Offer SGIDs (Small Group Instructional Diagnosis) to all section instructors of an ailing, large introductory class. For example, our staff just visited all 41 sections of an introduction to calculus course at the University of Michigan, a process we initiated by calling the department when a scathing critique of the course appeared in the student newspaper.

This process offers the visual benefits of SGID - feedback to the instructor and student satisfaction at having been asked for feedback - PLUS the opportunity to look at common patterns across sections as a means of giving feedback to the lead instructor of the course. After we have completed the SGIDs, all the consultants meet to share these common issues (respecting confidentiality completely), as well as to reflect on the process to continue our improvement as consultants. Finally, we also look at implications of our finding for developing training for both faculty and TAs.

Using the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory the first day of class in say a stats or engineering course has proven to be invaluable for convergent teachers. When they plot their students' actual scores on the Kolb, see their placement in the quadrants, it becomes painfully clear to them that they cannot continue to teach just to learners like themselves.

Also, using the information gleaned from the Kolb enables the instructor to readily determine effective small group make up. Dependent on whether or not the instructor wants a quick solution to a posed dilemma or wants a quick solution to a posed dilemma or wants students to view a problem from multiple perspectives, she can put like thinkers together or put a mixture of learning styles together.

Response: Our office realized we could not entertain applications from the entire campus (88 departments hire TAs) to create TA training projects. We also had an obligation to fund the student peer-training project which last year received $40,000 alone.

So: We looked to a recently completed survey of what departments were doing to train their TAs (self-reported results by departments). From these we made a short list of representative departments from different areas of study.

Departments with:

1) at least one training activity already.

2) a sizeable but not unwieldy number of TAs (20-60).

3) a clear need for more training for TAs throughout the year.

4) a receptivity to our services.

We sent each targeted department a letter inviting them to work in a minimum group of three: one faculty member, an advanced and experienced TA from their department, and a consultant from our office to design an expanded training program (i.e., if they had videotaping as their core [or sole] activity we asked them to build workshops around it, to prepare students for it, and to process the results or to make it part of an ongoing seminar on teaching.)

We agreed to pay the costs of their programs or materials, including copying, speakers, receptions and we are paying a stipend to the TAs within the departments according to time worked. No exploitation here.

We hired a staff person to do nothing but work with these departments (50% of the time) to design programs, facilitate, etc. All custom work.

For under $3,000 per department, we are seeing more productivity than was accomplished in prior years when departments received $10-20,000 each. We have four new programs going, and one old one, and we have funded the peer-TA group and our consultant from the $60,000.

Providing teaching strategies to an interdisciplinary faculty proved challenging. The Instructional Development Subcommittee of the GE Master Teacher Team struggled with how to get the attention of very different discipline faculty to raise awareness and discuss strategies around improving teaching for freshmen engineering students. That’s when we hit upon our ‘bright idea’. The team decided to try a weekly advice column via e-mail to all freshmen faculty in Chemistry, Engineering, Mathematics, and Physics. Thus was born “Chalk Talk: Dear Jonas”. This column is part of a weekly e-mail that is sent to all faculty who teach engineering freshmen. The initial questions to Jonas were written by the committee based on our own teaching dilemmas. After the question was formulated, a member of the sub committee volunteered to draft the reply and then sent it to the other committee members for feedback, input and additional suggestions, insights, and thoughts. Columns have addressed such areas as: Civility in the Classroom, Keeping Freshmen Motivated, Completing the Syllabus, Excused (or not) Absences, The Impact of Late Grades, and Cheating

The results of this have been impressive in three areas. After six months freshmen faculty are starting to initiate their own questions to Jonas. We have received a number of questions from engineering freshmen faculty. While some are simple inquiries into providing some strategies for common teaching challenges, many addressing complex issues around the role of teaching content to students who are non majors but who need this information for upper level work. A qualitative study of a subset of the freshmen faculty showed that this initiative was the most recognized faculty development activity of the Master Teacher Team. Whether faculty agreed with the answer or not, everyone at least opened the Jonas columns and scanned the answer.

Second, an institution change occurred because of a Jonas column. A question over the timing of final exams and the importance of turnaround time led the school of Engineering and Arts and Sciences to revise their exam schedule. Lastly, Jonas provided a way for the subcommittee to continue our own teaching development. As we discussed and drafted answers we realized the different perspectives of the problem, the different approaches people take to the issues, even the different priority of an issue.

