many opportunities to foster their
MENTORING interests in teaching. We knew,
Looking
Back on Year
One: Joining
a National
Teaching
& Learning
Network for
Future Faculty
Kristin Winet and Gail D. Burd
The Story Behind the
Story
T he story of how we brought
a professional development
network for graduate students and
postdocs to our campus began with
a faculty project nearly 10 years
ago. Could we create a culture
around evidence-based science,
technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) teaching on
our campus? When we started out,
there were already some depart-
mental efforts to improve teaching
and learning, but there was not
much collaboration or centralized
support (Burd et al., 2016, p. 91).
To consolidate our efforts, we
joined the AAU Framework for
Systematic Change in Undergradu-
ate STEM Teaching and Learning
in 2013 and applied for a grant to
build an infrastructure to promote
evidence-based teaching. Under
this grant, a team of dedicated
faculty and staff developed such
programs as our Faculty Learning
Communities (FLCs), in which
instructors meet every 2 weeks
to discuss teaching topics, and
the Center for University Educa-
tion Scholarship (CUES), which
awards grants to faculty engaged in
teaching-as-research projects.
Over time, Gail and her team
realized that what these efforts
did not specifically support were
graduate students and postdocs in
the STEM fields who, while trained
well in research, did not have as
6  THE NATIONAL TEACHING & LEARNING FORUM
the network existed, get the word
out to the community, and moti-
having read several recent studies
highlighting concerns about gradu-
ate student preparation in teaching
(Vergara et al., 2014, p. 95), that
we needed to draw on our growing
teaching community in new and
innovative ways.
Though the Office of Instruc-
tion and Assessment (OIA) offers
an excellent 10-credit Certificate in
College Teaching and the Gradu-
ate Center and the Office of Post-
doctoral Affairs provide resources
on career-related topics, we wanted
to find a program that would bring
future STEM faculty more fully
into our emerging campus culture
around teaching.
Although there are several pro-
fessional development organizations
for future faculty, we specifically
looked to the Center for the Inte-
gration of Research, Teaching and
Learning, also known as CIRTL.
CIRTL prepares future STEM facul-
ty by offering cross-network courses
and workshops and supporting lo-
cal programming, such as teaching-
as-research (TAR) programs.
What also piqued our interest
was that members could earn As-
sociate, Practitioner and Scholar
recognition as they participated in
local and cross-network program-
ming. We applied to the network
in March 2020 while navigating ex-
traordinary institutional and pan-
demic challenges, and launched
our program that fall.
The First Day of CIRTL
The weeks leading up to the
launch were filled with Zoom meet-
ings and brainstorming sessions
from our home offices. Earlier that
summer, Gail had hired Kristin,
who was filling in as the assistant
director of the Writing Program,
to help her launch the program,
recruit members, and create and
assess new programs under the
CIRTL umbrella. Our first day
together, we mulled over a big
question: Where do we start?
We started with a list. We knew
we needed to announce our mem-
bership, let graduate directors and
program coordinators know that
vate people to sign up. (None of
these tasks were easy during a pan-
demic.) We also needed to commu-
nicate what was required at each
level: in our proposal, we’d stated
that to reach Associate, students
would take a pedagogy course, an
FLC and a teaching workshop; at
Practitioner, they would complete
the teaching certificate, coteach or
take a course on teaching writing;
and Scholars would present or
publish on a teaching topic.
In these first few weeks, we cre-
ated CIRTL@UArizona’s identity
with a logo, a website and a digital
platform. We added a Profes-
sional Development header on the
Academic Affairs website. Then, we
sent an email to STEM graduate
program directors and coordina-
tors and placed articles in UA News,
the university’s community newslet-
ter, and Lo Que Pasa, an internal
employee newsletter. Within a few
weeks, 30 graduate students and
19 postdocs had signed up for the
program.
Developing Programs
and Fitting In
After we launched the basic pro-
gram, we met with various STEM
faculty and graduate program direc-
tors, spoke at several graduate semi-
nars (including nursing, chemistry
and biochemistry, and chemical
and environmental engineering)
and hosted a Zoom happy hour for
postdocs. As part of this network-
ing, we realized a few things: 1) stu-
dents didn’t think faculty learning
communities were “for them”; 2)
postdocs wanted teaching experi-
ence; and 3) there was widespread
interest in a TAR program.
We decided to try to bridge
CIRTL and the FLCs first. In the
fall, we started a book club around
Jessamyn Neuhaus’ Geeky Pedagogy
(2019) and, in spring, ran the book
club again and piloted two future
CIRTL programs: a mini-course on
teaching writing and a workshop-
style session on classroom research.
In a survey given to the first Geeky
Pedagogy participants, more than
half of whom were new CIRTL
Vol. 31, No. 3  2022
 members, we learned that while
some of them were nervous, they
came to enjoy the informal for-
mat—and 100 percent of them
planned to participate again.
Though we can’t say this is entirely
due to CIRTL recruitment efforts,
it seems our strategy worked. In the
year since we joined the network,
the number of students and post-
docs in FLCs has nearly tripled.
