Air Force Institute of Technology
AFIT Scholar
AFIT Documents
8-23-2017
Final Report of the AFIT Quality Initiative External Discovery
Committee
Air Force Institute of Technology
Jason M. Bindewald
Alice E. Grimes
Jason K. Freels
Andrew J. Geyer
Air Force Institute of Technology
See next page for additional authors
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.afit.edu/docs
Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Educational Methods
Commons, and the Higher Education Commons
Recommended Citation
Air Force Institute of Technology Quality Initiative External Discovery Committee. 2017. Final Report of the
AFIT Quality Initiative External Discovery Committee. AFIT/EN/TR-17-02, https://scholar.afit.edu/docs/1
This Report is brought to you for free and open access by AFIT Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in AFIT
Documents by an authorized administrator of AFIT Scholar. For more information, please contact
richard.mansfield@afit.edu.
Authors
Air Force Institute of Technology, Jason M. Bindewald, Alice E. Grimes, Jason K. Freels, Andrew J. Geyer,
Laurence D. Merkle, Amy J. High, Michael T. Hill, and Richard Kappel
This report is available at AFIT Scholar: https://scholar.afit.edu/docs/1
FINAL REPORT OF THE AFIT QUALITY INITIATIVE
EXTERNAL DISCOVERY COMMITTEE
TECHNICAL REPORT
AFIT/EN/TR-17-02
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR UNIVERSITY
AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A.
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED.
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the findings of the Air Force Institute of Technology’s (AFIT’s) Quality
Initiative - External Discovery Team. The overarching purpose of the Quality Initiative is to create
a detailed, executable investment strategy for modernizing AFIT’s instructional capabilities. The
Quality Initiative focused on five thrust areas:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Classroom and teaching laboratory design, functionality and utilization
E-learning technologies for resident and distance delivery
Faculty and Staff development programs and support infrastructure
Infrastructure to support advanced instructional technology capabilities
Organizational structures, policies, processes, procedures, and strategic vision to support
effective teaching
The goal of the External Discovery Team was to reach out to academic institutions, corporate and
government organizations, technology vendors, and other entities to identify ways that AFIT can
improve instructional capabilities across each of the five thrust areas. The committee was
composed of the following members, with focus areas as noted:
• Committee Chair - Maj Jason Bindewald, ENG, Assistant Professor
• Classroom Design - Mr. Rick Kappel – CEC, Instructor of Eng. Applications
• E-Learning Technologies - Maj Jason Freels – ENV, Assistant Professor
• Faculty Development - Dr. Betsy Grimes – EN, Director of Faculty Development & LtCol
Andrew Geyer – ENC, Assistant Professor
• Infrastructure - Mr. Michael Hill – ENG, Division Laboratory Chief
• Organizational Structures - Ms. Amy High – ENW, Chief of Reader Services
• Member at Large: - Dr. Larry Merkle – ENG, Assistant Professor
Data collection activities included site visits (Buffalo Pacific, University of Cincinnati, University
of Dayton, Wright State University, Ohio State University, Florida Institute of Technology), phone
interviews (Harvard University, Murray State University, Case Western Reserve University,
Gettysburg College, University of Central Florida), conference attendance (EDUCause,
Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, IEEE Special Interest Group on Computer Science
Education), journal publications related to teaching, and gathering of information through email
requests and visiting publicly available websites.
These activities were completed over the course of one year, beginning in June of 2016 and
concluding in June of 2017. The data gathered were evaluated and several recommendations for
further review were decided upon by the External Discovery Team. The following report briefly
covers those recommendations and provides sources from which the recommendations were
gleaned.
The recommendations herein are meant to serve as a baseline for ways in which AFIT could begin
to program resources to help improve teaching and instruction across the institution as a whole.
Following is a summarized list of all recommendations of the External Discovery Team, organized
by thrust area.
-1-
1. Classroom Design – Page 3
I.
Mobile Tablet Computer Carts for Students
II.
Displays With Click to Share Capabilities
III.
Small Subset of Classrooms Designed with Collaborative Furniture Setups
IV.
Interactive Projectors/Display Screens
2. Thrust Area 2: E-Learning Technologies – Page 6
I.
Tools for Cloud-Based File Sharing and Collaboration
II.
Tools to Organize Communications
III. Tools to Access, Edit, and Re-Use Existing Video Content
3. Thrust Area 3: Faculty Development – Page 10
I.
Center for Teaching and Learning
II.
Examine and Revise the New Faculty Orientation Program
III.
Recurring Engagement of Faculty with Leadership
IV.
Develop a Faculty Development Advisory Committee
4. Thrust Area 4: Infrastructure – Page 14
I.
Codified Set of Minimum Requirements for Facilities Upgrades
II.
Establish Clear Understanding of How Money May Be Raised and Used for
Facilities Upgrades
III.
Clear and Centralized Scheduling Functions for Both Classrooms and
Equipment at the Highest Feasible Level
5. Thrust Area 5: Organizational Structures – Page 17
I.
Peer to Peer Evaluation of Teaching
II.
External Reviewers for Academic Program Reviews
III.
Professor of Practice Positions
IV.
Tenure Tracks for Both Teaching and Research Faculty
V.
Processes to Create Flexibility in Allowing Education across Departments
VI.
Rethinking of Library Functionality and Librarian Responsibilities
No cost or effort estimates are attached to the recommendations, due to uncertainty in what an
implementation of any of the recommendations would look like. Most of the recommendations
could range immensely in cost and ease of implementation dependent upon the scope of the
ultimate project assumed. As such, cost and effort estimation is left to the AFIT Quality Initiative
Gap Analysis and Investment Strategy team. The data presented here are meant to serve as a
compliment to the Internal Discovery Team’s report that focuses on data and feedback gathered
from institutions internal to AFIT. These two reports combined, serve as a baseline for
implementing an institutional instructional capability investment strategy.
Maj Jason M. Bindewald, Ph.D.
External Discovery Committee Chair
-2-
Thrust Area 1: Classroom Design
Classroom design is focused on the elements of teaching that support good teaching practices. A
classroom should be able to be adjusted to best fit the needs of each class, and not the other way
around. Many studies have found that students learn more effectively in active learning
environments that utilize collaborative technologies [1]. The QIP External Discovery Committee
is making design recommendations that promote an active/collaborative learning classroom and
flexibility.
This section explores four capabilities that enhance learning. (1) Mobile tablet computer carts
could be used to enhance the resources available to students during a course. (2) Displays with
the capabilities to share student work with the class, teacher, or individual students support
collaboration. (3) Furniture designed to be easily moved would make instructor room set-up
adjustable to different pedagogies. (4) Interactive projectors enable instructors to manipulate and
demonstrate course content directly to student observers.
I. Mobile tablet computer carts for students
Mobile tablet carts are used in many education environments. Each student is assigned a tablet,
which has preloaded information or access to software or a website (ex. Blackboard). Students
use the tablets during the course to take notes on the presentation, access spreadsheets, web pages,
AFI’s, etc. Students can save the course information electronically, which saves them office space
and saves AFIT paper/printing costs.
I.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
The State of Ohio created Straight A Fund Grants to “launch creative new ideas for improving
education.” [2] Two local schools, Beavercreek and Kettering, used their funding to purchase
computers or tablets for each student in their school system. Each student received a tablet or
computer, depending on grade level, and used the cart and tablets therein during school for
classwork and after school for homework. The ability for students to utilize this technology in the
classroom enabled the use of many excellent outside resources. These technologies have also been
used to increase collaborative learning between students:
-
eSpark Learning in Beavercreek City Schools [3]
Kettering City Schools [4]
Air Education and Training Command recently purchased 312 tablets for use in its DoD Fire
Academy [5] courses as a mobile interaction learning environment. These tablets are being used
in the classroom for collaborative exercises, teacher led projects, research, and assessment.