This has become a relatively low cost, efficient way to target a specific group of faculty to get them thinking and talking about teaching. The team has this down to a science. The question is picked, a draft is developed, and comments are sent to the author and incorporated into the answer to be sent out every Tuesday.

The Quick Diagnosis is a group interview assessment technique designed to capture quality, in-depth feedback on courses and programs. The protocol, which takes only 20 to 30 minutes (half of one class period) to implement, uses a facilitator to lead students through two key activities. To ensure anonymity and encourage honest and candid responses, the facilitator should not be connected to the course or program being assessed.

In the first activity, students use an index card to record a word or phrase that describes the course or program. On the same index card, students provide a satisfaction rating for the course or program using a 1 to 5 scale (1 is the lowest rating and 5 is the highest). So that all students understand the feelings of the entire group, students report out one-by-one with their words, phrases, and ratings.

The second activity involves collaboration between groups of four or five students. Once divided into groups, students brainstorm the strengths and weaknesses of the course or program. When the brainstorming is complete, the groups come to consensus on the top 3 strengths and top 3 weaknesses. If time permits, the facilitator lists the top three strengths and weaknesses for each group and leads the entire class in coming to consensus on the top overall three strengths and weaknesses.

The data from the first activity are displayed in the form of a histogram. The height of the columns correspond to the number of students choosing each rating. Superimposed on the columns are the word and phrase descriptions (e.g. “stimulating,” “Awesome,” “A real challenge.”) The histogram provides an “at a glance” summary of students’ overall impression and satisfaction ratings. Data from the brainstorming activity are captured in tables. All of the strengths and weaknesses identified are listed vertically by team. Through a quick cluster analysis, the dominant trends are color-coded to easily identify trends. For example, all of the strengths and weaknesses relating to assessment might be coded in green.

The QCD is an excellent qualitative technique that can be used to enrich survey data, provide baseline data before making curricular or pedagogical changes, obtain feedback on new content, techniques, or innovations, and as a continuous improvement tool for established courses or programs. QCDs are more efficient than single interviews and more productive than surveys. QCDs provide both quantitative and qualitative data with very little prior preparation.

QCDs have been popular and successful at the Air Force Academy. With over 30 conducted during the Spring 2001 semester, QCDs have become the most popular assessment service offered by the Center for Educational Excellence. The technique was well-received at the annual meeting of the North Central Association (NCA) and the AAHE Assessment Conference and is easily transferable to different disciplines and levels. The method makes excellent use of time (it can be conducted in half of a regularly-scheduled class period) and data analysis is simplified by the use of histograms and tables. The method is efficient, effective, and powerful!

To redesign new faculty orientation, I asked each of 18 units to provide a list of two to five learning outcomes that were most important to enabling new faculty to use the unit's support services. I reframed the items as questions and created a printed fill-in-information scavenger-hunt exercise with items arranged alphabetically by unit names.The room arrangement is eighteen booths arranged alphabetically by office around the walls, with table rounds seating six within. New faculty enter the room, pick up materials and go to a table round where they begin learning one another's names using the mixer, until they have a group of four to five. Then, the group goes as a unit to any booth to discover the outcomes information on the scavenger-hunt forms. After an hour and forty-five minutes, fifty new faculty have gained the essential information in writing through meeting and speaking individually with staff members of eighteen units. New faculty then move inward to the table rounds and have dinner (without dessert) and informal discussions—total time, 2.5 hours. Next, faculty take a bus and walking tour of the campus, and the bus delivers them to a reception with desserts (aha!) and drinks hosted by the local Chamber of Commerce with their deans and chairs until 8:30 P.M. when the bus returns them to campus.

Instructional support staff at the University of Texas at El Paso developed the Hybrid Academy as a new model for training faculty in the pedagogical and technological approaches to conceptualizing, building and teaching a hybrid course effectively. The academy is a week-long series of highly integrated workshops which help faculty make the shift from teaching face-to-face to a model of online student engagement.

The following were the goals of the academy for the participants

1. Understand organization and development of technologically enhanced courses.
2. Apply and modify their teaching techniques to make effective use of technology in their courses.
3. Be better equipped to engage their students in an online setting.
4. Conceptualize basic technologically enhanced course design principles.
5. Apply practical knowledge of basic courseware management tools.

