0.4 Cressman, j., richter, r., sims, p., schuth, s., & Sukowski,  (Page 6/6)

Reaction concerns whether or not participants are satisfied with what they experience. Learning centers on determining whether participants used the learning in their classroom experiences. The results centers on how this learning and transfer have an impact on student learning. In order to address each of these areas of evaluation, we asked participants at the previous CAFÉ’s to assess the conference by answering the following questions:

1. Did you find the CAFÉ conference helpful in learning about the Concordia community?

2. Did you find the CAFÉ conference helpful in learning about your role in the cohort program?

3. What in the CAFÉ conference did you find most useful for your teaching/learning experience in the cohort program?

4. What would you recommend for future CAFÉ experiences?

There is a 99% affirmative response to questions one and two. Participants responded with comments that said as a result of CAFÉ they felt more connected to the university itself and how things worked, more comfortable having met the people behind the programs and more knowledgeable about their role in the cohort program. A few said that every year, they learn more about the university and the cohort program.

Lyons (2007) purports that “Given their teaching at nontraditional times and places, adjunct instructors are likely to feel an estrangement from the institution and a sense of isolation from other faculty members. Lyons (2007) also points out that adjunct faculty members are almost twice as likely as full-timers to have no contact with colleagues and that they generally have less awareness of students’ needs or campus support services” (pp. 4-5).  

The responses to what was most useful (question three) were very specific. Many people said the “Birds of a Feather” sessions were helpful because these were break out groups where they met the full time faculty and part-time faculty who were also teaching the same courses.

These sessions provided helpful networking, as sense of community, clarity of university expectations and course expectations.

In terms of recommendations for future CAFÉ’s, the responses were more varied. Many participants wanted more time to talk in the “Birds of a Feather” sessions. Some faculty wanted separate sessions for new professors and veteran professors. They thought that new faculty needed more intensive time to get down the basics of the university system and the individual courses. Others wanted more problem-solving and sharing of classroom techniques. One person suggested that we need to have an adjunct handbook for all part-time people. Another person asked for a two day conference saying that one day was not enough.

Recommendations

1. To continue CAFÉ as a meaningful experience.
2. To deepen the quality of CAFÉ to move from information to formation and transformation.
3. To go beyond CAFÉ and develop a Teaching Institute.

Conclusion

The four lenses have helped us assess CAFÉ. In the first lens, we clarified our definition and purposes of professional development. This led us to examine ourselves in light of the elements of effective professional development. Going further, we found the models of teacher development to be a framework by which we could measure what we are doing at CAFÉ.  And, in the final lens, the faculty evaluations of CAFÉ experiences provided us helpful feedback to see whether the reactions, learning, transfer and results have made a difference in the teaching and learning of our full and part-time faculty. While the four lenses have been helpful in assessing CAFÉ, we also know we cannot rest on our laurels. The journey continues to deepen the quality of professional development for full-time and part-time faculty at Concordia University Chicago. We hope this reflection will be helpful to other colleges and universities as they seek to develop an effective professional learning community in their own places.

References

• Annunziata, J. (1997). Linking teacher evaluation and professional development. In J. Stronge (Eds.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practices (pp. 288-301). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Arreola, R. A. (2010, April 9). Chicago Area Faculty Development Network Spring 2010 Seminar. Evaluation of Faculty Teaching: What the Research Tells Us.
• Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). (2002). Design your professional development program. Alexandria, VA: Author.
• Baron-Nixon, L. (2007). Connecting non full-time faculty to institutional mission . Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Culbertson, J. (1996). Building bridges: The mission and principles of professional development. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Education, Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 322).
• DiPaola, M. F.,&Hoy, W. K. (2008). Principals improving instruction: Supervision, evaluation and professional development. Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Fogarty, R.,&Pete, B. (2010). Professional learning 101: A syllabus of seven protocols. Kappan, 91 (4), 32-34.
• Friedman, A.,&Phillips, M. (2004). Balancing strategy and accountability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,15 (2), 187-204.
• Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change ( 2 ^nd ed). New York: Teachers College Press.
• Fullan, M.G. (1995). The limits and the potential of professional development. In T. Guskey&
• M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 253-267). New York: Teachers College Press.
• Ganser, I. (2000, October). An ambitious vision of professional staff development. Retrieved from National Association of Secondary School Principals website: http://www.nassp.org/news/bltn_prodevtchrl000.htm.
• Good, J.M., Miller, V.,&Gassenheimer, C. (2003, April). Overhauling professional development: Self-assessment conversations to initiate reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
• Knowles, M.S., Halton, E.F.,&Swanson, R.A. (1998) The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. (5 ^th ed.). Woburn: MA: Butterworth- Heinemann.
• Lyons, R.E. (Ed.). (2007). Best Practices for supporting adjunct faculty. Bolton, MA: Anker.
• Reeves, D.A. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Regan, J. (2003, September 22). Adult faith formation: Will it catch on this time? America Magazine
• Sergiovanni, T. (2005). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. (5 ^th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Smoker, M. (1996). Results: The key to continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.