Students are also able to take the tablets out in the field and conduct demonstrations. Annually,
the Fire Academy is estimated to save $126K in O&M, $325K printing costs, and 7,042 reams of
paper.
I.B Pros and Cons
-3-
The biggest cases for support in using mobile tablets in the classroom are the opportunities for
students to access outside resources and collaborate with each other inside and outside the
classroom.
The biggest con to adopting computer carts is the high initial up-front cost ($17,000) for a cart of
30 tablets. However, there are offsetting monetary savings in printing and paper costs to consider.
The maintenance and upkeep of the cart and tablets should also be considered in this proposal.
II. Displays with click to share capabilities
Click to share capabilities involve a small hockey puck like device that plugs into a USB port of a
tablet or computer. The computer user can click the puck and have his/her screen shared to display
or projector. Displays equipped with sharing capabilities allow students to share their ideas and
work with other students, the group, or the entire class. This ability to share is the corner stone of
any active learning/collaborative environment.
II.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
Wright State University has designed classrooms that are specifically focused on employing active
learning principles [6]. These classrooms employ a variety of mediums that can be shared with
group or station displays or the main projector.
II.B Pros and Cons
A pro about the displays is that they are relatively cheap ($1,500) and are easily equipped with
sharing technologies. A con would be the classroom space that they take up when not in use.
III. Small subset of classrooms designed with collaborative furniture setups
Collaborative furniture is flexible, easily moved, and can be designed to promote student centered
learning. Many classroom arrangements are rigid and hard to reconfigure. Students will also need
the ability to plug in computers and tablets. Collaborative furniture allows the instructor to design
the classroom layout around the needs of the course. Classrooms equipped with collaborative
furniture allows teachers to teach to their own pedagogy.
III.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
The Wright Brothers Institute has a mission of providing resources for AFRL research partners to
come up with innovative solutions to problems [7]. Their rooms feature collaborative furniture and
allow the user to easily set the room up however they choose. During a tour of the facility,
committee members saw five different classrooms set up in five completely different ways.
III.B Pros and Cons
The biggest pro is the ability to organize a room around a class and promote collaboration. The
biggest con is the high costs associated with the furniture and the room modifications needed to
install the furniture (ex. electrical upgrades).
IV. Interactive projectors/display screens
-4-
Interactive projectors are commonly found in many classrooms around the US. The capabilities
of an interactive projector allow the instructor to effectively manipulate web sites and course
content. These projectors allow the teacher to teach in ways that weren’t possible before. Products
such as the Epson BrightLink® enable users to utilize an existing whiteboard without a screen [8].
IV.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
Every organization the external discovery committee visited utilized interactive projectors in one
way or another. Examples of an organization making full use of the projector capabilities can be
found at Kettering City Schools. Teachers use the projectors to access student assignments and
demonstrations, show animations, dissect data on charts and graphs, and conduct virtual
dissections.
IV.B Pros and Cons
A pro of interactive projectors is that they engage the audience in presentations beyond the normal
limits of classroom instructions. However, a potential drawback to these systems is that they
require training and reassessment of course material in order for faculty members to effectively
utilize them.
-5-
Thrust Area 2: E-Learning Technologies
The phrase “e-learning technology” describes technology-based products used to manage
educational content. In this context, content management can refer to any of the following
capability areas
1.
Infrastructure for storing, cataloging, and accessing content
2.
Methods for capturing, sharing, presenting, and deploying content
3.
Processes to integrate content – either between individuals, between e-learning
technologies, or both
Although many examples of hardware-based e-learning technologies exist, most are delivered as
online services via cloud-based software applications. When compared to the use of hardware
tools, cloud-based delivery can lower the costs associated with providing e-learning services.
However, cloud-based delivery has also accelerated the pace at which e-learning technologies
become obsolete and replaced by newer technologies. As result, the number of e-learning
technologies often increases rapidly as companies work to quickly develop tools to fill various
educational needs. This rapid expansion in the number of e-learning tools is often followed by an
equally rapid period of contraction due to either market forces or corporate acquisitions.
Due to these expansion/contraction cycles, the process of selecting an e-learning service can be
difficult, as it involves identifying which features are important today while simultaneously trying
to predict which features will be important in the future as newer services are made available with
improved features. Therefore, the recommendations that follow are focused on implementing the
‘must have’ e-learning technologies as identified during on-site visits to universities by QIP
external subcommittee. These recommended technologies include: (1) tools for cloud-based file
sharing and collaboration, (2) tools for channeled communication, (3) tools for accessing, sharing,
and re-using video content, and (4) interactive video distance learning. Note that several e-learning
tools have recently been developed to deliver capabilities (3) and (4) as part of a single service.
As result, recommendations (3) and (4) have been merged in the discussion below.
I. Tools for Cloud-based File Sharing and Collaboration
Cloud based file sharing (CBFS) is a service wherein individuals, with appropriate permissions,
can access, edit, upload, or download files. CBFS facilitates easier collaboration on documents
and presentations as the files can remain in a single location that can be accessed from anywhere
in the world. Many CBFS services also help maintain version control for files and allow many
users to edit documents simultaneously.
The QIP external committee asked the representatives from each school with whom we met “If
you were forced to give up all but one e-learning technology – which would you keep”. Each
school responded that their CBFS service was the most important e-learning technology. A
common response was that not having a CBFS service would have a significant negative effect on
the ability of their faculty to collaborate both internally and with other institutions.
I.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
-6-
The most commonly used tools of this type are: Dropbox Business [9], Box Enterprise [10],
OneDrive for Business [11], and Google Drive [12]. Examples of universities using these tools
are listed below, and many universities (private and public) offer more than one of these tools.
Finally, as Dropbox Business is a newer offering, relatively few examples of universities using
this service are available. As result, Dropbox Business is not included in the list below.
-
Box Enterprise – Ohio State, Miami (FL), Indiana, Illinois, Stanford, Cincinnati, TexasAustin
OneDrive for Business – Miami (FL), Auburn, Alabama-Birmingham, Wright State, Texas
Tech, Harvard, UMASS
Google Drive – Michigan, Western Michigan, Miami (FL), Syracuse, Minnesota, Dayton,
Texas A&M, Harvard, MIT
From discussions with representatives at each school visited by the QIP external subcommittee,
the choice of CBFS service providers was determined primarily by the answers to two questions:
1.
2.
Which service’s security features are sufficient for our institution’s needs?
How well will the service integrate with our LMS or other tools we already provide?
I.B. Pros and Cons
Pros to implementing a CBFS include better collaboration between faculty and distance students,
continued collaboration with students who have already graduated, and easier access to files while
traveling (sending web links to files instead of file paths on a local shared drive that often can’t be
accessed when not in the office). Cons include hurdles to obtaining authority to operate a system
of this nature on a DoD network and ensuring that safeguards are in place to protect sensitive
documents.
II. Tools to Organize Communications
Many organizations have adopted tools that aggregate, or channel, communication activities
around ‘teams’. In this context of AFIT, a team might be the entire organization, a department, a
research group, a committee, or simply a group of individuals collaborating to reach some decision.
Channeled communication has become very popular because it allows users to focus on their most
important communication channels. By contrast, email consolidates all communication in an
inbox, forcing users to respond to every notification to determine if it is important.
Channeled communication tools can also be configured such that certain communication channels
constrain activity to within an organization while other channels allow members from outside
organizations. Further, many channeled communication tools integrate with other tools and
services to provide a richer functionality. For example, faculty can quickly discover who has
expertise in a certain research area and then invite them to join a channel focused on discussing
efforts in that area. As another example, many channeled communication tools can integrate with
Office 365 such that team members can create and collaborate on Office documents in real time.
Finally, channeled communications can help leadership emphasize certain stories and events to
specific teams.
