence at Columbia College Chicago emphasizes the need for faculty to utilize the center for unfamiliar territories, content, and practices.19
A transformative concept in 21st century teaching in higher education is moving from teacher-centered to learner-centered instruction. States are implementing rigorous technology integration programs at the secondary level that contain a student-centered conceptual framework through grants like the Target Tech in Texas (T3) Collaborative grant. The students who then enter postsecondary schools will expect a technology-enhanced education. The T3 grant application20 describes the 21st century classroom:
- As "students who have access to appropriate technology and digital resources for technology-integrated curriculum activities on the campus, in the district, at home, or key locations in the community"
- As "teachers who seamlessly integrate technology in a student-centered learning environment where technology is used to solve real-world problems in collaboration with business, industry and higher education"
- Where "teachers and students apply technology across all subject areas to provide learning opportunities that are not possible without the technology"
With ongoing encouragement for technology integration in the secondary classroom from the local and federal level, universities must ensure they are prepared to receive incoming students who are conditioned to consistent, technology-rich exposure and instruction. Centers for teaching excellence can play a vital role in the development of effective teaching faculty.
- Enhance the pedagogical knowledge and effectiveness of all who teach at USC
- Help new faculty establish a foundation for a lifetime of excellent teaching
- Help graduate students who teach or who want to teach be efficient and effective
- Enable the wise use of instructional technologies to enhance student learning
- Increase and leverage support for programs that promote teaching excellence
The Center for Teaching Excellence provides seminars, workshops, and grants to assist in the achievement of these goals (see Figure 2). In addition, University Technology Services (UTS) at USC provides centralized and distributed computing and telecommunications for academic, research, and administrative use to support the university's mission and meet the needs of the faculty, staff, and students. Teaching and Technology Services (TTS) is a unit within UTS that provides advanced academic support to the university community in core technologies used for instruction and research, including Blackboard, Adobe Connect, Flashlight, SAS, SPSS, and more.
Figure 2. The Center for Teaching Excellence Sponsors Workshops, Colloquia, and Communities of Practice
The Center for Teaching Excellence and TTS collaborate to provide faculty development sessions at the semi-annual Blackboard and Educational Software Technology (BEST) Institute and through workshops and communities of practice throughout the year. The BEST Institute assists faculty in learning about traditional and innovative technologies to integrate into their teaching. Associate directors of the Center for Teaching Excellence and TTS serve as session presenters during the BEST Institute (see Figure 3). For example, TTS helps faculty increase their awareness and understanding of podcasting through iTunes U sessions, and the Center for Teaching Excellence helps faculty understand why using podcasting may benefit students learning course content. The Center for Teaching Excellence has also developed communities of practice in the areas of tablet PCs, online learning, and service learning, in which TTS staff have played a key role.
Figure 3. The BEST Institute Holds Technical and Pedagogical Sessions
Since one of the Center for Teaching Excellence's programmatic goals is the support of teaching with technology, and since teaching excellence ultimately improves student learning, the center delved into researching more specific ways to assist faculty with their needs for successful technology implementation. Tena Crews, associate director of Technology Pedagogy, in coordination with Christine Brown, director of TTS, created a web-based survey to give faculty, instructors, and graduate assistants the opportunity to indicate the level at which they needed guidance or support in implementing technology-related tools for instruction.
Completion of the survey was encouraged through a variety of campus e-mail lists. The survey gave participants the opportunity to anonymously provide feedback on specific technologies in the following categories:
- Online tools
- Classroom tools
- Software tools
Survey participants provided feedback on survey items in the above three categories using the following five-point Likert scale: 5 = I want to use, but need help; 4 = I use, but need new ideas; 3 = I use and am comfortable, and I do not need help; 2 = I don't want to use; or 1 = I don't know what this is.
Participants were also asked to provide feedback on the level of helpfulness of different types of support and training using the following five-point Likert scale: 5 = Extremely helpful; 4 = Helpful; 3 = Somewhat helpful; 2 = Not helpful; or 1 = I don't know what this is. Additionally, the survey included space for respondents to enter responses to open-ended questions on how the Center for Teaching Excellence could provide additional support to further enhance faculty's teaching skills.
The technology needs assessment survey was completed by 197 respondents. Approximately 77 percent were faculty, 11 percent were instructors,22 and 2 percent were graduate assistants. The remaining respondents selected "other" or did not respond to the question. The only other demographic information gathered related to the campus on which the respondents were housed. The majority of respondents were on the main campus as opposed to regional or other campuses. Table 1 provides an overview of the survey participants' perception of the level of assistance they need to implement online tools.