Originality: Many faculty were trying innovations, yet few other people know about them. This university, along with many universities, lacks a dissemination venue for these ideas to other faculty. A compilation of all the teaching innovations into a book allows others to learn about these ideas and adapt them. Faculty complete a 2 page abstract form, developed for this purpose. Previously some faculty had not thought about what they do as an innovation or about the categories requested.

Scope and impact: The Document of Innovation covers all areas of learning. The innovations are grouped by category including: assessment and evaluation of students, distance learning, reflection on learning, student research, different types of teaching-learning activities, and using technology. Described innovations range from small changes in the way they teach or evaluate students to integrating several simultaneous classes in terms of assignments. Faculty who continue to implement an innovation may document their sustained innovation and describe how they have adapted its use over time. All faculty who describe their innovation receive a copy of the book, along with all new faculty and a few copies are given to every department and the library for reference. The Director meets with all higher levels of administration, deans and chairs gives them copies and showcases the innovations of their faculty. The Director also meets with the public university relations, institutional advancement and the admissions directors and gives them copies for their use.

In the two years of compiling these innovations, the status of being part of this book has grown, as well as the perceived value of the book itself. There was a 39% increase in the number of innovations featured in the second edition compared to the first one. Demand for the document increased in the second year. Faculty have listed their participation in their annual evaluations and chairs have regarded it as part of their teaching evaluations. The University's President talked about this document and some of the innovations in his recent annual address to faculty. Faculty in different departments have adapted some of the innovations. A few faculty are now motivated to write their ideas for publication in professional journals, and a some of them are even engaging in more scholarly research relating to these innovations.

Transferability: Any center could develop such a document. Large universities might want to compile a separate volume for each college.

Effectiveness (time and cost): The direct cost is the printing of the document. Indirect costs include the faculty writing time, and the center's editing and compiling the document. The time involved in the development and the meetings with administration have more than paid off in terms of good visibility for the Teaching and Learning Center and for the innovative faculty.

Introduction: The Associate Vice Provost and the Director of Residential Learning Communities at Santa Clara University purchased a dozen copies of Richard Light's book Making the Most of College. We attached to the inside of the front cover a card stating: "This is a chain book. Please read it, write your name on this card, and pass the book on to another faculty member or administrator. Nothing catastrophic will happen to you if you break the chain, but if you read the book and pass it on, you will receive an invitation to a lunch discussion." We gave the book to a carefully selected group of faculty and administrators. After three or four weeks, we traced the chain and invited the readers to lunch -- we had a lively discussion of Light's recommendations for undergraduate teaching and how it might be useful in the context of our own institution.

Originality: This is a simple and original idea. Faculty were amused and delighted by the concept.

Scope and impact: The scope of the project was not large, but the book continues to travel through the university community. Richard Light will be speaking at a nearby university in November and we'll invite some of the chain book faculty to accompany us to his talk. Among the faculty and administrators who participated were some who are actively engaged in initiating innovations in pedagogy on our campus -- the full impact of the project remains to be seen.

Faculty enthusiasm for the "chain book" paradigm is high, and we've often been asked what we'll select for our next chain book. We plan to disseminate one chain book each quarter, following each dissemination with a lunch. One of the benefits is the sense of community created by the "chain" -- faculty enjoyed seeing the lineage of readers, and we were pleased to discover a broader circle of chain readers than we had anticipated. Many of the readers were unable to attend the lunch, but we plan to hold another lunch after the quarter begins.

Transferability: This program could be used at any institution or in any context.

Get funding for our center's programs from alumni classes. Each year the "main" alumni classes (25 years, 50 years, etc.) work on a project to support. Their contributions go into an endowment account for that project.

1. Originality - I don't know of other centers that have sought out or received this type of funding (but I am sure that there are others).
2. Impact - HUGE! This has given us independence from administrative support and has allowed us to increase our program offerings. It was the basis of our institution winning the Hesburgh Award which has brought the center wonderful attention.
3. Transferability - Any institution whose alumni classes fund projects can use this.
4. Effectiveness - GREAT - Ongoing long term funding from our proposal and presentation.

In the Fall of 1999, we implemented an "Above and Beyond" program to colleagues to recognize one another. We sent a flyer to all faculty suggesting that they recognize a colleague who had either impacted them or students in a positive way. We received over 40 responses. These were featured in our newsletter which had to be expanded from 2 to 4 pages to accommodate the responses. And, because several were sent after the deadline, more were featured in our next edition. The responses to this were overwhelmingly positive in terms of both the numbers who were recognized and the response we received from viewers of our newsletter. It was viewed as a positive, uplifting event and it has been requested that we continue this program.