II.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
-7-
The most commonly used tools of this type are: Slack [13], Microsoft Teams [14], Zoom [15],
Google+ [16], and Skype for Business [17]. Examples of universities using these tools are listed
below. Note that (1) Microsoft Teams is a new offering and has not yet been approved for use in
the MS Office Suite used by government organizations; therefore, it is not included in the list, and
(2) Google+ is available as a subscription service for individuals and for organizations. However
organization subscriptions only come with a subscription to G Suite. As AFIT has chosen to use
Canvas as its LMS, and not G Suite, Google+ is not included on the list of tools below.
-
Slack – Harvard
Zoom – Harvard, Michigan State, Kansas State, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Rutgers,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Houston, Xavier, Austin Peay, Rice, Santa Clara, Stanford
Skype – Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Pittsburgh, Arkansas, Tennessee, Marquette, South
Florida, Boston, Rochester, Buffalo, Edinburgh, Colorado-Denver, Wright-State, Stirling
II.B. Pros and Cons
Pros to organized communication software include integrating voice, text, video, images, and files
into every communication stream; archiving and searching communications (by channel or across
many channels); customizing notification settings for any communication channel: ability to turn
off notifications for noisy channels and keep them on for others; and many providers offer tools to
make any room capable of hosting a VTC or recording a lecture. Cons can include an emergent
litany of communication “channels” to organize; ensuring security communications and
integrations could be a lengthy process; and training AFIT faculty & staff to use a new
communication paradigm could be challenging.
III. Tools to access, edit, and re-use existing video content
As a body, the AFIT faculty have created a large volume of video content for teaching various
topics to both in-resident and non-resident students. When instructors develop new courses, or
update existing ones, having access to existing video content could make the process faster. Tools
have been developed for storing and cataloging video content so that it can be easily accessed and
utilized by many instructors across multiple courses. As example, many AFIT courses include
math content presented by ENC as part of the refresher videos provided to new students. Having
an accessible repository of video content could reduce the amount of time spent revamping
courses.
Several products exist to make the process of creating, uploading, editing, and cataloging video
content much easier. Some of these products can be used to construct overlays to the videos,
making them interactive. For example, allowing students to make persistent annotations directly
on the video such that instructors and students can review previous comments. Finally, many of
these products provide dashboards presenting data analytics on which students have viewed an
assigned video, the points within the video where students spent the most time, and any comments
the students had about ideas that they found to be confusing.
III.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
-8-
The most commonly used tools of this type are: Sharestream [18], Panopto [19], Mediasite [20],
and Kaltura [21]. Examples of universities using these tools are listed below.
-
-
-
Sharestream – Georgetown, Iowa, Eastern Washington, Texas A&M, Maryland, North
Florida, Lewis University, Tulane, Georgia State
Panopto – Kettering, Michigan, Ohio University, Utah, LSU, Auburn, Rochester, Texas
A&M, Washington, Emory, Cornell, Yale, Johns Hopkins, USC, George Washington, Illinois,
Virginia, Virginia Tech, Miami, Boston College, Baylor, Akron, Oregon, Brown, Pepperdine,
Arizona, Tennessee, BYU, Hong Kong, Stanford, Oxford, Columbia, Iowa, Cal-Berkley,
Minnesota State, NYU, William & Mary
Mediasite – California State University System (23 Campuses), Ohio State, Northwestern,
Arizona State, Clarion University, Duke, Villanova, Syracuse, Houston, Colorado, CarnegieMellon
Kaltura – Alaska, Georgia Southern, Oregon State, Illinois, Miami, UCONN
III.B. Pros and Cons
Pros to using video indexing tools include integration with closed captioning services; dashboards
providing insight to see which videos students watch, how long they watch, and when they
stop watching; and creating an easily accessible campus video portal or “AFIT YouTube.” Cons
include products that require videos to be uploaded to external servers (removing control from
AFIT support); access to videos is dependent on network reliability for certain products; and
security of content once it is posted.
-9-
Thrust Area 3: Faculty Development
The External Discovery Team compared the information on faculty development best practices,
current programming and activities, and successful initiatives at a variety of institutions. This data
enabled the committee to compare faculty development programs of various sizes and
compositions. The result of this analysis was a set of common characteristics across institutions
that present opportunities for AFIT to create a contemporary faculty development program that is
consistent with other successful programs. The following recommendations have been
demonstrated to be beneficial to the faculty, the institution, and ultimately the students and appear
to be feasible with current levels of available support.
These items are based on best practices and programming at the institutions examined by the
External Discovery Team. While there is considerable diversity among the various institutions
based on size, mission, and student population, the following items are found consistently. The
recommendations are: (1) A Center for Teaching and Learning that can be used by faculty and
students from all AFIT schools; (2) Revised new faculty orientation program for the Graduate
School of Engineering; (3) Organized opportunity for faculty members from all schools to engage
with leadership; and, (4) A Faculty Advisory Committee composed of representatives from each
school.
I. Center for Teaching and Learning
A teaching and learning center at AFIT could be housed centrally and contain the faculty
development function as well as various services that support teaching and learning excellence.
Such services could include: access to the library resources and reference personnel; course
designers (a common feature at OSU, University of Cincinnati, Wright State University and
University of Dayton) and e-learning technology and support (AFIT Extension Services); and,
technical writing assistance (the technical writer position). If space permits, such a center could
also provide small group meeting space for students, and technology equipped classroom space
available by request of faculty members.
These facilities house various services for both faculty and students including faculty development,
course designers, e-learning support and instruction, tutoring, writing support, and often library
research or other library services. Teaching and learning centers typically serve both faculty and
students and often house innovative classroom space utilizing alternative design to facilitate the
use of technology and active learning environments. The recommendations in areas of etechnology, classroom design, and infrastructure would coincide with the development of a center
for teaching and learning.
I.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
Such centers were found at the committee’s visits to Ohio State University Center for the
Advancement of Teaching [22], University of Cincinnati UC Center for the Enhancement of
Teaching and Learning [23], Wright State University The Center for Teaching and Learning [24],
and University of Dayton, Ryan C. Harris Learning Teaching Center [25]. Teaching and learning
centers were also reported at the institutions interviewed by phone, including Air University,
- 10 -
Teaching and Learning Center. Additional examples are easily available online as well:
University of Minnesota Center for Educational Innovation [26], Colorado School of Mines Trefny
Innovative Instruction Center [27], and Middlebury Center for Teaching, Learning, & Research
[28].
The centers were titled differently at each institution and the configuration of services was
somewhat different depending on the mission, resources, and priorities of each. However, the
purpose and intent was reflected across all of the institutions and teaching and learning centers
appear to be quickly becoming a standard feature on campuses. This phenomenon reflects a new
understanding of how learning best occurs, the needs and expectations of students, and the growing
influence and opportunity presented by e-learning technology in the classroom.
I.B. Pros and Cons
The benefits to AFIT would include a comprehensive facility to support teaching effectiveness and
innovation, student learning through ready availability of support services and resources, and ease
of access to all services housed in the center. The central location would also encourage the use
of existing resources such as educational technology, and encourage faculty and students to
maximize resources to the benefit of all constituents. The center would also coincide with the QIP
recommendations for infrastructure and classroom design, and developing the center could provide
benefits to all three areas. Such a facility would also more closely align AFIT with other
institutions in the area and the United States, especially those with strong technology and science
programs. There are associated costs, however; the primary concern is the location of the center,
as a physical space would need to be assigned with possible costs for remodeling, upgrading, or
rewiring.
II. Examine and Revise the New Faculty Orientation Program
Another common feature among many institutions in the comparison group was a mentoring
program. These were either in place or in planning stages at the time of the Team’s inquiry.
Mentoring programs take multiple forms but the most common appear to be for junior faculty [29]
or special groups of faculty members such as women [30] or for newly appointed chairs, as in a
program at The Ohio State University. Mentors provide information, support, guidance and
enculturation for the individuals receiving mentoring in an effort to improve retention, morale, and
performance of the target group. A mentoring program could be included in the new faculty
orientation where senior faculty mentors would be paired with new faculty in their respective
departments.