Table 1. Level of Assistance Needed to Implement Online Tools
|Online Tools||I want to use, but need help (5)||I use, but need new ideas (4)||I use and am comfortable; I do not need help (3)||I don't want to use (2)||I don't know what this is (1)||No Response|
|Blogs (e-journaling, Blogspot)||24.37%||9.64%||8.12%||52.79%||3.55%||1.52%|
|Course management systems (Blackboard, Moodle)||12.69%||34.52%||43.15%||7.11%||1.52%||1.02%|
|E-portfolios (through Blackboard, web page)||30.96%||8.63%||4.57%||25.89%||27.92%||2.03%|
|Instant messaging (AOL)||10.15%||2.54%||14.72%||68.53%||2.54%||1.52%|
|Online lectures with audio (PowerPoint)||27.92%||13.2%||23.35%||31.98%||1.52%||2.03%|
|Online lectures with video (Breeze, Camtasia)||31.47%||12.18%||11.68%||35.53%||7.11%||2.03%|
|Podcasts (video/lecture viewed on computer, iPod)||39.09%||4.57%||6.6%||42.13%||4.06%||3.55%|
|Streaming video (web-based video)||17.86%||35.00%||22.86%||17.14%||5.00%||2.14%|
|Surveys (Blackboard, Flashlight, Survey Monkey)||38.07%||11.17%||20.30%||23.86%||6.09%||0.51%|
|iPod or similar product with audio only||21.32%||2.54%||9.64%||58.88%||5.08%||2.54%|
|IPod or similar product with video||24.37%||2.03%||7.61%||57.87%||4.06%||4.06%|
|Assigned space for social networking (web page, Breeze meeting, Facebook)||25.89%||8.63%||10.15%||50.25%||3.55%||1.52%|
|Wikis (through Blackboard, wikispaces.com)||26.90%||10.15%||8.12%||29.44%||21.83%||3.55%|
When asked about the level of assistance participants needed to make use of online tools, nearly 53 percent of respondents indicated no interest in implementing blogs in the classroom. Approximately 59 percent recorded having no interest in using iPods with audio or similar products. About 40 percent of instructors would like to integrate podcasts into their teaching but need help, while 42 percent do not want to use this online tool. Whether faculty preferred to use online lectures was evenly split between those who do not want to use them and those that want to use them but need help. However, 35 percent of the faculty use streaming video, but need new ideas for continued implementation. Many faculty (43 percent) indicated they were comfortable using the university's course management system (Blackboard), but 35 percent felt they needed help with new ideas. Although a large number of faculty do not want to use e-portfolios, those who do report that they need help. Additionally, 28 percent of the respondents indicated they do not understand the term e-portfolio. Therefore, a program to increase awareness and additional training opportunities might be necessary.
Participants were asked to rate their need for assistance in utilizing technology-based classroom tools. Table 2 shows the results.
Table 2. Level of Assistance Needed for Utilizing Classroom Tools
|Classroom Tools||I want to use, but need help (5)||I use, but need new ideas (4)||I use and am comfortable; I do not need help (3)||I don't want to use (2)||I don't know what this is (1)||No Response|
|Classroom response systems (iClicker, etc.)||33.5%||3.55%||8.12%||35.53%||17.26%||2.03%|
|Document camera (Elmo)||12.18%||6.6%||31.98%||18.27%||28.43%||2.54%|
|Electronic whiteboard (Smartboard)||41.62%||4.57%||10.15%||19.8%||21.32%||2.54%|
|Interactive pen display (Sympodium)||23.86%||1.52%||9.14%||21.32%||42.13%||2.03%|
The highest percentage (31.98 percent) of participants using one of the classroom technology-based tools in which they feel comfortable and do not need help are those who are implementing document cameras in their classrooms. However, respondents indicated a strong interest in implementing electronic whiteboards and student response systems (SRSs), but need assistance or training (approximately 42 percent and 34 percent, respectively). About 42 percent of participants are unfamiliar with interactive pen displays.
These results indicated a need for research into the cost and availability of electronic whiteboards and student response systems, as well as a need for development of training and support programs for these tools. In response to these findings, the Center for Teaching Excellence worked with an SRS vendor to demonstrate their product and provided faculty with a technology grant to experiment with the tools. As a condition of this grant, recipients were expected to share innovative ideas and new approaches to teaching that they developed using SRS technology. Table 3 provides information regarding the third category of the survey, which included the level of assistance needed for implementing software tools.