To recognize and demonstrate appreciation for our faculty, our Center designated April (also Community College Month) to be Faculty Appreciation Month. During the month of April we initiated the following:

1. We prominently and elegantly displayed the published work of our faculty in the atrium of the college library.
2. Drawings were held each Monday and the faculty recipients received a $25.00 gift certificate from the local bookstore (The recipients were delighted and surprised that there wasn't "a catch" or duty attached to the gift.) These were announced each week via campus wide e-mail.
3. Apple displays were set up across campus in areas heavily populated by students encouraging them to "Thank A Teacher Today."
4. Banners were displayed at prominent building entrances encouraging students to show appreciation to faculty by sending an "Applegram" (This is a program we established to allow students to jot down positive feedback via a "telegram" and drop in designated boxes across campus. See below.)
5. On April 27th, we held a day-long (8am. To 8 p.m. to accommodate all schedules) celebration in one large presentation room. The theme was "Lets' Celebrate, Not Add to Our Plate." During this event, we moved the published display to the CTE presentation room which was decorated with balloons, etc. We hosted a light buffet throughout the day with the room set up to allow for clusters of collegial conversations. In fact many faculty commented that it was the first opportunity they had had in weeks to really visit with colleagues. From 4 to 6 p.m. we held a "Greet and Meet" period where we invited the President, Provost, Deans and Board of Trustees to come and greet our faculty. In keeping with the theme, there were no speeches or formal presentations. However, visitors were thrilled to receive one-on-one assistance in the Technology Room if they desired.

Over 200 faculty participated in this event and several sent notes afterwards stating how "appreciated" they felt and how much they appreciated the opportunity to celebrate with colleagues. Later The Community College Journal published a feature article about this event.

"Minnesota 101" is a course created by the Southwest State University Faculty Development Team to address two needs:

1. to introduce new faculty to our state and to give them insights into the heritage and experiences which our students bring to the classroom; and
2. to create a sense of community among the faculty.

Open to new and returning faculty, the "course" consists of nine events (3 per quarter). A sample of these include:

1) Good problem solvers have learned these strategies indirectly and unreflectively. They have to work to make them explicit. Often they say that "you learn to solve problems by solving lots of problems." But this will work only for the talented. I tell them that less talented students need to be told explicitly what strategies they can use. No one has ever told me that they were taught such strategies, even in graduate school. But they can be, and this should improve efficiency.

2) The list of strategies can be used as a set of diagnostic categories for helping students correct their approaches. Just as a sports coach can note and correct errors of stance, swing, position, etc., so a problem-solving "coach" can work with habitual errors and point out new strategies.

To address these challenges, in 2004, the University of Michigan’s CRLT and Rackham Graduate School created the Graduate Student Mentorship Program. This initiative engages graduate students in brief mentorships with faculty from eight nearby colleges and universities. A faculty liason on each campus recruits volunteers, who send short profiles to post on a centralized webpage. UM graduate students review the website and identify a good faculty match. To structure the mentorship, the team is asked to:

• 1st Meeting – Have lunch or coffee to meet and discuss academic worklife
• 2nd-3rd Meetings - Engage in a short mentorship activity on the mentor’s campus, such as having the mentee teach one meeting of the mentor’s class, review syllabi or talk with undergraduates about graduate school in the field.

Procedure: Print up a supply of "Golden Apple Grams", telegram-size forms for students to write a few words of praise or compliments for a particular instructor. Attach a pad of Apple Grams to collection boxes--preferably wrapped in gold-colored paper--and place boxes in classroom buildings, residence halls, and other locations. Run a weekly announcement in the student newspaper with a sample Apple Gram. Collect Apple Grams monthly and send them to all instructors so named in an appropriately decorated file folder.

Each year the Center for Teaching Excellence writes to the Dean of each of our colleges. We ask the dean to identify three or four of their top students who are graduating seniors. When we get that list, we write to those students, congratulate them and ask them to name 2 teachers who were most important and influential for them in their careers as outstanding students: one teacher from the University and one from their K-12 education career (to stress the connections in teaching, community outreach, school-University collaboration). Then we invite the students and the two teachers they have named to a "Celebrating Teachers" reception/celebration in the Spring. At the reception, the President of the University stresses the value and importance of teaching to the development of these student-scholars and each student is brought up to talk about the two teachers he/she brought to the reception and why these teachers meant so much to them.

