Center for Teaching Excellence 1

Innovations in Teaching & Learning Conference page 6

Teaching & 16
See
page
teach -7 for
s

Learning News
in
nom g award
i
and nations
awar
d inf
o

Volume 20, Number 4 April & May 2011

Inside This Issue How Assessment Improved
How Assessment Improved My
Teaching  1 My Teaching
By Laura Rosenthal, Professor, Department of English

From the Director’s Desk: Can
Less Studying Produce Better
Grades?  2 pretty much no training to
Measuring Critical Thought in
Academically Adrift: A Review  3 faculty, then, spend huge amounts
A Graduate Lilly Fellowship
Alumna Reflects on Life
Since Graduation and Her
Job Search 
UTLP: A Helping Hand
for Graduate Teaching
Assistants 
5th Annual Innovations in
Teaching and Learning
Conference 
The Lilly-DC Conference on
College and University
Teaching 
Lilly-DC Conference Grants for
Graduate Students 
Summer Institute on Teaching
and Learning with New(er)
Technologies 
Call for Nominations: 2011
Departmental Excellence &
Innovation in Undergraduate
Teaching Award 
Distinguished Teaching
Assistant Awards  
Teaching & Learning News is published by the Center for Teaching Excellence, University of Maryland
L
ike most of my peers, I had
teach literature; most junior
of time conscientiously trying to
figure out how to teach just at the
moment when they need to get their
research programs underway. They
4
must reinvent from scratch a range
of pedagogical strategies that prob-
ably could have been communicated
5 to them fairly easily. Learning out-
comes assessment offers many insti-
tutional advantages, but I have found that it has helped me sharpen my
6 own pedagogical strategies, as well. I’ve changed my classes in many
ways as a result of what I have learned from assessment data and from
overseeing the assessment process for the College of Arts and Humani-
ties here at the University of Maryland. In this brief essay, I will focus
7
on one: the central issue of making an argument in my discipline, liter-
ary studies. In Clueless in Academe, Gerald Graff recommends includ-
7 ing criticism in the literature classroom because without it, “either the
teacher tells student what the text means and they write it down, or
the teacher shuts up and lets the students air their personal responses”
15 (176). But in my experience, the inclusion of criticism—even of con-
flicting, opposed pieces of criticism—does not in itself lead to students
producing arguments. Or to refine that: often students are able to make
arguments, but those arguments were not necessarily recognizable as
literary criticism. While I agree, then, that only limited learning takes
16
place when the teacher dictates the meaning, I want to make the case
for respecting and harnessing the personal response. Research on op-
17 continued on page 8...
 2 Center for Teaching Excellence

From the Director’s Desk:

Can Less Studying Produce Better Grades?
By Spencer Benson, Director of CTE

R
ecently, I have been party to several interesting conversa-
tions about the amount of time students spend studying
and student grades. Two general assumptions run through
these conversations: students spend less time studying, and stu-
dents’ grades continue to improve as a result of grade inflation over
the past few decades. These two assumptions are seemingly in-
congruous: how can one get better grades while spending less time
studying? One explanation is that today’s students are just smarter
than we were as students; however, it is exceedingly difficult to
get anyone to buy into this explanation. Furthermore, no evidence
supports such a claim. A second possible explanation is that we
have lowered expectations and rigor in what is sometimes referred
to as a “non-aggression pact” in which students’ reward faculty
who require less work and rigor with better evaluations. Again,
there is little evidence supporting the idea that requiring less (mak-
ing a course easier) results in better student course evaluations. A
third explanation is that the two primary assumptions that “student spend less time studying” and “grading is
easier” themselves are not supported by actual data. Several recent publications1,3,5 support the two conten-
tions that students spend less time studying independently and that grades are more generous than they once
were. The most recent article5 “It’s About Time: What to Make of Reported Declines in How Much Students
Study” by Alexander McCormick appeared in Liberal Education and addresses the issue of how much time
students spend studying. McCormick cites the work of Philip Bab-
cock, an economist at University of California, Santa Barbara who
makes the following points: from 1961 to 2010 the average number
These two assumptions are of hours per week students devoted to studying outside of class time
seemingly incongruous: how dropped from approximately 24 to approximately 14 hours for full
time students irrespective of institutional type, discipline area, or de-
can one get better grades while gree sought (bachelor’s, master’s or Ph.D.). For those of us who are
of the baby boomer generation it is worth noting that the bulk of the
spending less time studying? decline (~7.5 hours) occurred prior to 1981 and before wide spread
availability of personal computers, the Internet and social networks.
Since 1980 there has been a continued slow decline in number of
hours that students devote to studying with the 2010 data showing an average study time of 14.7 hours5.
No single reason adequately accounts for the decline, but a list of possible reasons are most frequently
cited, for example; 1.) students spend more time at jobs; 2.) student bodies are more diverse; 3.)increased
emphasis on research overshadows an emphasis on teaching; 4.) changes in the distribution of majors and
changes in pedagogies all presumably contribute to varying degrees. The idea that today’s students are
spending more time in leisure activities and thus less time studying is an explanation put forth by Babcock
and Marks, which they link to a lowering of expectations/standards by the institution in response to student
empowerment2. McCormick in the AACU article takes issue with Bobcock’s calculation of leisure hours,
pointing out that many non-leisure activities such as commuting, family responsibilities, and work at home
were misclassified as leisure activities5.
A variety of studies support the premise that average grades (GPAs) have risen over the past decades.
“Director” continued on page 12....
 Center for Teaching Excellence 3

Measuring Critical Thought

in Academically Adrift: A Review
By Dave Eubanks, Associate Director, College Park Scholars

