Collegium Case Studies
FAITHFUL TEACHER
Case Study: 1
PowerPoint is a wonderful thing. The images and color and organization of the presentation attract learner interest and allow the teacher to highlight vital points of the topic. Professor X, however, seems to have fallen in love with the technology. Students in written evaluations over the past year confirm what the department chair has occasionally observed: Dr. X relies on the lecture method almost exclusively. He also likes to utilize the test banks that accompany course textbooks. Students say that the gist of the course is for them to sit passively during PowerPoint lectures and take "canned" exams each week which are graded by Scantron. They complain that they often find mistakes in the grading of the exam and feel that the questions often are not related to the material they covered in class. They say they like Professor X as a person and think that he is knowledgeable, but they rarely can talk to him and discuss issues in the content of the course.Questions to consider:
What are the issues in this case study?
How should the Chair approach these issues in quality teaching?
What action steps can the professor take to confront the problem?
How do the readings offer guidance?
FAITHFUL TEACHER
Case Study: 2
The Chair is meeting with Professor Y for her annual Faculty Development Plan review and projection. It is not going well. Professor Y apparently has not taken the FDP very seriously and has not fulfilled much, if any, of the current plan. Nor has she done much in preparation for projecting next year’s FDP either, having only jotted down a few sentences stated in very broad language. The teaching section of the plan is of particular concern because the chair perceives that Dr. Y has been coasting on most aspects of her teaching: preparation (Dr. Y comes in just before class—often abuses the copy machine with last minute copying), presentation (evaluations have been showing student usage of words and phrases like "boring," "not current," "ill-prepared," "not excited about teaching"), and innovation (Dr. Y rarely participates in department discussions centered on new teaching ideas nor does she ever attend faculty development workshops). Professor Y is tenured faculty member who is liked by her students and colleagues, holds reserved seating for basketball, and is known to be a faithful member of her church. The Chair is about to speak. . .Questions to consider:
What are the issues in this case study?
What should the Chair say?
What can the Chair do?
How do the readings offer guidance?
FAITHFUL SCHOLAR
Case Study: 1
Nancy Billings, Assistant Professor at Union University, was facing one of the most frightening times in her life. She had been teaching at Union University for the past eighteen years. She feels that she was automatically promoted from the rank of Instructor to Assistant Professor when she met the quantitative criteria for promotion. However, times have changed at Union and they have recently established new rank and promotion criteria. Nancy wants to apply for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor, but is uneasy about the whole process. There is a lot she feels she does not understand.Nancy has spent much of the past two years off campus where she supervises practicum students in the community two days a week. Because of her recent schedule the past two years she has not always been available for departmental and greater faculty meetings. She has received all of the meeting minutes, however, and has heard her colleagues talking informally about the new university criteria for rank and promotion. Nancy is also aware that faculty in her department had numerous meetings to discuss and eventually establish specific criteria for rank and promotion.
Even though Nancy is sure she has met the quantitative criteria for promotion, she is very uncertain about the other criteria. When she discusses the issue with her colleagues, everyone seems to have a different interpretation of the university and departmental expectations. She is considering meeting with her Chair to discuss what she needs to be doing to be ready for promotion.
Questions to consider:
How might a Chair be pro-active in this area so Nancy’s anxiety would not be a distraction from her work?
What advice do you think the Chair should give Nancy?
What should her Chair tell her about where Union is in the process?
What should her Chair tell her about university expectation?
What should her Chair tell her about departmental expectation?
How do the readings offer guidance?
FAITHFUL SCHOLAR
Case Study: 2
Robert Martin, Assistant Professor, is feeling a sense of relief after recently completing his PhD. He has returned to a full time faculty position after having taught part time during his doctoral studies. Robert is eager to return to the university on a full time basis. He is especially anxious to reconnect with students in and out of the classroom and renew his community involvement. Robert had classmates in his doctoral program who were envious that his university recognizes and appreciates student involvement and community service.Robert was encouraged by his major Professor in the doctoral program to publish some of the papers he wrote and to submit the grant he wrote for his quantitative research class. He realizes that he probably should do these things, but has been enjoying the freedom from deadlines that seemed to be constant in the doctoral program. He is looking forward to having a year that is more relaxed than the years he recently spent as a full time student and part time faculty member. He has decided to submit the articles for publication the next year and then consider submitting the grant proposal the year after.
Questions to consider:
How can the Chair assist Robert in his transition from the student role to full time faculty role?
What advice might the Chair give Robert so that he would be able to develop the work style necessary to balance
scholarship related to his scholarship efforts?