My course on Conditioning and Learning is nearly paperless--students e-mail their assignments, discuss issues on an electronic bulletin board, etc. Two "pseudo" class members, BF SKINNER and I PAVLOV, have user accounts.

Students were divided into groups. Each group was given four sheets of plastic 4x7 cards, styrofoam, tape, a needle and thread, and scissors. They were told to construct a "model" of an embryo, simulating the process whereby the embryo becomes transformed from a flat structure into the vertebrate "tube-within-a-tube" structure. No other instructions were given. When the "construction" was completed, each group explained their model to another group. The exercise allowed students to work together to explore the embryonic concept involved (Collaborative Learning), to devise their own plan to solve the construction and conceptual problems and reach a consensus as a group (Cooperative Problem Solving and Communication), and to report their solution based on a concrete (art) form (i.e. the model), rather than verbally. The exercise aided the class socialization process which helped prepare them for the collaborative case studies later in the course. The use of a concrete form of expression can be especially useful for concepts that are difficult to visualize and for students whose best learning styles are non-verbal. (Most of our learning experiences are geared toward "verbal" student learning styles.)

This is always the favorite experience for the semester. Students do raps, videos, modern dance, graphs, mobiles, big books, mimes, whatever their creative minds can envision.

1. Ask what their image of a woman who is good at math is. Usually it is a rigid structured lady with a bun in a pin-striped suit. They are often surprised to realize this, as it comes out of their life-experiences.

2. Do a guided imagery with them. Ask them to visualize a tall, feminine creature with a flowing skirt representing over-arching principles. She has a handy pocket for her calculator which is a tool over which she has power. Notice the calm smile on her lovey face. The gores in her skirt represent different fields of mathematics. The border around the bottom joins the areas with their commonalities. Her tiny waist represents the smallest set of basic assumptions and undefined terms possible. The rest of her skirt represents the creative efforts of human beings in the field of mathematics. Finally ask them to imagine themselves in her body and the confident power they would feel and to carry that image with them. Suggest they come back several times a day.

1. Students are given the assignment to: "Read Chapter 12, and make sure that you understand the main points. You will have a short, double-response, homework check quiz next class session over these main points."
2. At the next meeting of this class, 2 or 3 questions from Chapter 12 are written on the board. Students are asked to fold a sheet of paper in half and answer each question twice, briefly, once on the top, and again on the bottom of the sheet. Thus, they have made a "double-response" to each question.
3. Students give the professor one half of the sheet (with the student's name atop it), and the other half sheet can be self-corrected by the students using a variety of methods.
4. When collecting the sheets, the professor will need to quickly look them over in order to assess students' understanding of the information. If they have a good grasp of the main points, they are ready to engage in using/analyzing/or evaluating the information (higher levels of thinking) with the professor there to coach them through it. This differs from a more traditional lecture approach where students listen and take notes on basic points of a topic during class and do the higher level thinking on their own as homework without the professor available to assist with this more difficult task.

A graphic syllabus is completely original and has several favorable impacts:

1. students can see the method to your madness and your big picture.
2. You "dual code" your course organization onto their semantic and episodic memories.
3. You appeal to many learning styles such as visual, kinesthetic, and holistic/global "divergers," and "intuitive feelers."
4. You show students a new tool for their own note-taking and outlining.
5. You get a new creative outlet.
6. You see your own course organization more clearly and may decide to improve it. You may transfer this same flow-chart technique to illustrating the relationships among your student-learning objectives for the course and among courses in a curriculum.

The financial cost is negligible as you can use your existing software (e.g. MS Word, PowerPoint) or a pen or pencil to draw your flow-chart. Faculty whom I have trained to compose graphic syllabi have told me it takes as little as 30 minutes to do one, even using the computer. In my workshop, small groups of faculty take about 20 minutes to draw a graphic syllabus for a course they know nothing about (paralegal work)! They tell me their students really like these learning devices and refer to them often.

My experience has been with groups of size ten and has involved seminars and discussions with faculty and students from the other campus. My faculty find the different culture fascinating and after our guests leave, our discussion soon turns to our campus culture and community. My faculty come away with a better understanding of our culture, mission, ways to help students learn, etc. This has worked for both junior and senior faculty.