I
n keeping with Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s quantitative
approach in Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College
Campuses, here are some data: their study group of 2,322 stu-
dents enrolled in 24 U.S. colleges and universities improved scores
on the Collegiate Learning Assessment 0.18 standard deviation, or
seven percent, between their fall (freshman) 2005 semester and
Spring 2007. Further, Arum and Roksa find “no statistically signifi-
cant gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skills
for at least 45% of the students” (35-36). Students who consented to
be part of the Determinants of College Learning (DCL) group are
representative of the larger population of undergraduate students, a
claim the authors substantiate through comparison with the Begin-
ning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study and Inte-
grated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) demographic
data. In addition to sitting for the CLA twice, DCL students self-
reported data on behaviors, plans, expectations, personal finances,
and academic history.
Arum and Roksa’s study investigates relationships between CLA
scores and students’ self-reported responses, academic preparation, academic and social experiences dur-
ing the first two undergraduate years, and general demographic information. Academically Adrift relies on
scores from one of the three part-CLA which consists of a performance task requiring students to review
and synthesize a case study and to write a response. This performance is evaluated as a measure of critical
thinking, complex reasoning, and written communication (147). The study therefore limits itself to these
domains and is not a review of how well students learn the content of disciplines, mathematical literacy, or
progress toward any other learning goals. The rationale is that many, if not most faculty and departments
identify critical thinking as a central aim of their teaching. Here we have a widely shared learning outcome,
familiar to syllabi, mission statements, strategic plans, and admissions materials.
Academically Adrift has received significant attention, and its findings deserve a careful read, and what
follows represents an abbreviated list of the authors’ salient discoveries. Students whose faculty hold and
communicate high expectations (here defined as an average of at least 40 pages of reading per week and
at least 20 pages of writing over the course of the semester) and students who devote more time studying
(alone) than the average have greater gains in CLA scores on the performance task section. Students in the
humanities and social sciences, as well as those in math and science, also see greater gains than those in pro-
fessional degrees like computer science, engineering, and business. By controlling for institutional differences
with significant variables such as SAT and high school GPA, characteristics of high school, competitiveness
of university admission, race, gender, parents’ education, major, amount and location of work, and others,
Arum and Roksa determine that students who are challenged and who devote hours to independent study
demonstrate greater gains in this one measure of learning.
In the tradition of laments about higher education in the U.S., Academically Adrift points to an under-
graduate culture that appears to prioritize leisure over academic learning, faculty driven to produce research
at the cost of undergraduate education, families perceiving a college education as a commodity exchange in
service of a credentialing process, and little evidence to demonstrate whether or not students learn. Leaving
aside the first three allegations, this study is distinctive because it is a deep and careful engagement with the
“Adrift” continued on page 14...
 4 Center for Teaching Excellence
A Graduate Lilly Fellowship Alumna Reflects on
Life Since Graduation and Her Job Search
CTE Spotlight on
Rebecca Krefting
What year did you graduate from the
University of Maryland?
August 2010
What is your field of study?
American Studies
How did CTE support your work as a
teacher at the University of Maryland?
I participated in the 2009-2010 Graduate
Lilly Fellow Program. During my
fellowship, I worked with a group of peers
investigating questions we all shared: What
is literacy? How do we effectively teach and
promote various literacies to our students?
What scholarship came out of your work
with CTE?
Together with my Graduate Lilly peers, we
created a series of vodcasts (video podcasts)
addressing types of literacies such as
research, technology, and interdisciplinarity
literacy. We read scholarly articles and
discussed these various literacies and then
created vodcasts as educational tools to
support instructors seeking to enhance
literacy (in various forms) among students.
How was your Graduate Lilly Fellowship
helpful to you after you graduated from
UMD?
There are two ways my CTE experience
helped me. First, I have incorporated
the use of vodcasts into my current
courses. Students are responsible for
creating vodcasts as their final project,
which requires visual, written, and oral
components. Secondly, I feel that I stood
out as a job candidate because I had the
experience of working closely with CTE
staff and could point to specific ways in
which I had improved my teaching and
pedagogy.
By Rebecca Krefting
W
hen in a pool comprised of the nation’s most highly
educated, my intellect is really nothing special. I am
not another Judith Butler and do count myself among
those fortunate enough to penetrate some of her more abstruse
passages. What I lack as an intellectual dynamo, I make up for
in passion and determination. Seriously, I know this about my-
self. And even if you are some wunderkind, you will probably
experience this humbling inevitability as you begin applying
for faculty positions across the US and beyond. Yes, I can write
and speak articulately. I have teaching experience, strong let-
ters of recommendation and scholarly publications. But so do
you and thousands like us out there vying for fewer and fewer
tenure-track positions or even contingent faculty positions that
offer short-term contracts alongside health coverage and retire-
ment benefits. I got the latter, for which I am still thankful giv-
en this economy: a visiting assistant professorship at Skidmore
College in Saratoga Springs, New York. There are increasingly
high numbers of applicants for each position, which invariably
raises the quality of the application pool. You have to get the
attention of scholars in diverse research areas and each having
varying investments and levels of commitment to the search’s
outcome. Here is some advice I was given along the way from
friends, colleagues, mentors and graduate professionalization
workshops that really proved useful:
• Tailor your letter of interest to the kind of institution to
which you are applying. Search committee members
have different concerns and criteria in research one
institutions than in liberal arts colleges. Emphasize
your teaching background and philosophy in letters to
universities and colleges that have a record of supporting
teaching excellence. Scale that back and pump up your
publishing record and/or current research project (research
institutions love to bring in candidates that draw in monies
from grants). In fact, if you can demonstrate that grants
will pay your salary, you can effectively hire yourself out
anywhere…but that’s not likely to be a common scenario
for most of us.
• Remember being told employers in higher education will
request a teaching portfolio as part of the application
process? Unfortunately, that is not true. I wish it were
because I spent a lot of time on mine. My entire winter
break one year was divided between that and teaching an
“Krefting” continued on page 13...
 Center for Teaching Excellence 5