II.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
Example programs were found in several locations throughout the committee’s search, such as the
one at Wright State University [31], Murray State University’s New Faculty Academy [32], and
Northern Illinois University’s New Faculty Mentoring Program [33]. While AFIT has offered a
new faculty orientation program in the past, the content could be revised to include vital
information to support success in the crucial first year and improve retention, performance, and
job satisfaction among new faculty.
- 11 -
II.B. Pros and Cons
The benefits of a redesigned new faculty orientation would include: new faculty better equipped
to develop and manage their classrooms; faculty with improved understanding of the culture and
expectations of AFIT; streamlined orientation programming with inclusion of the most critical
information; and finally, new faculty that are better prepared for productivity in the first year. The
program will, however, take two weeks of the faculty member’s time and in order to be beneficial,
the content of the orientation must be carefully planned and executed. The effectiveness of the
presentations and the speakers included in the agenda is an important element that cannot be
minimized. These individuals must be selected with care and forethought and presented with
outcome expectations for their component of the orientation in order that the full benefit be
realized.
III. Recurring Engagement of Faculty with Leadership
Opportunities to interact with senior administration having direct knowledge of and responsibility
for academic issues is another common feature of the faculty development programs of the
universities interviewed. These gatherings often take the form of informal meetings in small group
settings with a dean in a “coffee and conversation” or brown bag setting. Such meetings give
faculty an opportunity to ask questions and feel that their voice is heard. In some cases is it
figuratively and literally “a place at the table” meant to enlighten, empower, and inform both the
faculty member and the administrator. The recommendation is to initiate a monthly “brown bag”
lunch meeting with the Dean to enable a small group of faculty to interact. Every faculty member
would receive an invitation to attend during the academic year.
III.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
For example, the Dean of the College of Engineering at Harvard University meets with junior
faculty on a regular basis in support of their professional development, teaching, and research [34].
A similar process was observed at The Ohio State University on a site visit, where junior faculty
were regularly invited to meet with school and university leaders. Other examples include Brown
Bag Town Hall meetings with the President and provost at Stanford University [35] and
collaborative lunch meetings at Allegheny College [36].
III.B. Pros and Cons
Benefits of this proposal would include a greater sense of investment in the overall institution and
a sense of importance for the contribution of each individual faculty member. The cost includes
the time invested by each faculty member in the meeting and the cost to the administrator for
his/her time. Also, there is a time and energy investment to schedule, plan, send invitations, and
track these meetings and participation rates.
IV. Develop a Faculty Development Advisory Committee
A faculty development advisory board or committee is another element frequently incorporated
into faculty development programs. These boards provide information regarding faculty needs,
new ideas to grow and develop programs, assistance with informing faculty of opportunities
- 12 -
available through the faculty development program, and general support for personnel and
programs. As Sorcinelli [37] states, “Faculty development programs should never remain static.
They must adjust creatively and responsively to meet changing student, faculty, institutional, and
societal needs. They, like professors, can never be finished products” (p. 8).
Faculty development programming within the institutions examined is typically provided on a
regular basis and attempts to provide information that appeals to a broad segment of the faculty.
Programs may be brief lunch hour presentations introducing a new idea for teaching, using
technology, self-care, student advising, etc. (such programming is provided, for example, at
University of Central Florida and Wright State University). These brief programs are often
supplemented by less frequent more formal opportunities to examine a topic in greater depth and
for a longer period of time, as was seen at University of Cincinnati. A faculty development
advisory committee would ideally include representation from each school within AFIT to insure
that all faculty and instructors within the organization are aware of and provided access to
professional development opportunities and have input into programming.
IV.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
Examples of this practice were seen during committee site visits to the University of Cincinnati
and Wright State University, as well as during an interview with University of Central Florida.
Several other examples can be found throughout academia, such as the Wake Forest School of
Medicine [38] and Fayetteville State University [39].
IV.B. Pros and Cons
Such a committee would provide valuable input from the departments through the representatives
on the council to enable tailoring of the training and development offerings of the faculty
development program. The limitation would lie in finding representatives from each school and
department that recognized the benefit of participation and was willing to devote time to attending
meetings of the committee and dissemination information in his/her department and/or school.
- 13 -
Thrust Area 4: Infrastructure
The information gained about infrastructure can cross into laboratory, classroom and multimedia
setups, but is focused on the codified set of minimum requirements for upgrades of physical
structures. This would include upgrades to the facilities, such as basic classroom infrastructure,
assessment of buildings/classrooms, classroom furniture, and building studies.
Infrastructure can overlap into classroom/design and learning centers for students and faculty.
There are different forms of infrastructure; physical structure, IT hardware/software, and furniture.
The three recommendations from the external discovery committee pertaining to infrastructure
include (1) a codified set of minimum requirements for facilities upgrades, (2) clear understanding
of how funding can be raised and used for facilities upgrades, and (3) a clear/centralized scheduling
function for both classrooms and equipment.
I. Codified Set of Minimum Requirements for Facilities Upgrades
All classrooms and common areas such as coffee bar area, lobbies outside of classrooms, etc.
should support multi IT drops, power consumption, classroom IT equipment, etc. when redesigned
to support classrooms, faculty/students. Student by today’s standards usually have at least three
internet capable devices; cell phone, laptop, and notepad on them at all times while in a university
and/or college environment. Students want the capability to type up reports (laptop) while still
having separate access to taking/making calls (cellphone) while referring to notes taken in class
(tablet). Other areas of requirements should also be looked at such a power consumption, new
projectors, classroom furniture, etc.
I.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
Wright State University has a newly built learning center that is dedicated to meeting the needs of
students by ensuring there is support of up to five IT devices per student at any given time. All
classrooms and common areas such as the learning center have been and/or are in the process of
being upgraded when funding is available to accommodate a minimum of three networked devices
per student, accommodating both power and internet access.
The Ohio State University has “Policies and Procedures” and “Design Guidelines for Buildings
and landscaping” to help make sound fiscal decisions [40]. University of Cincinnati has “Use of
Facilities Policy Manual” to guide faculty to make clear concise decisions on classroom design
[41]. Additionally, Science magazine has an online article on adding efficiency to general lab
equipment [42].
I.B. Pros and Cons
The upgrade of multiple device parts and wireless network capability is suggested. Providing a
minimum number of IT connections per student would increase their productivity through review
of notes, writing up research documents, while being able to make and take calls from fellow
students or advisors, all without having to drop a connection. The negative impact to adding more
IT drops and/or capabilities for some number of connections per student would be the cost of
increasing internet bandwidth to support the number of total devices being used, including
- 14 -
classroom IT devices. Other negative impacts would be initial cost, timeline to complete and a
support team to keep the system up and running.
II. Establish Clear Understanding of How Money May Be Raised and Used for Facilities
Upgrades
Currently, funds to upgrade buildings contain restrictions based on DoD and federal guidelines.
For example, research monies obtained by faculty members, are allowed to make small
modifications such as upgrading classrooms, upgrading power from single-phase to two- or threephase and upgrading power requirements for equipment per manufacturer specifications. A
reference cheat sheet is recommended in order to clearly communicate how money can be used in
accordance with policies and guidelines. Once policy is decided, training and a tool check sheet
should be implemented.
II.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
The Ohio State University raises all new building funds and building support is furnished by
monies brought in by the provost, grants, and donations from OSU alumni and/or supporters.
Facilities infrastructure and furniture are evaluated and replaced on a seven year life cycle while
information technology equipment is evaluated and replaced every three years.
The University of Cincinnati (UC) receives funding from the federal government for both direct
and indirect cost of associational university research. Indirect cost are those that fall into the
category of Facilities and Administration cost to include expenditures such as electricity, heating,
and air conditioning [43]. UC funding policy for financing for construction projects is owned by
the Senior Vice President for Administration and Finance with responsibility given to the vice
president for Finance Controller for Planning + Design + Construction.