Table 3. Level of Assistance Needed to Use Software Tools
|Software Tools||I want to use, but need help (5)||I use, but need new ideas (4)||I use and am comfortable; I do not need help (3)||I don't want to use (2)||I don't know what this is (1)||No Response|
|Screen/voice capture (Camtasia, Captivate, Jing)||29.44%||7.11%||10.66%||22.34%||29.44%||1.02%|
|Web page design (Dreamweaver)||42.64%||7.11%||19.8%||23.86%||5.08%||1.52%|
|Word processing (Word)||4.57%||7.11%||83.25%||3.05%||0.0%||2.03%|
Approximately 43 percent of participants reported wanting to use web page design software in their teaching, but feel they need assistance. Sixty percent or more of respondents reported using and not needing help with e-mail, presentation software, and spreadsheet software. More than 83 percent of respondents reported using and not needing help with word processing software. Approximately 30 percent of participants are not familiar with screen- or voice-capture software, while nearly 30 percent reported wanting to use such software but needed help.
The last category on the survey asked respondents to identify which types of training and support were most helpful. Table 4 provides the results.
Table 4. Helpfulness of Different Types of Training and Support
|Type of Support/Training||Extremely Helpful (5)||Helpful (4)||Somewhat Helpful (3)||Not Helpful (2)||I don't know what this is (1)||No Response|
|Session for department, college, senior campus, regional campus (brainstorming)||21.83%||32.99%||19.8%||16.75%||5.58%||3.05%|
|CD-ROM/DVD training (self-paced training)||15.23%||28.93%||26.9%||21.32%||4.57%||3.05%|
|Online synchronous meetings (Breeze)||8.12%||20.30%||24.37%||23.86%||21.32%||2.03%|
|Online asynchronous meetings (Breeze)||10.66%||17.77%||21.83%||22.84%||22.34%||4.57%|
|One-time events (faculty forums by current faculty, experts in the field)||22.34%||40.61%||19.29%||12.18%||3.05%||2.54%|
|Series of meetings (community of practice with face-to-face sessions)||26.40%||32.99%||22.34%||13.2%||3.05%||2.03%|
|Streaming video (Internet-based training)||17.86%||35.0%||22.86%||17.14%||5.0%||2.14%|
|Written web resources (information on Center for Teaching Excellence website)||21.83%||30.96%||27.41%||12.69%||3.55%||3.55%|
Results indicate participants favor face-to-face training; the following types of training received the highest responses as being helpful or extremely helpful:
- One-time events, such as faculty forums run by current faculty or experts in the field (62.95 percent)
- Series of meetings, specifically a community of practice with face-to-face sessions (59.30 percent)
- Session for department, college, senior campus, or regional campus for brainstorming (54.82 percent)
- CD-ROM/DVD video training (54.16 percent)
However, over 50 percent of respondents reported they find Internet-based training with written web resources extremely helpful or helpful. Those considered least helpful included online synchronous and asynchronous meetings.
Participants were also asked to list any suggestions to help the university understand their needs to enhance their teaching. Comments were analyzed and grouped into themes, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Suggestions from Participants
|Theme||Quotes from Respondents|
|Technology is needed in more classrooms|| |
"All these technology initiatives are great, but very few classrooms are equipped with the equipment."
"There are still classrooms on campus without data projectors and that have old blackboards with chalk. I think getting rid of those should be a first priority. I also would like there to be more smartboards, or at least data projectors that project onto whiteboards so that I can mark up slides."
|Faculty need discipline-specific assistance||"I don't need help using the technology, I need advice on how to integrate these things into a health sciences curriculum. It wasn't a choice, but I wanted to pick I am comfortable with it, don't use, but need ideas."|
|Offer training at a variety of times|| |
"…training sessions are ALWAYS in the middle of my teaching assignments."
"Please continue to alternate the days and times of these events as some faculty teach Tuesdays and Thursdays at lunch time and cannot attend at that time. I personally was not able to attend several sessions that I was interested in because of a class conflict."
|Offer training sessions that assist various skill levels||"One challenge with the topic of technology in education is that we, as faculty, might believe we know how to use a specific educational tool but this is more because we are not aware of all the capabilities of the tool."|
|Provide more incentives (rewards/awards that recognize innovation or technology integration)|| |
"I would suggest that also two teaching awards be given. One for the people who teach traditional face-to-face and one for teachers who innovate and teach through distance. We need to understand the challenges of distance education and rise to those challenges for meeting the needs of our students."