UTLP: A Helping Hand

for Graduate Teaching Assistants
By Nabila Hijazi

L
ooking back at my semester long University Teaching and Learning Program (UTLP) involve-
ment during spring 2009, I must attest that it was an extremely beneficial experience for me, as I
approached graduation from the program. Daunting at first, the program’s requirements seemed
merely to add to my burden of teaching and finishing my master’s writing project. Nevertheless, the UTLP
requirements helped me improve my teaching and even entertained me in some way. The various work-
shops, class observations, and portfolio workshop and their respective reflection activities are a memo-
rable and beneficial addition to my graduate training.
In Spring 2009, when I began the UTLP certificate, the workshops
offerd by CTE related directly to my teaching and academic field. As graduate students, we
Designed to fit the various needs of graduate teaching assistants and are usually trapped in our
faculty, the workshops attracted a richly engaged discussion within an
intellectual community. As graduate students, we are usually trapped in own work and department;
our own work and department; we are not even aware of what is going
on the other side of campus. The CTE workshops connected Maryland we are not even aware of what
teaching personnel and asked them to cross disciplinary boundaries to is going on the other side of
connect and share ideas.
English 101: Introduction to Academic Writing overtly encourages campus. The CTE workshops
civic engagement through reading and writing assignments and class
activities. For some reason, this theme seemed as a foreign object connected Maryland teaching
for many students and instructors. Witnessing how this theme has personnel and asked them to
been used across disciplines was rewarding for me. Before attending
these workshops, I did not have a clear idea how such a concept is cross disciplinary boundaries
implemented across departments. These workshops presented success
stories of real life projects that fruitfully connected faculty, students, to connect and share ideas.
and outside community members.
These workshops, even if they vary in content, are offered by CTE
on a continuous basis. Some of us are reluctant to attend due to our busy schedules. However, through
UTLP, we are required to attend 7 CTE workshops and participate in the live discussion and vigorous ideas
presented there. At one workshop, I learned about using various technologies, like clickers, in teaching.
Observing how others in my field have been successful in implementing new robust technological ideas
or tools has convinced me and others to try our own. Trying something new can be intimidating. But the
benefit of the workshop format is that you can benefit from other instructors’ experiences and expertise,
which in turn encourages you to incorporate those elements into your own teaching practice.
Workshops are not the only effective component of UTLP. Class observation and follow up reflections
are required and beneficial, too. Observing a prominent veteran professor from a different field than my
own and witnessing new teaching techniques, group dynamics and classroom atmospheres opened the
door for me to evaluate my own teaching style and learn to continuously modify them according to the
lesson presented. I cannot forget the health class I observed. What made the professor’s style of teaching
relevant though was connecting his personal life to his teaching. I have done similar things with my stu-
dents. Observing an experienced teacher using this in teaching made me feel more comfortable connecting
my personal academic accomplishments to teaching, especially as I teach one of the special sections of
English 101-- 101X, which is for international students.
“UTLP” continued on page 7...
6 Center for Teaching Excellence

5th Annual Innovations in

Teaching and Learning Conference
April 29, 2010

T
he Center for Teaching Excellence and the Office of Information Technology are co-sponsoring the
fifth annual Innovations in Teaching and Learning (ITL) Conference to showcase and celebrate the
creativity and dedication of University of Maryland instructors who have demonstrated excellence
in their teaching endeavors. The conference will be held on Friday, April 29, 2011 at the Adele H. Stamp
Student Union and will recognize all forms of teaching innovation that have been envisioned and deployed
to respond to pedagogical problems.
Learning at the University of Maryland takes place in many locations and within the context of a variety
of forums. Instructors are challenged on a daily basis to find innovative ways of enhancing student learning
experiences. In traditional classrooms, distance, blended, collaborative or independent learning environments,
students and faculty explore a variety of strategies and tools meant to improve the overall academic experi-
ence. The Innovations in Teaching and Learning (ITL) Conference showcases and celebrates the creativity
and dedication of University instructors who have demonstrated excellence in their teaching endeavors.
This year’s conference, co-hosted by the Office of Information Technology and the Center for Teaching
Excellence, features 15 presentations by University of Maryland educators. Many of these faculty will ex-
plore their integration of mobile learning, social networking, and interactive response technologies into their
teaching, while others will share decidedly non-technological perspectives on exploring faculty perceptions
on civic engagement and developing or revamping programs in TA mentorship, mathematics, or global in-
novation and entrepreneurship.
The conference will also feature two keynote presentations. Dr. Norman Vaughan, Mt. Royal University
(Calgary, Canada) Department of Education, is an international expert in the areas of blended learning and
faculty development. He will be sharing his insights about “Blended Learning in Higher Education: Promises
and Pitfalls” as part of his breakfast plenary presentation. The luncheon keynote will be provided by Dr. Teri
Balser, Associate Professor of Soil and Ecosystem Ecology and Director of the Institute for Cross-College
Biology Education at the University of Wisconsin. Her talk on “Wither the land grant? Educating Global
Citizens in a belt-tightening world” will focus on innovations in teaching and learning and the educational
issues facing land grant research institutions in the 21st century.
Registrants and participants can follow the conference on Twitter at LT_UMD starting in March 2011.
University of Maryland faculty, graduate teaching assistants, and teaching support staff may register for the
conference free-of-charge.

You can register and find more information about the ITL Conference at
http://www.oit.umd.edu/twt/itlregistration.html.

Make Sure Your Department is Represented in

the June Teaching and Learning News Listing of
Teaching Awards by Department
Each Summer, the Center for Teaching Excellence publishes a list of departments and the awards won by
its graduate students and faculty for outstanding teaching and/or contributions to undergraduate education.
Don’t be left out of our list! Submit the names of faculty in your department to lmrhody@umd.edu.
 Center for Teaching Excellence 7

The Lilly-DC Conference on

College and University Teaching
June 2-5, 2010

T
he Lilly Conferences combine interactive workshop sessions, discussions, and feature presentations,
with opportunities for informal discussion about excellence in college and university teaching and
learning. They bring together faculty and graduate students from across disciplines and types of aca-
demic institutions. CTE staff, along with University of Maryland faculty and graduate teaching assistants,
have attended this conference for a number of years. It is an outstanding opportunity to meet others from the
Mid-Atlantic interested in the scholarship of teaching and learning and to discuss effective strategies for un-
dergraduate education.
For more information about the conference, visit: http://lillyconferences.com/dc/default.shtml. If you have
questions, please contact Cynthia Shaw at 301-405-9356.