II.B. Pros and Cons
A better understanding of these processes would allow faculty to focus on bringing in the right
types and amounts of research funds and to expend said funding more effectively once it arrives.
Cons to this process would be a lack of clear guidance on how to actually executive facilities
upgrades due to an unclear set of processes and policies which must be followed for DoD, AFIT,
and Federal guidance.
III. Clear and Centralized Scheduling Functions for Both Classrooms and Equipment at the
Highest Feasible Level
Implementation of a central hub for all scheduling of classrooms and equipment not necessarily
tied to a classroom is recommended. This type of scheduling module would allow for users to see
details about the classroom or equipment, such as seating capacity and availability and allow for
use across all schools. The process would provide a central point of contact to schedule all
classrooms, and common laboratories to accommodate the faculty and student requirements for
classes, minor laboratory reviews and group study. By doing so, we could increase our use of
space, and equipment, thus increase how efficiently we operate. A central hub for scheduling
could allow for fewer conflicts and wasted time to physically look for open space or usage time of
- 15 -
equipment. The schedule should be available to view on a website and/or SharePoint site by as
many people as possible.
III.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
Several examples of this type of process exist, such as at The University of Maryland [44], Miami
University (Ohio) [45], and The University of Oklahoma [46].
III.B. Pros and Cons
A centralized scheduling function at the highest feasible level could improve utilization of space
throughout the campus, and gives faculty and students the latest information on room availability.
Metrics can be established to determine usages of rooms to maximize use of space and cost should
be based on software used (Outlook Calendar already in place; no cost), and time to setup the
schedule. Cons include that taking control of conference rooms to be assigned from current
departments to use for all, will increase the scheduler’s workload slightly, but should be a lesser
negative impact after implementation. This tool would also require the identification of a primary
organization to handle the maintenance of the tool’s accuracy.
- 16 -
Thrust Area 5: Organizational Structures
Organizational structures are the hierarchy of units within an organization. One of the main
questions that the committee wanted to explore through our research and visits was how do
organizational structures support effective teaching. The recommendations below examine
evaluation practices, hiring policies and new ways of sharing knowledge, research, and resources
that improve the learning environment for faculty and students. Large projects such as the
multidisciplinary initiatives discussed below are overseen by the universities’ provost offices.
Administrative offices establish general guidelines on tenure, program reviews and evaluations.
At many schools these guidelines are customized within the department or college by faculty and
departments heads. Collaboration and communication among the different levels of organizational
structures is a key part of their successes.
Recommended organizational structure findings for AFIT to consider include: (1) mandatory peer
to peer evaluation of teaching; (2) distinguished external reviewers of academic programs; (3)
codifying professor of practice positions; (4) establishing both teaching and research tenure tracks;
(5) increased inter-departmental education; and (6) rethinking the functionality of the library.
I. Peer to Peer Evaluation of Teaching
Peer to peer evaluation of teaching provides faculty with an avenue of feedback that identifies their
strengths and weaknesses in teaching. There are two types of peer to peer evaluations. Formative
peer evaluations are done to help faculty improve their teaching skills. Summative peer evaluations
are often done before tenure or promotion reviews to assess the quality of the faculty member’s
teaching abilities. The summative peer to peer evaluations fall under organizational structures
because it is often an integral part of the tenure process. However formative peer evaluations could
also fall under faculty development as these evaluations help faculty improve on their skills and
feedback from their peers could be considered a form of mentoring.
I.A. Examples from Outside Institutions
University of Texas at Austin provides excellent guidelines and resources for implementing a peer
review system that can be both formative and summative [47]. They promote implementation
and customization of a peer review system at the departmental level. “Creating a system for peer
review is not simply adopting a checklist, tool, instrument, or technique that others have devised.
We envision departments constructing a customized tool for ongoing development that builds on
what its instructors know and need to support their own as well as their students’ learning.” The
University of Oregon also has helpful guidelines [48] and Penn State also offers peer review
guidelines specifically for online teaching [49].
Wright State and University of Dayton both offer programs that involve peer to peer evaluation on
a formative level. Wright State’s Center for Teaching and Learning offers mid-term evaluation
visits from other faculty who observe them in the classroom. On these visits, the students are
surveyed and the faculty reviewer offers feedback to the faculty member being visited. Through
the UD Learning Teaching Center, faculty can request a Midterm Instructional Diagnosis [50]
facilitated by a faculty member from another department. This faculty member visits the class,
- 17 -
breaks students into groups and gives them three questions to answer about the class. The students
are then brought back together as a group with the facilitator to discuss their answers and provide
feedback. The faculty facilitator then meets with the instructor to provide the student feedback
and their own observations on the class dynamics. The diagnosis is confidential and only shared if
the faculty member decides to share it. Both programs provide faculty with the opportunity to
make changes to their classes if needed while it still benefits the students, and in many cases,
improve their end of semester evaluations.
Summative peer-to-peer evaluations are often an integral part of the tenure process. At the
University of Dayton’s College of Art and Sciences their guidelines require that “final
recommendations regarding tenure must be based upon at least two peer reviews of classroom
teaching and of course materials, conducted during at least two different semesters.” At Ohio State,
Kay Wolf, Vice President for Academic Policy and Faculty Resources, highlighted the OSU
Department of Veterinary BioSciences tenure guidelines. Depending on the teaching load, their
department suggests that faculty have one or more summative peer reviews a year. The peer
reviews should be initiated by the faculty member but can be initiated by the department chair if
the faculty member has had low marks on their evaluations. For the peer evaluations, the faculty
member and reviewer are required to meet ahead of time to discuss the faculty’s course goals,
teaching style and philosophy and to get copies of their syllabus and other class materials. After
the meeting and class observations, the reviewer provides a summative report that goes to the
faculty member evaluated and the department chairperson. It is suggested that copies of the report
also go in their annual review and dossier. In an examination of other schools, peer evaluation
varied depending on the faculty status. Non-tenured faculty have yearly peer reviews. Tenure track
faculty peer reviews were dependent on where they were in the tenure process. Tenured faculty
peer reviews were less frequent unless there were issues with their teaching.
I.B. Pros and Cons
Instituting a peer to peer evaluation system would take some time to develop initially, but there
are several schools that provide helpful guidelines that could be adaptable to AFIT. A decision
would need to be made to either develop one new process across EN departments, have each EN
department be responsible for developing their own system, or a hybrid with some guidelines
across departments and some customized by each department. Since the evaluation is in house no
additional costs would be involved. One aspect to consider, however, is whether AFIT dynamics
would affect peer to peer review. Can a military faculty of a lower rank, review faculty with a
higher rank? Could civilian faculty be reviewed by a military faculty that is not tenured? Criteria
for selecting the peer reviewer would be important.
II. External Reviewers for Academic Program Reviews
Academic Program Reviews are a key component of an academic department’s success. They
identify a department’s strengths and weaknesses. Departments can use the feedback delivered to
make immediate changes and develop guidelines for continuous improvement. Some universities
require external reviewers to be a part of the process. External reviewers are individuals outside
the university who are considered experts in their fields and whose knowledge “provide insight
- 18 -
and feedback on issues and trends particular to the discipline.” The reports they produce “serve as
a constructive base for future improvement; they are intended to be a catalyst for the unit to chart
and seek change.”
II.A. Examples from Outside Institutions
Using external reviewers for program reviews was introduced to the committee at the Ohio State
visit by Dr. Randy Smith, Vice Provost for Academic Programs. He discussed their academic
program review [51] process which includes a self-study by the department being reviewed and
an external review. Their review included an extensive list of questions to consider for both the
self-study and external review. Among the questions that the external reviewers examine are:
•
•
•
•
•
Does the department have a research foci?
Does the department continue to do things the same way?
What majors are popular and what classes do students stumble through?
How does the department keep new faculty?
What are the role of inclusion, mentoring and department chairs?
The external review team meets with school and department administration, tenured and nontenured faculty, students and representatives from research centers associated with the department.