1) a simulation of the environment

2) a simulation of events

3) a simulation of resource allocations

4) the criteria for evaluating success

At the end of the workshop, the participants attempt to integrate all of their decisions into a complete game. The goals of the process are:

1) to use abstraction to stimulate reflection and introspection

2) to allow participants to tell their stories

Originality. While many faculty express an interest in redesigning one or several courses, they usually indicate that they are unable to combine the block of time and necessary resources to conduct a comprehensive course redesign. CREL has attempted to adopt and synthesize the ideas and practices of other campuses into a weeklong workshop that both addresses the most pressing needs of faculty and includes several unique features.

First, CREL runs for an entire week (Monday-Friday) in the early summer providing a sufficient time block and fewer outside distractions.

Second, faculty are asked to submit a proposal outlining the specific course they intend to redesign. This provides a focused context in which to situate the application of the principles, strategies and approaches.

Third, in their application faculty select the teaching and learning strategies they would like to incorporate into their course; thus the workshop is organized around the interests and needs of the participants.

Fourth, the workshop divides time between the presentation and dissemination of information and resources, and active learning applications carried out individually and in three-person cross-disciplinary groups.

Fifth, faculty are given one free day (Thursday) to work extensively on their course redesign which is then, on the last day of the workshop (Friday), presented to the larger group. Thus, at the end of the workshop, the participants leave with a "final product" -- a comprehensive plan for the redesign of a course they will be teaching in the fall or spring semester.

Scope and Impact. The CREL workshop is open to all fulltime UNF faculty. The first CREL workshop in the summer of 2001 had 15 participants representing all five colleges. We addressed the following topics: critical reflection, presuppositions about teaching and learning, course design principles, managing individual student differences, critical thinking, assessment, active learning, classroom and web-based discussion strategies, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. Based on the diversity of participants, the level of engagement, the sharing of information and expertise, the final redesign products, and the evaluation results, the workshop clearly met the original goals.

Transferability. One of the advantages of the CREL workshop model is its simplicity and manageability. This model is easily replicable. Presentations were made by our own staff, several faculty members at UNF, and one faculty member from a regional community college. Staff members assembled, disseminated, and presented materials, resources, and application exercises. The most critical and valued components, that require no extra resources, are the devoted block of time, the focus on a specific course, and the collaborative relationship that develops among the participating faculty.

Effectiveness. CREL was designed to use the 5-day time period to produce some concrete faculty products. The cost was minimal. All participating faculty received a $500 stipend for their weeklong participation and redesign work. A small token honorarium ($100) was provided to several faculty presenters. The workshop evaluations were unanimously positive. The ultimate test of effectiveness, however, will be how the redesigned courses impact on student learning. The participants will be reporting on the results at the end of each semester.

DO-IT at the University of Washington, under the direction of Sheryl Burgstahler, Ph. D., has, since 1992, worked to increase the representation of individuals with disabilities in postsecondary education and employment through direct work with students who have disabilities; professional development for faculty, teachers, service providers, and employers; and information dissemination. The DO-IT Prof Model Demonstration Project applies lessons learned by DO-IT and other researchers and practitioners nationwide to implement a comprehensive professional development program for college faculty and administrators. It is funded by a 3-year U.S. Dept. of Education grant. DO-IT Prof serves to improve the knowledge and skills of postsecondary faculty and administrators in order to assist them in fully including students with disabilities in academic programs on their campuses. Responding to the diverse content and scheduling needs of faculty and administrators, the Prof project team created six models of professional development.

• Model 1: A 20-30 minute presentation. To introduce participants to basic legal issues, accommodation strategies, and resources specific to their campuses.
• Model 2: A 1-2 hour presentation. With special focus on providing accommodations to students with a variety of disabilities.
• Model 3: A tailored workshop. For more in-depth training on meeting needs of students with disabilities, selected for a specific audience.
• Model 4: Televised instruction. Broadcasted on public television using a series of videotapes.
• Model 5: A distance learning “anytime anywhere” course. This interactive distance course provides lessons with discussion on the provision of academic accommodations for students of a variety of disabilities delivered via email.
• Model 6: Self-paced, Web-based instruction An on-line source of increasing awareness of the academic needs of students with disabilities.