Lilly-DC Conference Grants for Graduate Students

CTE, with support from the Dean for Undergraduate Studies, awards Lilly Graduate Student Conference
Travel Grants that will cover the costs of attending the conference. Priority for these grants will be given
to students who have submitted a conference abstract and/or participate in one of CTE’s graduate student
programs or in departmental initiatives in teaching and learning. CTE will handle registration and hotel
arrangements for grant awardees. Please DO NOT make these arrangements independently.
The 2011 Lilly DC Conference is scheduled for June 2 through 5, 2011, and will be held at the Bethesda
Hyatt Regency in Bethesda, Maryland.
Additional Lilly Conference Travel Grants are also available. Priority will be given to those graduate
students who have submitted an abstract and/or those who participate in one of CTE’s graduate student
programs or in departmental professionalization initiatives in teaching and learning.
Applications can be found at http://www.cte.umd.edu/grants/LillyGrantApplication.html.

“UTLP” continued from page 5...

Best of all for me was the completion of the teaching portfolio. As all of us, upon graduation pursue the
job market. Those who intend to stay in the academic teaching field need a teaching portfolio. The extensive
feedback I got in the process of gradually preparing and composing such an important and necessary document
was immense. Applying for teaching positions became easier as I have a portfolio to support my teaching
credentials and a carefully constructed teaching philosophy statement. Completing my teaching portfolio
would not be as effective or as easy if I had to do it autonomously. I will always be indebted to UTLP and
CTE for assisting me with such an intensive process.
Upon completion of the program, UTLP graduates are acknowledged for their work and graduate during
the Distinguished Teaching Assistant award ceremony. My children’s presence witnessing my accomplish-
ment has instilled in me a sense of pride and even in them a sense of eagerness to work and thrive. So UTLP
involvement has not only touched my individual life—it has even impacted my children’s future judgment.
With each journey, there must be an ending. Nevertheless, UTLP’s ending, happy and rewarding, is the
beginning of another successful journey. UTLP involvement can form the building blocks and steps towards
our own careers.
8 Center for Teaching Excellence
“Assessment” continued from page 1...
timizing student learning outcomes often focuses on engagement as a necessary although not sufficient
ingredient. This is entirely intuitive, but is something, I will admit, that I did not think much about before
starting to follow assessment research, nor does it receive much attention in anything I have read about
teaching literature. Whether or not students like the text in question receives attention, but they can like
the novel without being engaged in the process of analyzing it. In fact, sometimes liking the novel gets
in the way: one common complaint one hears in beginning literature courses challenges the necessity of
“picking apart” these beautiful texts. I know I am not the only
faculty member who came of age thinking about teaching along
the lines of feeding the cat: you agonize over which brand to
buy, but then pretty much just put it out there in a bowl to be We’ve gotten pretty
eventually consumed. Young humans, however, pose entirely good at providing students
different kinds of challenges.
So I began adding components to improve engagement: re- with a series of options,
search projects on primary and secondary sources, wiki building,
small group work in class, a class blog. These helped, but did not but find it more difficult
on their own lead to the production of the kind of criticism I was to tell them outright
looking for. Finally, it dawned on me that my students actually
did not know what literary criticism was, even if they had seen what constitutes literary
many examples of it. Peggy Maki makes a similar observation
in a discussion of graduate teaching, explaining that when we criticism and how literary
say things like: ‘you should elaborate’ or ‘sharpen your point’ to criticism is related to,
graduate students, sometimes they have no idea what we are ask-
ing them to do. I believe that this is the case with undergraduates but not the same as, their
trying to write criticism.
The prospect of defining criticism is enough to send any personal response.
well-trained English professor into convulsions. Many depart-
ments have a course that introduces students to the major, and
one common way of teaching this, which is reinforced by the textbooks designed for such courses, is to
explain multiple critical strategies: this is how a deconstructionist would read Gulliver’s Travels, and this
is how a New Historicist would read it, and this is how a feminist would read it. We’ve gotten pretty good
at providing students with a series of options, but find it more difficult to tell them outright what constitutes
literary criticism and how literary criticism is related to, but not the same as, their personal response. On
the one hand, most of us have a sense that, like pornography, we know it when we see it; one the other
hand our own distinctions can seem unconvincing to students (who thus readily contest their grades) and
is often not fully defined in our own minds. This, I think, is why so many faculty dislike grading so much,
why it takes so long, and why there is so much needless agonizing over it. This is why we hate those
assessment-lady rubrics until we realize that they can do so much of this work for us.
So instead of trying to define literary criticism or repeat the smorgasbord of approaches that the
introduction to the major courses usually offer, I developed a worksheet based on empirical information
about how my students over the years have generally responded to a particular text. I posit, in agreement
with Graff, criticism as something that everyone already does. And yet, they do not always do it in a
sophisticated way. If the informal criticism in which most people spontaneously engage were adequate,
we would really have nothing to teach them. For example, to say of The Country Wife that “Horner”, the
play’s infamous rake who pretends to be impotent in order to seduce society wives, “is a douche bag” (I
get this one on the blog every year) is indeed an argument, just not very sophisticated one. Before I started
thinking like an “assessment lady,” I had trouble articulating why students couldn’t see this difference, but

“Assessment” continued on page 9. . .

