The TEA team has deep experience in offering professional development support to faculty. For over 2 decades the TEA team has been engaged in grant-funded initiatives: SPECC, FIN, UMOJA, AIC, and more. Acceleration in Context (AIC) was a long-running grant that supported faculty to introduce accelerated Basic Skills courses at their local institutions. Below is a report created by the RP group in their capacity as an outside evaluator of AIC’s work. We invite you to read this to gain some perspective of how the TEA team interacts with faculty, and of our methods for supporting faculty to “Open up a Space” that enhances their professional development. 

Acceleration in Context (AIC)

Interviews Summary 

Year 3 of Grant

In its capacity as the external evaluator for the Acceleration in Context (AIC) project, the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group) conducted interviews with faculty from two of the colleges that worked with AIC over the past year.  One college was in California and the other in Washington.  The purpose of these interviews was to gather feedback on the experience of these faculty members in working with AIC, the impact of this relationship at the college, and any input the colleges might have about what elements worked well and what improvements could be made.  This summary highlights the key findings from these interviews.

Relationship with AIC

The interviews were conducted with two faculty members from each college that had served as the primary contact with the AIC coordinators and were leading the acceleration efforts in their departments.  The interviews started by asking the participants to describe the work they had done in this past year with AIC, the relationship they have had with AIC, and the nature and extent of their interactions with AIC.  The primary work came through contact with the AIC coordinators either in person or via email, text messaging, or phone.  Both colleges had AIC conduct workshops and retreats on their campuses.  The interactions also included attending an AIC conference and visiting Chabot College to observe the AIC coordinators’ teaching.  

Faculty from both colleges described their relationship with AIC as “wonderful,” “very personal,” “casual” and “real.”  They described the AIC coordinators as a “perfect blend,” “an amazing team that works incredibly well together,” “some of the easiest people to work with” with a “sustained energy that is amazing.”  Both colleges felt that AIC had come along at the right time to provide exactly what they needed when they needed it, with one college specifically citing their need for an outside influence.

Why they chose to work with AIC

Next, interviewees were asked why they chose to get involved with AIC, what they were expecting to result from this relationship, and whether their expectations had been met thus far.  The faculty members from the first college said they were “blown away” after seeing the AIC coordinators present and were even more impressed after they were able to observe the coordinators teach.  As a result of their interactions with AIC they have changed the way they approach their own classes.

The faculty members from the second college had explored the AIC website and were instantly hooked by the language used on the site.  They appreciated that AIC never tried to push its own agenda and designed the work around the college’s needs.  They were impressed by the coordinators’ ability to adjust quickly and get everyone thinking about what the college needed, giving the faculty food for thought.  They were pleased that AIC was able to respond to the request from the faculty for specific ideas and approaches while still being able to find a way to make these suggestions fit the needs of the college.  They knew that AIC was reluctant to be too prescriptive in its approach, but was still able to be both responsive to these needs and getting faculty to think differently.  They described their interactions with AIC as “magical.”

AIC’s approach 

The faculty members were asked what about AIC’s approach to acceleration worked best for them and their colleagues and if there were parts of this approach that did not work for them.  The first college was impressed that the AIC coordinators modeled what they preached, believed that watching the coordinators teach was the best means of learning for other faculty, and even recommended to the evaluator that she observe the coordinators teach.  They reported that some faculty members at their college had complained because they wanted a more prescriptive approach and were having difficulty grasping the AIC concepts.  However, they personally appreciated that AIC made faculty think and encouraged them to push their students to do more than ever before.  They loved how AIC treated the faculty the exact same way as they treat their students: holding them responsible and pushing them to ask questions.

The second college believed that while there is no approach that will work for everyone, they appreciated how AIC started by getting to know the history of the department and finding out where they wanted to go.  They said that the way AIC helped the faculty members wrap their minds around acceleration worked well.  The faculty shared how things went at two recent retreats with AIC at their campus.  They described the first retreat as an “inspirational, freeing process,” and reported that as result they are now at a place where they are working on where they go from here.  The faculty who were interviewed were concerned in advance of the second retreat about people potentially not responding well, but AIC came with ideas especially about what to do next and gave the faculty more things to think about.  They highlighted the student panel that AIC facilitated as being particularly impactful.  As a result, their fears never materialized.  Originally, some of the faculty was skeptical upon first impression because the AIC coordinators can come across as unconventional, but the interviewees were pleasantly surprised by how well it worked and how well people responded to it. In the end, they reported that their work with AIC had exceeded their expectations.