The project team includes faculty, disabled student services staff, and administrators at postsecondary institutions in 23 states. In addition, project team members have a partner institution of differing demographics in their state. If a team member is from a four-year institution, the partner school is a community or technical college and vise, versa. Each team member and partner school delivers a variety of professional development models on their campuses and at state and national conferences.

Prior to the retreat, program participants review guidelines for 4 internal (on-campus) grant programs available to our faculty: instructional development grants, summer instructional development professorships, new faculty scholar (research) awards, and University Senate scholarly activity awards. Each participant chooses one program and drafts a proposal for funding. Meanwhile, we assign each new faculty participant to a hypothetical committee that will review proposals for one of the four programs. We don't ask them to review their own draft proposals but rather prepare a packet of 6 past proposals, give them an amount of $$ they can distribute and ask them to come to the retreat prepared to meet with their committee, discuss the proposals, rank them, and make decisions about which to fund with their limited "budget" (which we assign them).

The new faculty love this exercise. It familiarizes them with available resources, shows them what an effective proposal is, makes them aware of the interdisciplinary audience that will be reading the proposals, and gets them started thinking about making their own proposal well before deadlines. We find that the issues that came up in our committees are identical to the ones that came up in the actual faculty committees that review these proposals, and that they are a wonderful way of getting new faculty to meet people outside their disciplines and to gain a sense of the many different disciplines that make up our university (getting out of their own department/disciplinary "silos").

After the "committee" sessions, we ask participants to get in groups of three and read each others' draft proposals and advise each other on how to improve them. We also invite them to send us (me in the teaching office and my colleague in our research office) copies of their revised proposals to review and offer input on before they officially submit them. Many take advantage of this opportunity and as a result are successful in their proposals, which makes them more likely to apply again and also to consider teaching a scholarly project that they might not otherwise undertake because of lack of funding support.

This kind of workshop could work at any institution which has internal grants programs available to faculty. (You don't need 4 different programs, but it is nice to have at least one that relates to "teaching" and one to "research.") Although we did this as part of a larger retreat, it could be done as a freestanding workshop for any faculty. The only requirement would be that they sign up in advance so you can send them a packet of sample proposals to review in advance. (By the way, we use proposals with permission of the faculty who originally submitted them. Most were successful proposals, though some are still better than others and afford many opportunities for discussion.)

Cost is for duplicating of packets and refreshments at the break. You can limit cost by limiting spaces in the workshop. (We've done it with groups of 25-30).

Being a newcomer to the faculty and TA development field, one of my first tasks was coordinating a 3-day pre-semester workshop for graduate teaching assistants. Since this workshop is oftentimes the first connection we have with TAs, it is essential that we reach them in some significant way if it is not to be our last. Our hope for the workshop is to offer an engaging set of activities that meets TAs’ immediate needs, challenges them to realize the complexity of teaching (thus promoting reflection on needs they will likely have throughout the year), and establishes a positive relationship with them. The first few minutes are crucial for setting the tone of the workshop and “selling” our services.

Originality. Instead of composing a lecture to introduce the myriad of services that our Center provides, I decided to create a video. I interviewed a handful of experienced TAs, simply asking them “what has the Center done for you?” and setting the camera rolling. They offered a wide variety of responses (everything we would want them to say) without prompting—it was my task just to organize them in some fashion, much like sorting narrative data in qualitative research. This video was shown at the beginning of the workshop, accompanied by a handout that outlined the services, and a preface that communicated the factors behind my decision to present the material in this fashion (my teaching style, the early morning hour, our need to get this important information across and interest them in it, and how much more meaningful this information would be coming from their peers) so that they could identify my rationale and begin to consider the rationale(s) employed in their own teaching during later segments of the workshop.

Scope & impact. The outcome was an energized group, some even dancing in their seats during the introduction of the testimonials which I framed with Janet Jackson’s “What Have You [the Center for Teaching and Learning] Done for Me Lately?” Those who appeared in the video had proudly spread the word that they were going to be featured, lending an air of curiosity and excitement to the event. Afterwards, one workshop participant reported an interest in creating livelier classes by using movie clips and sound files. Another TA declared that the most positive aspect of the workshop was “knowing that the CTL really does what it says.” It quickly became obvious that the video had accomplished much more than disseminating information—it generated interest and established confidence in our Center, and modeled an innovative teaching strategy.