 Center for Teaching Excellence 9
“Assessment” continued from page 8...
now I understand that I hadn’t been teaching them to see it. I certainly could model sophisticated arguments
and provide examples of sophisticated arguments, distinguishing the kinds of arguments students were mak-
ing in with examples of grades, but I’m not sure I ever actually taught them how to get here. Perhaps this is
particularly ironic in my case since I teach 18th-century literature, which I believe constructed our modern
notion of both literary criticism and sophistication itself. My exemplary play, after all, is about the contrast
between the cosmopolitan rake Horner and the naïve country wife who, in the naïve reading, falls into his
trap.
So I have boldly mapped student responses to The Country Wife in terms of degrees of sophistication,
which I arrogantly posit without apology. The point here is that in disciplinary learning, we expect students
not only be able to make arguments, but to be able to distinguish a good—or sophisticated—argument from
a crude one. Tapping into their argumentative capacity ALONE does not accomplish the second goal. Nev-
ertheless, I think drawing out the gut reaction is the best way to get to a sophisticated argument. To that end,
I represent criticism as a kind of development process in order to minimize negative judgments about less
reflective answers.
What I am trying to do with my ‘stages’ is generate emotional
My final bit of wisdom engagement by beginning with the kind of responses that the text
to share is that thinking like elicits from students. Generally these ultimately intersect with a
recognizable critical problem, but I find that they are much more
an ‘assessment lady’ has meaningful to students if they begin with their own responses. I
have codified these on a worksheet because I want them to be
not only made me slightly sophisticated critics who know how to dig deeply into their own
less clueless as a teacher; it instinctive responses and form them into coherent forms of critical
practice that will also be self-correcting. That is, I want them to be
has actually made teaching able to tell when they are working at a more sophisticated level in
a range of situations. I think this could be adapted for a variety of
considerably easier. Grading texts. At each stage, I try to lay out, non-judgmentally, the kinds of
in particular can become arguments I have seen students make on the class blog and in their
papers. I then analyze what is at stake in each kind of argument.
an agonizing nightmare for Many students, I find, get stuck at stage 3, but this kind of exercise
can help move them forward. I make no apologies about the goal of
even the most experienced getting students to create more sophisticated arguments, although I
teachers. Assessment doesn’t realize that this is a complicated term. I have included the worksheet
I distribute to students at the end of this essay.
solve this problem, but it The experience of thinking momentarily like an assessment lady,
then, rather than only as a specialist in 18th-century British literature
certainly makes evaluation and culture, has shifted my sense of what so many academic conflicts
much less difficult when you seems to be about, and how if we are to thrive in the 21st century we
need to find new, invigorated ways to put undergraduate education
lay out the specific goals at the center of our collective identity, navigating between the Scylla
of sentimentalism and the Charybdis of contempt. My final bit of
wisdom to share is that thinking like an ‘assessment lady’ has not only made me slightly less clueless as a
teacher; it has actually made teaching considerably easier. Grading in particular can become an agonizing
nightmare for even the most experienced teachers. Assessment doesn’t solve this problem, but it certainly
makes evaluation much less difficult when you lay out the specific goals. So just as for Graff, the culture of
argument is withheld from undergraduates to everyone’s disadvantage, in my view the strategies of assess-
ment are similarly withheld from graduate students and beginning instructors and even advanced instructors
when they could save us a lot of anguish and make everyone slightly less clueless.
“Assessment” continued on page 10...
10 Center for Teaching Excellence

“Stages of Criticism”
Laura Rosenthal
Also posted at The Long Eighteenth: http://long18th.wordpress.com/

M
y goal here is to move students from various kinds of non-critical or semi-critical responses
to the critical ones. I have found this approach to be most productive in upper-level classes
when some foundational understanding can be assumed. These stages are based on the types
of responses student often write in their blog posts and papers. This, then, is more my analysis of what
I usually see students do rather than what I recommend that they do, and especially how I can harness
#2 and #3 to get them to move to #4 and #5. The point is not that they need to progressthrough all five
stages, but that they can match up their response to a stage and challenge themselves to move to a higher
one. My strategy here is twofold: first, to respect and encourage their emotional reactions but to lead
them to recognize that these emotional reactions do not constitute criticism. I have then (second) tried
to define what my discipline generally understands as criticism. By casting them as stages rather than
“right way” or “wrong way,” I feel that I allow them to develop sophisticated arguments through the
process of beginning with relatively unsophisticated one.

Stage 1
Literal Reading: What is actually going on at the most literal level in the opening of The Country
Wife? What problem is being set up? Your answer here can be right or wrong and depends on careful
reading of the text, including parsing the sentence structure, understanding the vocabulary and certain
elements of cultural context.
Wrong reading: Horner has come back from France impotent.
Correct reading: Horner is getting Quack to help spread an incorrect rumor that he has come back
from France impotent.
Stage 2
Your gut reaction. There is no correct or incorrect response here.
Example 1: I can’t believe that Horner is planning to trick all those people like that. What a pig.
Example 2: Horner has an awesome plan. I can’t wait to see if it works.
Notice: Both of these responses essentially rely on treating Horner like a real person.
Stage 3
Ethical analysis based on your own moral world that takes other characters into consideration. This
requires more reflection. There is no entirely correct or incorrect response; however, an extended reflec-
tion here depends on following the character through the entire text and correctly understanding each
turn of events.
Example 1: Horner is amusing because he takes advantage of a hypocritical society in which people
can’t tell the truth about what they are doing. With this framework, he finds a way to sleep with lots of
women without getting caught. He makes some lonely women happier than they would be otherwise.
Example 2: Horner exploits a lot of women, including Margery, who falls in love with him. She
is heartbroken at the end of the play and the men play along but are secretly humiliated. He causes a lot
of damage in his drive to fulfill his selfish desires.
 Center for Teaching Excellence 11

(Stages of Criticism continued...)

Fallacy at Stage 3: Making sweeping generalizations as a result of a specific situation.