"Give incentives to faculty for effectively integrating more technology into teaching."
|Provide additional institutional support|| |
"We need more technicians to keep this equipment working and be available to help set up. Often there is a problem that the portable equipment does not work or has been set differently by a former user and I can't figure it out."
"Based on my experiences, I think we need more support people, so that:
1. TVs and other equipment could be delivered to the rooms, rather than having faculty picking them up.
2. Support staff could explain the use of the equipment without having to attend to so many other crises at the same time.
3. Equipment could be checked regularly and repaired (including simple things like burned out bulbs, missing remotes, etc. that render the equipment unusable)."
Participants were also asked to list any challenges they face in their teaching. These comments were analyzed and grouped into themes. Table 6 provides these themes and sample comments.
Table 6. Challenges Participants Face in Teaching
|Adapting teaching style to include technology|| |
"Using the technology in the most effective ways (i.e., not just to use the technology for technology's sake, but actually improving student learning)"
"Volume of information versus time to lecture; hence, how to convey and be efficient with time"
|Lack of technology in the classroom|| |
"Knowing what technology is out there to use; how to use it; feeling comfortable enough to use it independently"
"Lack of technology readily available in the classrooms where I teach"
". . . my biggest challenge, hearing about so many things that will be useful (and having the experience of using them at my previous university) and not being able to use them because of limited resources in the classroom"
|Adequate support||"The biggest obstacle to trying something new is needing help while you're in the process. If you offer trainings, what would be really valuable would be a person or community to call afterwards when I have problems during the semester and need rapid, short term help."|
|Lack of time, or should I take the time?|| |
"Prep time, and access to intermediate/advanced technical resources (video editing and integration, for example)"
"There needs to be value placed on teaching. My college only values research, so time spent enhancing teaching jeopardizes my tenure process. So while this is all great stuff, anyone in the tenure system really should not take time to do so, or they will not get tenure."
|Student engagement|| |
"The biggest challenge of late is the indifference of so many of my students."
"In our college, we are preparing for fall where we will have some classes of 200 (divided into 2 rooms with one receiving videostream) plus 30 distance ed students at 2 separate locations. I use a lot of active learning, group work, etc."
"[I] would love input on ways to adapt and make work some of my current class activities."
"Having technology advance teaching, rather than interfere (as when students spend class time surfing the web)."
"Difficult to engage the students during the lectures. Tools that keep them engaged (such as answering questions electronically) would help, also to assess the way in which the material is delivered."
Participants in this survey described their biggest challenges for implementing technology as:
- Time constraints for preparing new lectures that integrate technology, or learning new technology in order to implement it effectively
- Lack of knowledge about new and available technologies
- Lack of new and available technologies at the institution
- Engaging students using technology
While some challenges lie in redefining the role of the faculty and the use of technology, other challenges may surface from inadequate training and support on behalf of the institution.
Findings in this study further reveal participants have little interest in using some tools in the classroom, but indicated a strong interest (30 percent or higher) in learning more about e-portfolios, online lectures with video, podcasts, and survey tools. This study is limited to the online, classroom, and software tools noted in the survey, but items that could be included in a follow-up survey should include Twitter and other Web 2.0 technologies applicable to the classroom.
When asked about utilizing classroom tools, respondents reported feeling most comfortable with their current use of document cameras. Participants also revealed a strong interest in learning about electronic whiteboards and some disinterest in using classroom response systems. Results also revealed that participants are comfortable and do not need help with word processing, presentation, and e-mail software. However, 43 percent of the respondents reported needing assistance in learning web page design software.
Participants identified face-to-face training as a preference when learning about new technologies. Such training sessions could include brainstorming sessions, a series of meetings, and one-time events. Slight inconsistency with responses and comments provided suggest some faculty are not aware of the capabilities of the various technologies, although that conclusion is not clear in the study results.
This survey has not only provided the Center for Teaching Excellence with information about online, classroom, and software tools, it has made the director and staff aware of faculty's changing needs. An expansion to the University of South Carolina Center for Teaching Excellence events has also led to Power Lunches for new faculty designed to assist them with teaching needs and to help them stay on track for tenure and promotion through their research. These events are supported by the vice provost for faculty development. This support keeps an emphasis on the importance of excellence in teaching and research.