AIC’s activities and resources

When asked what specific AIC activities and/or resources they found most helpful, the interviewees first highlighted elements of AIC’s overall approach such as not giving specific instructions, being responsive to a college’s needs, and asking for input.  The faculty then identified a few specific techniques:

• ice breakers 

• writing on the board 

• quoting students

• honoring student voices

• First Kiss

• analyzing student-created videos

One faculty member reported that she had printed and posted students’ quotes in class.  The faculty talked about how ideas received from AIC about class assignments had been very helpful on practical level.

Faculty from both colleges specifically highlighted the AIC video.  Several faculty members at both colleges had shown the video in their classes. and all reported receiving a great response from their students.  In fact, the students wanted to show it to their friends.  In addition to AIC’s focus on the student voice, these faculty members appreciated how AIC asked for the faculty voice while presenting and did not treat their interactions with the faculty like just another seminar.  

AIC’s language

The interviewees were asked about the language AIC uses related to acceleration, faculty. and students and whether this language had helped open the door to acceleration for them and their colleagues.  The faculty at the first college initially had some trouble with the use of word “love,” but the interviewees believe that this issue has dissipated at this time and that the faculty fully accepts the language now.   One interviewee said, “I love [AIC’s] language. They are never at a loss to convey what they mean.”

The faculty from the second college indicated that AIC’s language was helpful, but that sometimes it would have been more helpful if had been rephrased at least in the beginning, in order to put into a context with which faculty can more easily relate.  In particular, some faculty had anxiety about acceleration and issues with inquiry language.  What did seem to work well was the student capacity language.  These faculty members shared that a powerful moment came at the first retreat when AIC showed the video where students are reflecting on their learning.  The faculty asked where AIC had found these students because the students in the video were just like their own students.  The faculty was surprised to find that the students in the video were not handpicked and came to the realization that their own students were capable of so much more than the faculty had been asking of them.

Opening Up  Space

The faculty members were asked if AIC had been helpful in opening up a space for them and their colleagues to design, explore, and implement new curriculum, practices, or approaches to student learning.  The faculty from the first college felt that their work with AIC had definitely helped them create a space.  The workshops and inquiry groups gave them time to experiment and open up. They also highlighted that their main obstacle was time and one consequence had been that the inquiry groups fell apart due to the difficulty encountered when attempting to align the schedules of different faculty, especially adjunct faculty.  

However, in spite of these issues with scheduling, the faculty had been able to communicate in more casual, “on the fly,” less formal ways through great hallway discussions that they attributed to their work with AIC.  They noted that the faculty members who are teaching accelerated classes are leaning on each other, turning to each other for help and feedback.  Another method that met with great success was a gathering at one faculty member’s house one evening where the faculty was able to talk about teaching.  They cited the collegiality and exchange of ideas, with no pressure to agree.  They described the experience as very open and very happy.  They even went as far as wishing there could be a potluck that would allow different colleges to come together.

The second college reported that their work with AIC had helped them in organizing an overall space.  They highlighted that having this liberating space is important, and it helped them move from broad to specific ideas.  They also appreciated that they were able to talk with AIC whenever they needed help.  Unfortunately, this college also experienced problems with implementing the inquiry groups.  They described them as a “mess” because they had a different idea of inquiry than AIC and needed additional clarification.  

Interactions with AIC

When asked whether the frequency of their interactions with AIC was just right, too frequent, or not frequent enough, both colleges responded that they felt the number of interactions was appropriate, but that they wished there could be more.  However, they both conceded that more than two interactions per term was unrealistic both for the college and for AIC.  For the college, they both cited that it would be difficult to get faculty together more than twice per term; for AIC, they know that the coordinators are spread pretty thin and probably would not be able to accommodate more college visits.  One faculty member even suggested cloning the coordinators to make them more available.