Example 1: The plot of this play shows that men are really only interested in sex and will always
exploit women when they can.
Example 2: This play shows that you should really just be honest with your spouse and every-
thing will work out.
Stage 4
Analysis based on what you think the author is doing rather than how you feel about the ethical
issues raised by the play.
Example 1: Wycherley sets up Horner’s plot to expose the hypocrisy of his society.
Example 2: Wycherley is showing how limited women’s lives could be and is creating a situa-
tion that allows them to defy their husbands and societal expectations in general.
Fallacy #1 at Stage 4: Sweeping Generalization:
Example: Society is basically hypocritical, which is something that Wycherley shows.
Fallacy #2 at Stage 4: Psychologizing the author or imagining that you know what he or she thinks
Example: Wycherley was a rake and really admired men who could get around the rules of
society, so from this we know that he is on Horner’s side.
Fallacy #3 at Stage 4: False historicizing
Example: Back then, women had no rights at all and the plays shows how they were taken ad-
vantage of.*
*Hint: Don’t ever start a sentence with “back then.” Nothing good will follow. Instead try “In
the late seventeenth century” and observe have that demands that you be honest and accurate about
the history.
Stage 5
An argument about the representational strategies of the play and their effects that does not neces-
sarily rely on what you think the author thinks. This argument describes what the work does, even
if it does something that the author did not necessarily envision. It can take historical context into
consideration.
Example 1: This play features a central character who thinks he has plumbed the depths of cyni-
cism, but is shocked to find how many other characters have gotten there before him. (Laura Rosenthal)
Example 2: The play exposes the hypocrisy of individual characters, but in the end suggests that
a certain amount of deception is necessary for society to function smoothly. (Laura Rosenthal)
Example 3: Horner is a figure just outside the most elite echelons of society, and his scheme
represents an attempt to break through the final barrier by sleeping with the most elite women. The
elite men, however, close ranks in the end and leave him humiliated and alone. (J. Douglas Canfield)
Example 4: The sexual dynamics of this play are fundamentally homoerotic. Horner only wishes
to sleep with married women in order to cuckold their husband, which shows more desire and interest
in other men than in the women themselves. (Eve Sedgwick)
12 Center for Teaching Excellence
“Director” continued from page 2
Babcock studied the impact of students’ grade expectations on study time and
concluded that when students expect higher grades they spend less time studying,
resulting in a negative correlation between expected grade and study time persistent
within department and across instructors1. Regression analysis suggests that when the
expected grade falls from an A to a C the average study time for the course rises by
more than 2 hours. In other words, if students enter into a course that they perceive
as an easy A they will spend less time studying. The caveat, is that the primary force
changing individual study time is not what they personally expect but instead what
the class expects. Babcock explains that “an individual student who expect an A vs.
a B studies about 10 minutes less per week where as a class of student who expect
A rather than B studies 50 minutes less per week”1.
What does this all mean and what, if anything, can we do about it? Two ad-
ditional correlations may prove useful here: increased student engagement results
in increased learning, provided the engagement is a meaningful activity, and students who study more
earn more in the long run2,4,6. One thing that we as faculty can do is to remain cognizant of the fact that
students may spend only one hour per week studying for each hour of class time. Assigning more work
than students can accomplish in the allotted study time may not be an effective strategy, despite the fact
that we would like it to be. In 2010, faculty expressed expectations of 16.5 hrs student study time per
week ; however, when asked to estimate the actual number of hours Students actually spend studying, the
numbers drops to just 9 per week. In the long run it may be more effective and efficient to tailor weekly
student course learning workload to a level that is in alignment with what students will actually do. An
alternative or complementary strategy is to raise the perceived rigor of the course so that students’ grade
expectations are lowered causing them to increase the amount of time they will spend on the course thus
allowing for increased academic learning engagement in the course. Finally, faculty can remind students
early and consistently of the above two correlations: increased meaningful engagement results in a better
final grade, and better grades mean greater future earning power. The second of these is likely to have
greater resonance.

References
1. Babcock, P. “Real Costs of Nominal Grade Inflation? New Evidence from Student Course Evalua-
tions.” Economic Inquiry. 2010; 48: (4) Available from http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~babcock/

2. Babcock, P. and Marks M. “Leisure College USA: The Decline in Student Study Time.” Washington,
DC: American Enterprise Institute; 2010 Available from http://www.aei.org/outlook/100980

3. Babcock, P. and M. Marks. “The Falling Time Cost of College: Evidence from Half a Century of Time
Use Data.” Review of Economics and Statistics; 2010 Available from http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~babcock/

4. Kuh, George D., Jillian Kinzie, Jennifer A. Buckley, Brian K. Bridges, and John C. Hayek. Piec-
ing Together the Student Success Puzzle: Research, Propositions, and Recommendations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass; 2007

5. McCormick, A. C. “It’s about Time: What to Make of Reported Declines in How Much College
Students Study.” Liberal Education. 2011; 97 (1); Available from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/
le-wi11/LEWI11_McCormick.cfm