The final step in the review is developing a plan of action based on the self-study and external
review recommendations. The plan of action identifies immediate and continuous improvements.
Smith also recommended looking at the Northwestern University program review process [52]
which is very similar. One difference is that after their self-study, Northwestern assigns internal
reviewers to work with the external reviewers in a liaison capacity. The Northwestern review
process is also overseen by a Program Review Council made up of appointed senior faculty and
administrators that have served as internal reviewers. Cornell offers effective tips to help faculty
within a department prepare for the external reviews [53].
II.B. Pros and Cons
Including external reviewers in the academic program review process would be a great asset to
AFIT. They could provide valuable feedback from a different perspective. They could ensure that
AFIT programs and courses are relevant and rigorous. An external review also allows AFIT to
highlight their own research to prominent individuals in their fields of study. Time and planning
would be required to incorporate external reviewers into the current program review cycle. Cost
could also be a factor in bringing the external reviewer or reviewers to AFIT. It would need to be
determined if external reviewers could be funded the same way as HLC and ABET visits are
funded.
III. Professor of Practice Positions
Professors of Practice bring practical, real life experiences to the classroom and provide students
with experiential learning opportunities. Peer institutions such as NJIT, Ohio State, Cornell,
Columbia University, Georgia Tech, RPI and Virginia Tech have all established professor of
practice positions. Cornell defines Professor of Practice as a “title reserved for individuals whose
- 19 -
experiences in industry, or other non-academic organizations, complement the tenure-track and
non-tenure-track faculty in the college. The typical holder of this title is an experienced leader
from an upper managerial, technical or research position in his or her organization. These
individuals are expected to enrich the experience of students by bringing a deep understanding and
appreciation of the best practices as applied in real-world settings” [54].
III.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
UC San Diego provides detailed guidelines for departments implementing a professor of practice
program [55]. General guidelines are similar, but certain criteria vary among universities. Many
of the universities require professors of practice to have licenses or certificates and at least 10 years
of experience in their field. At some universities Professors of Practice are non-tenure-track
employees, but at others they could seek tenure status. For promotion at Ohio State, one Professor
of Practice position required “professional practice and service activities that emphasize outreach”
for promotion consideration. The University of Dayton hires local leaders in business, the arts
and engineering to teach courses but call them clinical faculty not Professors of Practice. In
addition to Professors of Practice positions, the University of Cincinnati’s engineering, aerospace
and business departments have industry advisory boards made up of industry leaders that
collaborate with the departments on internship programs, curriculum and research.
Establishing Professor of Practice positions at AFIT would be very beneficial to student learning
and foster research connections and collaborations. The Miami Valley has businesses and
industries that reflect AFIT’s research interests in aerospace, cyber and logistics. Having the
Professors of Practice in house would provide AFIT with connections to local companies that work
with the military and other businesses. Professors of Practice could enhance student’s knowledge
through their real world experiences and provide them with opportunities to actually visit
businesses and industries in their areas of study. AFIT students could use their knowledge and
research to collaborate with these businesses to solve real-world problems.
III.B. Pros and Cons
Positives of implementing Professor of Practice positions would include the ability to bring in
subject matter experts to teach classes as applicable, specifically allowing AFIT to take advantage
of distinct advantages that AFIT’s active duty military pool of professors can provide significant
work experience. Time and funding would be major considerations in establishing a Professor of
Practice position at AFIT. One factor would be the amount of time it takes to get new positions
classified and approved. Another would be in deciding what type of appointment this would be
in relation to Air Force guidelines. For example would the position be an over-hire, adjunct,
civilian or contractor? The appointment would help in determining what funding would be
available for the position.
IV. Tenure Tracks for Both Teaching and Research Faculty
During the research of and visits to different universities, the committee examined whether tenure
tracks were available for both teaching faculty and research faculty. At most of the universities
visited, teaching was one of three factors of tenure evaluation as well as service and
- 20 -
research/scholarship. However, few had separate tracks just for teaching. How much each factor
influenced the tenure review varied among the schools. These variances were due to reflection on
the university’s mission, departmental preferences, and faculty input.
IV.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
At the University of Cincinnati, tenure track faculty have two tracks: a research track and an
educator track. Each track has separate criteria. The educator track has a higher course load (6-8
classes per year vs 2-3 courses per year) with less emphasis on research. This enables UC to
develop faculty that specialize, increasing the effectiveness of both research and teaching efforts.
Gettysburg College has instituted a system to balance faculty commitments between research,
service and teaching wherein faculty get to choose what percentage of their appraisal goes to each
area. This allows faculty to have more freedom in pursing tenure in a non-traditional way. At UD
faculty are also required to show strengths in teaching, research and service, but the emphasis on
one over the other varies among the academic departments. At Ohio State an increased emphasis
is being put on teaching to reflect the university mission’s core goals. However, OSU recognizes
differences between departments. “In evaluating the candidate's qualifications in teaching,
scholarship, and service, reasonable flexibility shall be exercised, balancing, where the case
requires, heavier commitments and responsibilities in one area against lighter commitments and
responsibilities in another” [56]. The Social Work department, for example, puts a heavier
emphasis on teaching while at the College of Medicine national recognition has a big impact.
Case Western is also very research intensive. The departments vary in what they require, but
medicine and engineering stress the research component, specifically funded research in the tenure
process. Excellence in teaching is also expected but comes in second after research. Any service
requirements are kept very minimal before tenure. They want faculty to focus on their
research/scholarship and teaching. “To Tenure and Beyond” is a program open to nominated
second-year, tenure-track faculty. Those selected meet throughout the year [57].
IV.B. Pros and Cons
Pros to this approach include the ability to balance a faculty that rotates continuously due to the
tempo of Air Force and DoD movement of faculty members, thus allowing faculty to focus more
on the things they are interested in during their time here. Cons could include becoming
imbalanced toward teaching or research at the expense of the other at a school level, wherein
measures would be needed to keep proper balance.
V. Processes to Create Flexibility in Allowing Education across Departments
All of the universities that the committee visited have recently completed or are in the process of
updating their strategic plans. In line with their plans, many of them have started new hiring
initiatives and/or put an emphasis on interdisciplinary research. In some cases faculty are hired for
newly created majors while others are brought in to work on a specific research area that crosses
disciplines. This push towards interdisciplinary research attracts top faculty and provides students
with the opportunity to work closely with a variety of faculty on innovative research projects.
- 21 -
V.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
UC's Cluster Hiring Initiative [58] is “designed to harness the power of faculty members in targeted
areas in an attempt to help solve the world’s biggest challenges through leading-edge research and
interdisciplinary collaborations.” Within UC’s engineering departments a 50 in 5 initiative is
underway to hire 50 new faculty in five years to work in a multidisciplinary environment. For
example the Analytics Cluster is a collaboration of the Colleges of Education, Criminal Justice,
Business, Engineering, Medicine and the UC libraries and IT department. Through the clusters,
they hope to attract top researchers, faculty and funding.
Interdisciplinary research is also one component of Ohio State’s Discovery Themes Initiative.
“The Discovery Themes Initiative must be a model of interdisciplinarity and transinstitutionality
that promotes and enhances broad university collaboration” [59]. Ohio State has nine focus areas
of interdisciplinary research. They include Translational Data Analytics, Brain Injury and
Materials and Manufacturing for Sustainability among others. Faculty in Translational Data
Analytics come from a spectrum of departments including agriculture, decision sciences, sensors,
genomics and history as well as computer science. Ohio State recently created the first data
analytics major at a research university in the United States. Students will be working with the
faculty involved in the Translational Data Analytics focus area.