The faculty at both colleges specifically indicated that having AIC visit at the beginning and end of term worked well and was a very effective approach because it gave faculty time to think and do homework in between the visits.  They cited that if the visits were more often, faculty would not have time to try things in their classes and then report back.  One faculty member specifically highlighted how she had tried out the activity in which the faculty member goes to class unprepared, resisting the urge to plan out every minute of class time. The interviewees did point out that they themselves had had more access to the AIC coordinators than their faculty counterparts because they were able to visit Chabot College, and they wished all faculty could see the coordinators in action in the classroom.

The faculty from the second college cited that the AIC coordinators were very responsive, and while wishing the coordinators were available 24 hours per day, they recognized that desire was not realistic.  However, they also admitted that they probably should be contacting the coordinators more than they are currently.  

AIC’s responsiveness

As has been stated earlier, interviewees from both colleges found AIC to be responsive to the particular situation and challenges at their colleges.  Interviewees were asked to share an example of a challenge that AIC had helped them address.  The first college spoke of how their inquiry groups had gotten stuck, but cited that 80% of the problem had been their own fault.  When they went to AIC for assistance, the coordinators gave them advice on how to rephrase the inquiry process so it did not sound like a taskforce and emphasized that inquiry is an ongoing process that should not be solely focused on accountability.  AIC had helped explain the inquiry language and since this rephrasing, the faculty is embracing it.

Thinking about students in a new way

When asked if their work with AIC had helped them and their colleagues think about their own students in new ways, the response was an absolute yes from both colleges.  A faculty member at the second college shared that she had always thought she expected a lot of her students, but since working with AIC she has moved the bar much higher, changing the way she interacts with students, and requiring more and higher levels of reading.  The interviewees from the second college reported that even reluctant faculty members have been shifting their thinking about students.  Thinking among the faculty started to change when they first implemented accelerated courses, which was before their involvement with AIC. The timing of bringing in AIC was perfect to provide the support they needed at the exact moment when they needed it.  They realized that they had accelerated the pathway, but AIC helped them accelerate the curriculum.  They shared an example of how one faculty member had shifted from assigning only one book during the term to assigning four to five books.  These faculty interviewees felt that AIC had challenged them from the first session, but had a “nice way” of making negative people face their negative thoughts about students.  They also pointed to the student voices video as a big part of getting faculty to realize that their students are capable of much more than what faculty has been asking of them.  AIC got faculty to recognize that they had lowered their expectations of students because they believed that developmental education students are not “high-level” students.

The interviewees from the first college said that AIC’s student focus is clear from the beginning.  They pointed to the student panel and discussions about classroom redesign as helping faculty process information.  The result has been a shift in focus that brings in and values the student voice.  This shift has been “visible and tangible” in the classroom thus far.

Help with implementation

Interviewees were asked if AIC had been supportive in helping them be strategic in the implementation phase of their new accelerated curriculum.  The first college’s interviewees reported that acceleration had taken on more meaning after working with AIC because the faculty had been focusing on the structural issues related to accelerating classes and the pathway and AIC had helped move things to the classroom level.  They would like AIC to come back to their college to help get more faculty involved in acceleration.

The second college’s interviewees cited pressures at the state level to improve developmental education and that as a result, all colleges are constantly trying new things.  These faculty appreciated that they can talk to AIC about the larger issues both at a statewide and nationwide level and learn about what is happening in education beyond their own college and state.  AIC has helped bring outside research into the conversation, such as how the changing student populations and current state of the economy each impact the classroom. They need AIC’s help in navigating and considering all these factors and knowing how to deal with resistance among faculty.

Conclusions 

Ultimately, the faculty members interviewed from these two colleges were very appreciative of the work they had done thus far with AIC and especially of the approach AIC uses to engage faculty through love and respect and focusing on students.  They all highlighted how AIC had taken the time to get to know them and their situation and then attempted to respond in a customized way that met the college where it was by addressing their specific needs, history, and challenges.  They loved that AIC did not try to force a prescriptive approach on the college, but that they were responsive when some faculty needed specific ideas and examples.  Both colleges were able to cite specific examples of the impact their work with AIC had at their college, especially at a classroom level.  

It appears that one of the most helpful aspects of this work was being able to observe the AIC coordinators in action in the classroom.  It appears that a more concerted effort to provide more faculty members with this opportunity is worth exploring, perhaps through video or synchronous online streaming.  Both colleges also had some valuable suggestions for how AIC can improve an already fantastic experience by finding ways to engage those faculty who may not immediately connect with AIC’s language, approach, and message.