6. Pascarella, Ernest T., and Patrick T. Terenzini. How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of
 Center for Teaching Excellence 13
“Krefting” continued from page 4
online course. Not once have I been asked nor heard of anyone
I know of being asked to supply a full teaching portfolio. Most Most places will want to
places will want to see your teaching philosophy up front. Make
sure you have one and that it is strong. This does not mean there see your teaching philosophy
are not benefits to developing a teaching portfolio, in fact, my
doing so made my teaching philosophy stronger. Moreover, if up front. Make sure you have
you’re tenure-track bound than you’ll have to generate all that one and that it is strong.
information for your tenure review file; so, you might as well get
a head start if you have the time. But if you know you are going
to make a career out of university administration or any other
field outside of the classroom, save your energy for the increasingly high number of professionalization
activities expected of those in higher education amidst the other research, teaching and administrative
duties concomitant with being a graduate student.
Better to apply to job calls for which you are an incredibly strong candidate than for those for which you
may have just general appeal. This can be the difference in applying to 12 positions or 50 positions in one year
and either way, I’ll wager that the departments that bite and want an interview will have fallen in the smaller
range of 12 you would have selected if conducting a wiser, refined search. The reality is that there really are
20 candidates out there who are PERFECT for the job in every way and the committee will further narrow
those perfect candidates down to only one. Applying to positions for which you are not perfect or require
teaching outside of your comfort zone (i.e., outside of one’s field or areas of expertise) wastes your valuable
time and that of search committee members. Spend more time on stronger materials developed for positions
you would truly enjoy having and for which you are well suited and qualified.
Nearly every member on the search committee that hired me has over the past six months mentioned that
during my interview they were impressed that I demonstrated knowledge about and interest in their campus
community and resources. Don’t underestimate the power of institutional reconnaissance in making your in-
terview stand out. Prior to the interview, I researched the Francis Young Tang Teaching Museum—a museum
designed to promote interdisciplinary dialogues on Skidmore’s campus—and found several exhibits relevant
to courses I was pitching to the committee. During the interview, I professed excitement about the Tang Mu-
seum and my desire to coordinate a class visit. This made a lasting and favorable impression on committee
members. I was genuinely interested in making use of this wonderful resource (and have!) and discussing it
let them know that I had given real thought not only to the courses I developed but also to the value of teach-
ing those courses at Skidmore specifically.
Networking is a necessary evil. My choice of words should automatically cue you to my own opinion
of this practice. It’s not that I don’t find it important and valuable to know and work with people in my field
but I do not like the undue value we place on ‘who knows who’ which ultimately reinforces structures of
power that are not in keeping with our claims to democratic practices in higher education. If you’re like me
and your instinctual response to being told you should start networking is to have a shiver of distaste travel
from perineum to nape of neck, than do what I do and spend your time cultivating the relationships you have
created naturally with faculty mentors, through your department and wherever you have worked for tuition
remission, with colleagues and classmates, others with whom you have collaborated creatively or scholarly,
and people who have indicated interest in your work. I don’t agree with a system that favors those who have
powerful connections, but as long as this is the system in which we must operate, at least you can feel good
and genuine in forging strong relationships among those you know. And, because they actually know you they
will in turn be a stronger network and your greatest allies in the future.
Stay strong and be optimistic in the job search. If you start feeling frustrated, dismayed and/or embittered
(as I was at times) be sure to purge those feelings before you meet potential employers. Nobody likes a Debbie
Downer and while I get irritated by the ongoing demands placed on us to perform as “good” grad students, I
will say that enthusiasm, not cynicism, will help land a position in the end.
14 Center for Teaching Excellence
“Adrift” continued from page 3
broad results of an assessment of learning. While the CLA is a standardized test, the section Academically
Adrift focuses on asks takers to do the sorts of things graduates do—consume and synthesize information
and respond to it—this is not an undergraduate SAT, but more like problem-based learning. As a measure of
critical thinking and of written communication, in addition to data on grades, retention, graduation, graduate
and professional school placement, post-graduate employment, or any other indirect assessment of learning,
Arum and Roksa believe the CLA may tell us more about the results of what universities attempt to do than
other existing assessments. While we certainly need all of those benchmarks, the introduction of a large-scale
study of learning is promising, if its claims are unsettling. Of course the CLA does not capture important
outcomes, including how much content students learn in their disciplinary coursework, how well students
develop as ethical members of their communities, how prepared they are for graduate school or work, and—
truthfully—how well our curricula supports those types of learning. It appears, however, to provide a baseline
for improvement in students’ ability to understand the parts of a problem and to communicate a response.
As the authors examine the relationships between students’ CLA performance and pre-college and un-
dergraduate experiences, a few conclusions stand out. Given
Few faculty would argue the emphasis on collaborative learning in recent decades, it
that group work for its own sake is striking that this study finds that studying alone is more
effective than with peers (again, at least as correlated to this
supports progress toward specific assessment’s measure of critical thinking and writing). This
is not terribly surprising, as the CLA requires performance
learning outcomes like effective alone. Few faculty would argue that group work for its own
written communication. Arum sake supports progress toward specific learning outcomes
like effective written communication. Arum and Roksa do
and Roksa do not claim that not claim that collaborative and active learning strategies are
detrimental, only that studying with peers does not increase
collaborative and active learning CLA gains. In other words, they observe the distinction be-
strategies are detrimental, only tween collaborative learning planned and executed in service
of an identifiable goal and taking part in study groups.
that studying with peers does In anticipation of concern that the CLA or this study will
invite external oversight, Arum and Roksa insist that higher
not increase CLA gains. In other education is unlikely to be subjected to a No Child Left
words, they observe the distinction Behind model, insisting first that colleges and universities
are better positioned to resist that pressure than primary and
between collaborative learning secondary systems and second that too little is known about
learning in higher education to organize that sort of universal
planned and executed in service assessment regime. Instead, they say, institution and field-
of an identifiable goal and taking specific assessments are needed as tools to improve learning,
though they close with a nod to Sputnik and an observation
part in study groups. that significant transformation is unlikely without some re-
markable historical turn. There is of course some risk that
a widely read and accessible work like Academically Adrift will generate interest in aggressive externally-
mandated reform, but Arum and Roksa generally see the CLA as a limited measure, not appropriate for the
evaluation of individual students and not able to replace the specific assessments that are part of effective
teaching in individual courses and curricula. The CLA performance task results provide the sort of data
useful for generalized claims about learning across a large population; that is, this book is more diagnostic
than prescriptive. This is ultimately a provocative moment in the assessment of learning, capable of initiat-
ing local assessment efforts by which faculty are able to make sense of how well students meet the learning
outcomes specific to their courses.
If Academically Adrift were to be taken as a starting point for a shift in U.S. higher education, and not
“Adrift” continued on page 15...
 Center for Teaching Excellence 15
“Adrift” continued from page 14...
only an indication that students do not appear to learn as much as we might believe without countervailing
evidence, institutions would need to address the book’s view of academic purpose. Arum and Roksa nod to
lifelong learning and learning for its own sake in their concluding chapter, yet there is elsewhere an implied
preference for academic plans that are informed by the sort of purpose that may not always serve students
well. For instance, as they point out the disconnect between students’ aspirations to be doctors and their un-
derstanding of the educational work required for that profession, they tend to privilege a sort of teleological
view of learning in which one enters and completes college knowing what she wants to do as a graduated
adult. In contrast to the “academically adrift,” this student uses her education as an instrument of clearly
defined and purposeful learning. We might fairly ask about the value of students playing in uncertainty and
ambivalence as they identify majors, explore general education courses, and recognize the role of academic
learning that may not directly serve a professional need. To be clear, Arum and Roksa are not guilty of creat-
ing a straw man of the undeclared major, but in their critique of a system of higher education which appears
to serve a number of unrelated needs (research, the credentialing of young people, and social development),
I wonder how much room is found for learning for its own sake (and for the ways life in a residence hall may
cultivate learning for its own sake). Finally, this is a study of learning with implications for the cultures of
higher education in the U.S., and just as the authors distribute fault pretty evenly among stakeholders, they
attend to the difficulty inherent in effecting major change. Simply prescribing increased reading, writing,
and study will not, they recognize, be enough.

