2015 GSA Annual Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, USA (1-4 November 2015)

Paper No. 187-4
Presentation Time: 8:45 AM

REFLECTIONS ON A SHARED INSTRUCTOR PROGRAM BETWEEN PIMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA


RICHARDSON, Randall M.1, LEE, Sylvia M.2, KAPP, Jessica L.1, FAY, Noah P.3, WALDRIP, William Ross1, LEZZAR, Kiram E.1 and RUIZ, Joaquin4, (1)Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0077, (2)PCC Governing Board, Pima Community College, 4905 E Broadway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85709-1005, (3)Science, Pima Community College, Northwest Campus, 7600 North Shannon Road, Tucson, AZ 85709, (4)Dean, College of Science, University of Arizona, PO BOX 210077, 1040 E. 4th St, Tucson, AZ 85721-0077, rmr@email.arizona.edu

In 2007, precipitated by the retirement of a long-standing Pima Community College (PCC) geology instructor with ties to the University of Arizona (UA), one of the Pima college presidents reached out to the University with a novel idea: hiring a shared instructor who would teach geology, and be a full faculty member, at both institutions, and who would help increase geology transfer rates and success between PCC and UA. There were national searches to fill the position, which attracted a strong candidate pool. During the six years that the program ran, three faculty held the position. While there has not been a formal assessment of the program, informal assessment of those involved resulted in a rating of 8/10 for the program.

Some of the strengths of the program included: 1) having a faculty member at both institutions who understood how both organizations work and could share best practices between settings; 2) the shared instructor could be a better advising resource for transfer students; 3) teaching in both environments (the UA teaching included large general education geology courses while PCC teaching systematically involved small classes with labs) improved the teaching skills of the faculty; and 4) improved communication between the institutions (e.g., serving together on search committees).

Some of the challenges of the program included: 1) very different organizational structures at the two institutions (e.g., the MOA process was quite drawn out); 2) the shared faculty member felt pulled in two directions, finding it difficult to be fully integrated into the faculty life at either institution, and making evaluation of the program challenging; 3) the physical distance between the two campuses (over 10 miles) made it difficult to schedule time at either campus; and 4) although there were individual transfer students who did very well, there was little concrete progress in transfer rates or success.

Suggestions for improving such a program include: 1) make sure the two campuses are as close together as possible; 2) increase efforts to integrate the shared faculty member into the academic life of both institutions; and 3) dedicate faculty time to improving transfer rates and success (the faculty were fully employed meeting the classroom teaching needs at both institutions).