Our conversations with postdocs
also revealed that although many
of them would like professional
development in teaching, they were
concerned they would not be at our
university long enough to complete
the CIRTL pathways, that their prin-
cipal investigators (PIs) would not
support them, and that they were
already steeped in research.
To help us brainstorm ideas,
we formed a planning committee,
researched approaches to co-teach-
ing and piloted a short-term, men-
tored teaching experience with two
co-teaching teams in electrical and
computer engineering and plant
sciences in spring 2021. With the
insights we gained through surveys
and interviews, we decided on a
two-semester cohort model that in-
volved an application and letter of
support from the PI, training and
preparation in fall and a short-term
co-teaching experience in spring
ending with a portfolio and reflec-
tion. We have nine postdoc fellows
from a variety of STEM fields in
the program this year.
What We’ve Learned So
Far
Starting a new program isn’t
easy, especially when that program
values learning communities and its
launch coincides with a time when
we were all Zooming from home.
But even if we had been on cam-
pus, the recipe for starting any new
program requires the same ingredi-
ents: steadfast determination; a will-
ingness to accept when things don’t
go as planned; flexibility when it
comes time to change course; and
the ability to listen, collaborate and
learn from others. If we had any
advice for other institutions who
are looking to start programs like
this, we would say this:
Vol. 31, No. 3  2022
First, as Gail has maintained
since the beginning, start with a
coalition of the willing. There are,
no doubt, people on campus who
care deeply about teaching and
student learning. Put out the feel-
ers, gather over coffee, read books
on teaching and learning, and
discuss ways to place more value on
teaching on your campus. Involve
administrators in your conversa-
tions and share literature that
demonstrates the challenges and
benefits to student learning. The
reality is that meaningful change
can only happen when there is true
bottom-up interest and top-down
support (Burd et al., 2016).
As we look back on a challeng-
ing year, we remain grateful for
the opportunity to do this work.
Although we see challenges such as
high levels of attrition, recruiting
students to the program, get-
ting faculty involved, and helping
participants prepare for a highly
competitive job market, we are
proud of how far we’ve come. The
program we planned for in 2020
looks a bit different than we envi-
sioned, but our goal—to prepare
future STEM faculty for the teach-
ing positions they dream of having
some day—has never seemed more
important than it does today.  ❖
References
Burd, G. D., Tomanek, D., Blowers, P., Bolger,
M., Cox, J., Elfring, L., … Wallace, C. (2016).
Developing faculty cultures for evidence-based
teaching practices in STEM: A progress report.
In G. C. Weaver, W. D. Burgess, A. L. Childress,
& L. Slakey (Eds.), Transforming institutions:
Undergraduate STEM education for the 21st
century (pp. 90–102). West Lafayette, IN:
Purdue University Press.
Neuhas, J. (2019). Geeky pedagogy: A guide
for intellectuals, introverts, and nerds who
want to be effective teachers. Morgantown:
University of West Virginia Press.
Vergara, C. E., Urban-Lurain, M., Campa III,
H., Cheruvelil, K. S., Ebert-May, D., Fata-
Hartley, C., & Johnston, K. (2014). FAST-
future academic scholars in teaching: A
high-engagement development program.
Innovations in Higher Education, 39, 92–107,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-013-9265-0
Kristin Winet is the program administrator
for the Center for the Integration of
Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL)
at The University of Arizona, where she
develops professional development in
teaching programs for graduate students
and postdocs and facilitates courses,
workshops and learning communities in
writing and pedagogy.
Gail D. Burd is the Senior Vice Provost
for Academic Affairs, Teaching, and
THE NATIONAL TEACHING & LEARNING FORUM  7
Learning and a Distinguished Professor
in Molecular and Cellular Biology at The
University of Arizona. Dr. Burd has worked
to increase the use of evidence-based
teaching practices and assessment of
student learning outcomes and to develop
and increase the number of collaborative
classrooms for active learning at the
University of Arizona.
ONLINE COURSE
DEVELOPMENT
Bring Your
Mission to
Life Through
Intentional,
Evaluated
Online Course
Development
Halley Sutton
W
hen Royce Robertson took
a position as Director of
Academic Technology at Le Moyne
College, a Jesuit institution, it was
the first time in his more than two
decades in higher education that
he’d worked for a faith-based insti-
tution. “They’re so welcoming and
open about articulating their mis-
sion beyond an institution’s typical
mission statement,” Robertson said.
He found himself intrigued by
understanding the nuances of the
Jesuit mission.
Around the same time, he had
a memorable interaction with one
of the Jesuit scholars at the institu-
tion. While in the library, the schol-
ar began chatting with Robertson
and expressed skepticism about
the quality of online learning in
general. At that time, Robertson
said the institution had been slow
to make changes regarding online
learning, partially due to fear of
losing the institution’s identity as a
Jesuit institution.
The scholar posed a question
to Robertson: “Can we make an
online course truly Jesuit?” Robert-
son said his response was: “I can’t
tell you that today, but I can tell