by Mitch Lorenz, Instructional Developer, Reinert Center
Saint Louis University’s Teaching Effectiveness Framework (TEF), a broad collection of effective teaching practices that can be used to reflect on the quality of teaching across the university, is being introduced this semester. As an instructional developer, someone in the business of “effective teaching” you might say, I’ve been thinking about the framework and how it relates to other pedagogical models with which I’m familiar.
One of the benefits of a broad framework is that it can include recommendations for effective teaching and learning from a variety of theoretical approaches, with a broad scope of applications across the various teaching situations at SLU. Naturally, when seeking to understand the framework, I let my own areas of expertise direct my attention. For instance, I’ve worked extensively in Culturally Responsive Teaching, an approach to teaching that emphasizes the recognition of each student’s unique, culturally derived collection of experiences and how those experience shape expectations in a university setting. The TEF includes essential practices that are reminiscent of the evidence-based recommendations found in the Culturally Responsive Teaching literature.
- Explaining choices and creating multiple opportunities to learn are essential practices within the “Learning Focused” set of expectations that are reminiscent of Chavez and Longerbeam’s (2016) suggestion to communicate choices with students while varying types of learning activities.
- “Mission-aligned” essential practices broadly focus on inclusion and equity which reminded me of the education-specific approach to defining culture found in many inclusive teaching resources.
- “Growth-oriented” essential practices reiterate explaining and understanding instructional choices, but in a reflective and self-focused manner. Interpreted through a Culturally Responsive Teaching lens, this reminded me of the challenge in discussing culture – every individual circumstance is unique, and broad assumptions run the risk of essentializing students or applying stereotypes.
As I looked over the summary document of the TEF, I made connections to what I’m familiar with, quickly working to equate each bullet point to something I’ve done in the classroom or a theory I’ve worked with as an instructional developer. This helped me feel confident in my understanding of the framework, but I realized this confidence had another effect: dismissal. Quickly thinking “this thing is just another name for that thing I already know/do” led me to write off the framework as more of what I already know and, in doing so, I completely failed to recognize its potential.
Culturally Responsive Teaching suggests that teaching is most effective when it gives students a chance to learn in ways that fit their cultural expectations. This is balanced by a need to challenge students to learn in new ways but, by offering variety, instructors can ensure diverse groups of students enjoy a balance of familiarity and pedagogical discomfort. In a similar manner, SLU’s TEF provides three broad categories of teaching behaviors to challenge instructors to balance their familiarity with discomfort.
Anyone who has taught is likely to recognize aspects of their teaching that fit within the TEF. It would be easy to do as I initially did and stop here, assuming the TEF broadly describes pedagogical ideas already understood by most. This would demonstrate a failure to recognize the true breadth of the TEF, while also ignoring the inclusion of personal and professional growth within the framework. Admittedly, the scope of the TEF may also overwhelm, as critically evaluating teaching can be an incredibly challenging endeavor that calls every teaching decision into question. Fortunately, SLU is home to a community of highly supportive educators, including those in the Reinter Center ready to assist with any teaching need, including application of the TEF. As I continue to reflect on ways the TEF can be put into action, I’m excited to see how instructors use the framework when thinking about their teaching.
References
Chávez, A. F., & Longerbeam, S. D. (2016). Teaching across cultural strengths: A guide to balancing integrated and individuated cultural frameworks in college teaching. Taylor & Francis.
The Notebook 