Similar to programs at UC and Ohio State, Case Western University’s engineering department has
started its own strategic hiring initiative. It also crosses disciplines to include research areas such
as Smart Energy, Sustainable Manufacturing and Biomedical Engineering. Under the hiring
initiative, “Case Western Reserve is seeking senior, mid-level and junior faculty who are proven
leaders in interdisciplinary research. The university also is making diversity a priority in this effort,
to increase the proportion of women and underrepresented minorities among the engineering
faculty. Successful candidates will hold primary appointments in the Case School of Engineering,
although in many instances they will be eligible for secondary appointments, for example within
the School of Medicine or College of Arts and Sciences.”
In joint appointments at the University of Dayton [60] the primary department or research center
must take primary responsibility for the faculty member. The appointment document must indicate
the extent of the faculty member’s responsibilities in the second unit and what percentage of their
pay will come from this unit. These policies are similar to other schools with joint appointments
[61]. Many joint appointment policies stress the importance of communication between the two
departments in that share the faculty member [62]. Teacher workload, departmental voting rights,
student advising and research funding are among the items that both departments must come to an
agreement on when making their appointments.
V.B. Pros and Cons
Our research centers are a good example of interdisciplinary research that is already taking place
at AFIT. Much of the research done has helped solve Air Force and Department of Defense
challenges that reflect our mission and strategic plan. AFIT could possibly repackage the way we
promote center research to show that AFIT is on par with interdisciplinary programs at other
universities. Many other schools include both teaching along with research in their centers.
- 22 -
Leveraging AFIT’s research centers to include degree programs could open up new opportunities
to address DoD needs. One facet of interdisciplinary research that AFIT lacks is a process for
acknowledging faculty that work across disciplines. Adapting a joint appointment policy with
specific guidelines in place could attract more faculty to interdisciplinary work.
VI. Rethinking of Library Functionality and Librarian Responsibilities
With changes in technology and information retrieval, libraries are finding themselves at a
crossroad. Librarians see their roles, teaching styles and their use of physical space in the library
changing. They are challenging themselves to find new ways to reach out to students and other
offices that complement their services.
VI.A. Examples from Outside Organizations
In three of the libraries that the committee visited, two had teaching and learning centers and labs
located on a floor of the library. Wright State’s Writing Center is in their Student Success Center
but they hold hours in the library to better reach students. Universities libraries across the country
have coordinated with their IT departments to upgrade their AV centers to digital media labs to
offer students and faculty access to 3D printers, and an array of software and hardware for
animation, web design and video, digital and sound editing projects. The Freedman Center for
Digital Scholarship [63] at Case Western’s Kelvin Library incorporates these features and offers
fellowships for faculty. New students at Case Western also have a personal librarian assigned to
them when they arrive who work with them throughout their first two years. The library initiated
the project as a way to promote library services and assist in retention efforts of the university. At
other universities, library liaisons are expanding their roles, working not only with academic
departments but writing centers and other offices on campus. SOCHE’s Library Workshop, New
Partnerships for Academic Libraries: Transforming for New Times [64], in May highlights a
variety of collaborative efforts between libraries and other academic offices at local universities.
VI.B. Pros and Cons
By implementing changes in the ways that librarians function in the AFIT academic environment,
AFIT could leverage a changing work-force to move forward into a world where physical books
are no longer the norm. Additionally, this would allow for AFIT to recapture vital physical space
for other purposes. Cons include a possible tendency to minimize what the library at AFIT does
well and to hinder their outstanding support by completely changing the scope in an unduly large
manner.
Bibliography
[1]
Columbus State Community College, "Active and Collaborative Learning," Columbus State
Community College, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.cscc.edu/about/faculty/pd/acl/index.shtml#_ftn1. [Accessed 30 5 2017].
- 23 -
[2]
Ohio Department of Education, "Straight A Fund," [Online]. Available:
http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Straight-A-Fund. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[3]
Beavercreek City Schools, "eSpark Beavercreek Promo," TrueFocusMedia, 21 October 2014. [Online].
Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn76O561_Es. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[4]
L. Sheidler, "With $8.3 million tech grant, Fairmont works toward upgrades," Fairmont Flyer, 30
September 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.fairmontflyer.com/news/2014/09/30/with-8-3million-tech-grant-fairmont-works-toward-upgrades/. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[5]
"From Beyond the Flames," Airman: The Official Magazine of the United States Air Force, 8
December 2015. [Online]. Available: http://airman.dodlive.mil/tag/department-of-defense-fireacademy/. [Accessed 27 June 2017].
[6]
J. Hannah, "SCALE Model: Super active learning method pioneered in College of Engineering and
Computer Science," Wright State University, 25 February 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://webapp2.wright.edu/web1/newsroom/2014/02/25/scale-model-super-active-learningmethod-pioneered-in-college-of-engineering-and-computer-science/. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[7]
Wright Brothers Institute, "Tec^Edge ICC," [Online]. Available: http://wbi-icc.com/centersservices/tecedge-icc. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[8]
Epson, "BrightLink Interactive Projectors for Education," [Online]. Available:
https://epson.com/brightlink-education-interactive-projectors. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[9]
Dropbox, "Dropbox Business," [Online]. Available: https://www.dropbox.com/business. [Accessed 30
May 2017].
[10] "Box Enterprise," Box, [Online]. Available: https://www.box.com/security/governance-andcompliance. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[11] "OneDrive for Business," Microsoft, [Online]. Available: https://onedrive.live.com/about/enus/business/. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[12] "Google Drive," Google, [Online]. Available: https://www.google.com/drive/. [Accessed 30 May
2017].
[13] Slack, "Slack: Where work happens," [Online]. Available: https://slack.com/. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[14] Microsoft, "Microsoft Teams," [Online]. Available: https://products.office.com/en-US/microsoftteams/group-chat-software. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[15] Zoom, "Zoom," [Online]. Available: https://zoom.us/. [Accessed 30 may 2017].
[16] Google, "Google+," [Online]. Available: https://plus.google.com/about. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
- 24 -
[17] Skype, "Skype for Business," [Online]. Available: https://www.skype.com/en/business/skype-forbusiness/. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[18] ShareStream, "ShareStream," [Online]. Available: https://www.sharestream.com/. [Accessed 30 May
2017].
[19] Panopto, "Panopto," [Online]. Available: https://www.panopto.com/panopto-for-education/lecturecapture/. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[20] Sonic Foundry, "Mediasite Video Platform," [Online]. Available:
http://www.sonicfoundry.com/mediasite. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[21] Kaltura, "Kaltura," [Online]. Available: http://corp.kaltura.com/Video-Solutions/Teaching-andLearning. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[22] The Ohio State University, "University Center for the Advancement of Teaching," [Online]. Available:
http://ucat.osu.edu/. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[23] University of Cincinnati, "CET&L: Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning," [Online].
Available: http://www.uc.edu/cetl.html. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[24] Wright State University, "https://www.wright.edu/center-for-teaching-and-learning," [Online].
Available: https://www.wright.edu/center-for-teaching-and-learning. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[25] University of Dayton, "Learning Teaching Center," [Online]. Available: https://www.udayton.edu/ltc/.
[Accessed 30 May 2017].
[26] University of Minnesota, "Center for Educaitonal Innovation: Academic Affairs and Provost," [Online].
Available: https://cei.umn.edu/. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[27] Colorado School of Mines, "Trefny Innovative Instruction Center," [Online]. Available:
https://trefnycenter.mines.edu/home.html. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[28] Middlebury College, "Center for Teaching, Learning, and Research," [Online]. Available:
http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/resources/ctlr. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[29] A. June, "A helping hand for young faculty members," Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 55, pp. 1012, 2008.
[30] N. Thomas, J. Bystydzienski and A. Desai, "Changing institutional culture through peer mentoring of
women STEM faculty," Innovation in Higher Education, vol. 40, pp. 143-157, 2014.