Implications and Future Research
Results from this survey provide the Center for Teaching Excellence and TTS with pertinent information for improving training and pedagogical sessions for faculty, along with data essential for internal planning and strategy development for the center and for future BEST Institutes. Analyzing the data has led the Center for Teaching Excellence and TTS to implement more sessions, including those during new faculty orientation, specifically designed to help faculty use technology to increase teaching efficiency and save time. Both the Center for Teaching Excellence and TTS are involved in new faculty orientation through a variety of sessions.
The survey results have also helped stimulate conversation about involving more faculty to serve as session presenters at the Center for Teaching Excellence and during the BEST Institute. Many faculty are implementing technology in useful ways to enhance student learning, and faculty can learn from other faculty who have seen results in their own classrooms. Discussions have occurred between the Center for Teaching Excellence and TTS to reinstate a university-wide technology conference to allow innovative faculty to showcase their successes. This would not only provide incentives to try new technology and techniques, but would serve as a vehicle to promote awareness of the tools available to faculty and the ways these tools can be used to enhance teaching and learning. Such a technology conference would broaden the impact of seminars, sessions, and workshops to meet all of the faculty needs noted through this study and provide recognition for innovative teaching with technology.
Other institutions may learn from this research and identify the importance of meeting faculty needs on their own campuses. Centers for teaching excellence at other universities can draw from the data provided to offer seminars, workshops, grants, and other opportunities for their faculty to enhance their teaching. Other centers for teaching excellence could also develop their own needs assessment survey, whether based on technology or on seminars and workshops specific to their faculty's needs.
Further research to support this study should be conducted to measure whether the Center for Teaching Excellence and BEST Institute events developed based on this data have met the needs of faculty and improved the use of technology in the classroom. Additionally, we recommend conducting research on the departmental, unit, and administrative levels to measure willingness to invest in new technologies and their support.
- Mark Windschitl and Kurt Sahl, "Tracing Teachers' Use of Technology in a Laptop Computer School: The Interplay of Teacher Beliefs, Social Dynamics, and Institutional Culture," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 39, no. 1 (Spring 2002), pp. 165–205.
- Helen Easterling Williams, "Redefining Teacher Education Programs for the 21st Century," Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, vol. 26, no. 3 (March 20, 2009).
- Polly S. Owen and Ada Demb, "Change Dynamics and Leadership in Technology Implementation," Journal of Higher Education, vol. 75, no. 6 (November/December 2004), pp. 636–666.
- Melissa A. Rasberry and Girija Mahajan, "From Isolation to Collaboration: Promoting Teacher Leadership Through PLCs," Center for Teaching Quality (September 2008).
- Williams, "Redefining Teacher Education Programs for the 21st Century."
- Owen and Demb, "Change Dynamics and Leadership in Technology Implementation."
- Rasberry and Mahajan, "From Isolation to Collaboration."
- Greg Light and Susanna Calkins, "The Experience of Faculty Development: Patterns of Variation in Conceptions of Teaching," International Journal for Academic Development, vol. 13, no. 1 (March 2007), pp. 27–40.
- Williams, "Redefining Teacher Education Programs for the 21st Century."
- Owen and Demb, "Change Dynamics and Leadership in Technology Implementation."
- Susan H. Frost and Daniel Teodorescu, "Teaching Excellence: How Faculty Guided Change at a Research University," Review of Higher Education, vol. 24, no. 4 (Summer 2001), pp. 397–415.
- Sharon Feiman, "Evaluating Teacher Centers," The School Review, vol. 85, no. 3 (May 1977), pp. 395–411.
- Thomas M. Sherman, L. P. Armistead, Forest Fowler, M. A. Barksdale, and Glenn Reif, "The Quest for Excellence in University Teaching," Journal of Higher Education, vol. 58, no. 1 (January/February 1987), pp. 66–84.
- James M. Lang, "Support Your Local Teaching Center," Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 53, no. 47 (July 27, 2007).
- Lott Hill, Soo La Kim, and Robert Lagueux, "Faculty Collaboration as Faculty Development," AAC&U Peer Review, vol. 9, no. 4 (Fall 2007, pp. 17–19.
- Application Guidelines, Part 2: Program Guidelines, Target Tech in Texas (T3) Collaborative Grant — American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), grant application.
- Center for Teaching Excellence, University of South Carolina.
- Instructors are adjunct/contract staff.
© 2009 Tena B. Crews, Jessica L. Miller, and Christine M. Brown. The text of this article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 license.