In what ways could the Chair provide guidance for Robert as he completes his professional development plan?
How do the readings offer guidance?
FAITHFUL SERVANTS
Case Study: 1
You have been asked by the administration and your colleagues to serve as department chair. Your love and joy in academia has been in teaching, research, and interaction with the students. However, there is an obvious administrative spot in your department that needs to be filled. You decided to accept the job for the greater good of your department and the university.Now, in your third year as chair, you find that you are putting in 55 hour weeks quite regularly. Your joy in academia is slipping and you do not feel that your remuneration from the university is adequate for the work that you are doing.
Questions to consider:
How will you broach the subject of remuneration with the Provost?
What action will you take if further remuneration is not forthcoming?
What other alternative courses of action will you consider?
How do you determine what is the best use of your skills and interests in relation to what you are being asked to do at this time?
How do the readings offer guidance?
FAITHFUL SERVANTS
Case Study: 2
As department chair you are privy to information about your faculty members that may not be widely known. One of your faculty has been having marital and family problems for the past two years. Classroom performance has suffered as a result of this. Your overall assessment of this faculty member for the past two years has been marginally passing. It is time to discuss faculty development plans for the upcoming academic year. The marital difficulties have not been resolved.Question to consider:
What performance standards will you set for this faculty member?
What encouragement can you give the faculty member?
Do you have any advice to give?
To what degree do you address issues of family and faith commitments with this colleague?
How do the readings offer guidance?
FAITHFUL ADMINISTRATORS
Case Study: 1
Dr. Ben Ligerant is eligible for promotion from assistant to associate professor at Quality University. According to the Faculty Handbook, a successful candidate for promotion, in addition to meeting the baseline qualifications, will demonstrate achievement in teaching, scholarship, and service to the institution. At the appropriate time, Dr. Ligerant presents a thorough, well-organized, and very convincing portfolio to his department chair. After reviewing the document, his supervisor is convinced that Dr.Ligerant has clearly demonstrated commendable service in all three areas. His students evaluations reveal that students consider him to be highly knowledgeable about his discipline and very effective in his presentations. He has edited two texts while at QU and has seen several articles published in highly reputable journals. In addition to chairing the Curriculum Committee for several years, he also provided leadership in pursuit of accreditation for his department.Although there is no question that Dr. Ligerant has met all the requirements specified in the Faculty
Handbook, his department chair is also well aware of the reputation that Dr. Ligerant has developed not only within the department but across the university. Despite having earned the respect of his colleagues, Dr. Ligerant is widely considered to be an arrogant, know-it-all who gets the job done because he doesn’t care who he steps on in the process. On more than one occasion he has openly ridiculed the mission of the institution as well as the teaching styles and research of fellow faculty. In short, he is an effective teacher, an established scholar, a responsible leader, and an abrasive colleague who could care less about teamwork, the feelings of his fellow teachers, or the mission of the institution.
The Faculty Handbook mandates that the department chair prepare a letter of evaluation addressing each promotion candidate’s performance in the three specified areas as well as strengths and weaknesses.
Questions to consider:
To what extent should collegiality, in this case the lack thereof, be addressed in the department chair’s letter to the provost?
How do the readings offer guidance?
FAITHFUL ADMINISTRATORS
Case Study: 2
Professor E.Z. Aize is a popular member of the faculty at Smallville College. Seldom missing a social or athletic event sponsored by the college, Dr. Aize can be counted on whenever there is a need for a chaperone, whether it be a weekend camping trip or a formal black tie affair. The students love Dr. Aize and have no qualms about calling him at home for help with homework or for advise about how to deal with a roommate issue or a family problem. Dr. Aize has a heart of gold and a great love for his job and for Smallville College.When confirmed eligible for promotion from assistant to associate professor, Dr. Aize presents his portfolio for review by his department chair. In teaching, scholarship, and service, Dr. Aize’s performance has been satisfactory: consistently good in all areas but nothing really stellar. In spite of what appears to be an acceptable level of performance, the chair is still somewhat leery about Dr. Aize. Although there is no hard evidence to back her up, the chair fears that the popularity of Dr. Aize is a result of his failure to set high standards and his lack of rigor. Aware that Dr. Aize’s classes always fill up first and that his classes are often populated with football and track stars, the chair is tempted to conclude that this professor has sacrificed his intellectual integrity in order to earn the favor of the student body.
Questions to consider:
What role should popularity play in accurately assessing the performance of a faculty member?
How do the readings offer guidance?