[31] Wright State University, "New Faculty Orientation Information," [Online]. Available:
https://www.wright.edu/center-for-teaching-and-learning/resources/new-faculty-orientationinformation. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
- 25 -
[32] Murray State University, "Faculty Development Center New Faculty Academy," [Online]. Available:
http://www.murraystate.edu/calendar/index.php?eID=720. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[33] Northern Illinois University, "New Faculty Mentoring Program," [Online]. Available:
http://www.facdev.niu.edu/facdev/services/newfacmentoring.shtml. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[34] Harvard University, "Faculty and Staff," [Online]. Available:
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/audiences/faculty-staff. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[35] Stanford University, "Brown Bag Town Hall Meeting with the President and Provost," 27 February
2017. [Online]. Available: http://events.stanford.edu/events/666/66651/. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[36] Allegheny College, "Advising Lunch Meeting–Invitation for Faculty and Staff Participation: 3/29,"
[Online]. Available: http://sites.allegheny.edu/my/2017/03/13/advising-lunch-meeting-invitationfor-faculty-and-staff-participation-329/. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[37] M. Sorcinelli, "Faculty development: The challenge going forward," Peer Review, vol. 9, pp. 4-8, 2007.
[38] Wake Forest University, "Faculty Development," [Online]. Available:
http://www.wakehealth.edu/School/Academic-Affairs/Faculty-Development/Faculty-DevelopmentAdvisory-Committee.htm. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[39] Fayetteville State University, "Advisory Committees," [Online]. Available:
http://www.uncfsu.edu/facultydevelopment/advisory-committees. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[40] The Ohio State University, "Policies and Procedures: Design Review Board," 14 September 2016.
[Online]. Available: https://fod.osu.edu/sites/default/files/drb_policies_and_procedures.pdf.
[Accessed 30 May 2017].
[41] University of Cincinnati, "Use of Facilities Policy Manual," April 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://www.uc.edu/af/pdc/standards_forms/use_of_facilities_policy_manual.html. [Accessed 30
May 2017].
[42] M. May, "Adding efficiency to general lab equipment," Science, 28 April 2016.
[43] University of Cincinnati, "Facilities and Administrative Proposal Guidelines, Distribution of Revenue,
and Use of Funds," 1 July 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/af/financialpolicies/Docs/fadistrib_pol.pdf. [Accessed 30 May
2017].
[44] University of Maryland, "Classroom Scheduling," [Online]. Available:
http://registrar.umd.edu/faculty-staff/classroom_scheduling.html. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[45] Miami University, "Classroom Scheduling," [Online]. Available: https://miamioh.edu/studentlife/student-activities/event-planning/event-locations/classroom-scheduling/index.html. [Accessed
30 May 2017].
- 26 -
[46] The University of Oklahoma, "Office of Classroom Management," [Online]. Available:
http://www.ou.edu/enrollment/classroom_management.html. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[47] University of Texas at Austin, "Peer Observation of Teaching," [Online]. Available:
https://facultyinnovate.utexas.edu/opportunities/prof-dev/peer-observation. [Accessed 30 May
2017].
[48] University of Oregon, "Peer Review and Evaluation of Teaching," [Online]. Available:
https://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/peer-review-and-evaluation-teaching. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[49] Penn State University, "Faculty Peer Review of Online Teaching," [Online]. Available: http://facdev.eeducation.psu.edu/evaluate-revise/peerreviewonline. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[50] University of Dayton, "Professional Development," [Online]. Available:
https://www.udayton.edu/ltc/development/mid.php. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[51] The Ohio State University, "An Introduction and Guide to Academic Unit Review," February 2017.
[Online]. Available: https://oaa.osu.edu/assets/files/documents/Academic-Unit-Review-Guide-DeptSchools_Scarlet_2-2017.pdf. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[52] Northwestern University, "Program Review," [Online]. Available:
http://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/program-review/. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[53] Cornell University, "Planning for an External Review," [Online]. Available:
http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000498.pdf. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[54] Cornell University, "Professor of Practice Guidelines," September 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.engineering.cornell.edu/research/faculty/FacultyDevelopment/profesor-of-practiceguidelines.cfm. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[55] University of California San Diego, "Professor of Practice Implementation Guidelines," September
2013. [Online]. Available: https://academicaffairs.ucsd.edu/_files/aps/docs/Prof-of-Practice-ImplemGuidelines.pdf. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[56] The Ohio State University, "Chapter 3335-6 Rules Of the University Faculty Concerning Faculty
Appointments, Reappointments, Promotion and Tenure," [Online]. Available:
https://trustees.osu.edu/rules/university-rules/chapter-3335-6-rules-of-the-university-facultyconcerning-faculty-appointments-reappointments-promotion-and-tenure.html. [Accessed 30 may
2017].
[57] Case Western Reserve University, "To Tenure and Beyond," [Online]. Available:
http://case.edu/facultydevelopment/career-path/to-tenure-and-beyond/. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[58] E. Strempel, "Cluster Hiring Initiative," [Online]. Available:
https://www.uc.edu/provost/initiatives/cluster-hiring-initative.html. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
- 27 -
[59] The Ohio State University, "Discovery Themes," [Online]. Available: https://discovery.osu.edu/.
[Accessed 30 May 2017].
[60] University of Dayton, "College of Arts and Sciences Joint Appointment Policy," [Online]. Available:
https://udayton.edu/artssciences/about/ops_manual/policies-procedurespersonnel/joint_appt.php. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[61] Wright State University, "Guidelines for Joint Appointments of Faculty," 31 October 1997. [Online].
Available: http://engineering-computer-science.wright.edu/sites/engineering-computerscience.wright.edu/files/page/attachments/1021.pdf. [Accessed 30 May 2017].
[62] Colgate University, "Guidelines for Senior Joint Appointments," April 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://www.colgate.edu/offices-andservices/deanoffacultyoffice/currentfaculty/reviewprocedures/joint-appointments. [Accessed 30
May 2017].
[63] Case Western Reserve University, "The Freedman Center for Digital Scholarship," [Online]. Available:
http://library.case.edu/ksl/freedmancenter/. [Accessed 30 may 2017].
[64] Southwestern Ohio Council for Higher Education, "New Partnerships for Academic Libraries:
Transforming for New Times," May 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07edjbnvw8c829c58d&llr=watrx4cab.
[Accessed 30 May 2017].
- 28 -
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188),
1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)
2. REPORT TYPE
23-08-2017
3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
Technical Report
June 2016 - June 2017
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Final Report of the AFIT Quality Initiative External Discovery Committee
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)
Bindewald, Jason M, Maj
Freels, Jason K, Maj
Geyer, Andrew J, LtCol
Grimes, Alice E, Dr.
High, Amy, Ms.
Hill, Michael T, Mr.
Kappel, Richard, Mr.
Merkle, Laurence D, Dr.
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Air Force Institute of Technology
Graduate School of Engineering and Management (AFIT/EN)
2950 Hobson Way
Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-7765
AFIT/EN/TR-17-02
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Intentionally Left Blank
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Distribution Statement A. Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This work is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
14. ABSTRACT
This report summarizes the findings of the Air Force Institute of Technology’s (AFIT’s) Quality Initiative - External Discovery
Team. The overarching purpose of the Quality Initiative is to create a detailed, executable investment strategy for modernizing
AFIT’s instructional capabilities across five thrust areas. These activities were completed over the course of one year, beginning in
June of 2016 and concluding in June of 2017. The data gathered were evaluated and several recommendations for further review
were decided upon by the External Discovery Team. The following report briefly covers those recommendations and provides
sources from which the recommendations were gleaned. These recommendations are meant to serve as a baseline for ways in which
AFIT could begin to program resources to help improve teaching and instruction across the institution as a whole. The data
presented here are meant to serve as a compliment to the Internal Discovery Team’s report that focuses on data and feedback
gathered from institutions internal to AFIT.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Quality Initiative, Institutional Improvement, Instructional Capabilities, External Review
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
U
U
U
17. LIMITATION OF
ABSTRACT
UU
18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
OF
Maj Jason M. Bindewald, AFIT/ENG
PAGES
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
30
(937) 255-3636 x4614 jason.bindewald@afit.edu
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18