 Arum, Richard and Josipa Roska. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago,
Il: University of Chicago Press, 2011.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo10327226.html

Summer Institute on Teaching and Learning with

New(er) Technologies
This hands-on institute is offered for members of the faculty who want to increase student learning through
pedagogies that implement new(er) technologies. Faculty who would like to have dedicated time, support,
direction, and feedback as they increase student learning with these pedagogies are invited to apply. Faculty
participants will benefit from feedback, guidance and colleagues’ experience as they develop ways to make
new(er) technologies part of their pedagogy. The institute will help faculty address specific challenges—and
meet specific learning outcomes—in their classrooms.

Keep an eye out for registration information, available soon on our website at http://www.cte.umd.edu/
programs/faculty/index.html.

Clicker Loaner Program

F
or those who may want to try student response devices, “clickers,” a limited number of loaner sets
are available for temporary checkout from the OIT Classroom Support office in Hornbake 0125,
x48522, courtesy of the Center for Teaching Excellence.
 16 Center for Teaching Excellence

Call for Nominations: 2011 Departmental Excellence

& Innovation in Undergraduate Teaching Award
Sponsored by the Lilly-CTE Teaching Fellows, the Center for Teaching Excellence, and the
Office of Undergraduate Studies
Departmental Excellence & Innovation in Undergraduate Teaching Awards recognize notable improvements
and accomplishments in undergraduate education at the department or program level. Applications should
highlight a current initiative or a change in programing or curriculum that has made a positive impact on
student learning and the quality of undergraduate education in the last two or three years. More specifically,
applicants should describe how the department addressed a problem and how the initiative or improvement
was the result of a combined effort of those in the unit. The efforts of individual members of a unit are not
eligible for Departmental Excellence & Innovation in Undergraduate Teaching Awards. For examples of the
type of work that has received recognition in recent years click here

The Office of Undergraduate Studies provides a $5,000 award.

WHO? Any campus department, program, or interdepartmental program can apply for the award.

HOW TO APPLY: Submit two letters to the Center for Teaching Excellence. The first letter should describe
the project or initiative—which must extend beyond an individual course or academic year—and how it has
improved undergraduate learning. A second letter, from the appropriate unit head (chair or dean), should
describe the unit’s support for the initiative or improvement. Each letter should be no longer than two pages.

WHEN? Submission deadline is April 20, 2011. Winners will be notified in early May, and the award will be
presented at the reception for Distinguished Teaching Assistants.

QUESTIONS? Email sbenson@umd.edu.

WHERE? Submit your nominations online at

https://www.cte.umd.edu/programs/faculty/lilly/teachingaward/application/index.php

The University Teaching and Learning Program (UTLP)

T
he University Teaching and Learning Program (UTLP) assists graduate teaching assistants
(GTAs) in their professional development as college teachers. At the heart of UTLP is the phi-
losophy that teaching, like research, is a scholarly activity that requires intellectual engagement
and public conversation. ULTPers thus fulfill a set of requirements that asks them to discuss teaching
and learning in higher education, to be mentored by a faculty member, to develop a larger teaching and
learning project, and to craft a teaching portfolio. UTLPers have a common commitment to improv-
ing undergraduate education and an eagerness to make their classes the best they can. When UTLPers
complete the program they are recognized at an annual reception and receive both transcript notation
and a certificate acknowledging their participation in the program, tangible evidence of their thought-
ful engagement with issues central to college teaching. Supported by the Graduate School, the UTLP is
administered by the Center for Teaching Excellence. For more information, please contact UTLP coor-
dinator Alexis Williams at ayw@umd.edu or call (301) 314-1287.
 Center for Teaching Excellence 17

Distinguished Teaching Assistant (DTA)

Recognition Awards
At the end of each academic year, the Center for Teaching Excellence, the Dean for Undergraduate Studies,
and the Dean of the Graduate School recognizes outstanding graduate teaching assistants at the University of
Maryland. A May reception is hosted in their honor in the Stamp Student Union Atrium, and each recipient is
presented with a certificate recognizing his or her contributions as a Distinguished Teaching Assistant.

Distinguished Teaching Assistants (DTA) are selected by the department chairpersons. Because this award
is meant to honor the most outstanding teaching assistants, CTE asks that only the top ten percent of all teaching
assistants within a department be identified as Distinguished Teaching Assistants. Specific nomination criteria
are at the discretion of the individual department.

Nomination calls are sent to all department chairs by CTE in April. If you have any questions, please contact
CTE’s Coordinator of Graduate Student Programs at (301) 314-1287.

Department Chairs and/or Graduate Directors: Nominations for departmental graduate instructors and gradu-
ate teaching assistants, who will be recognized as 2010-2011 Distinguished TA Awards, should be submitted
online by close of business April 18, 2011. The nomination form is available online at:
http://cte.umd.edu/grants/DTA/awardees/

The DTA recognition ceremony will be held at 3:30 - 5:00 Wednesday, May 11.

Subscribe to Teaching & Learn-

Faculty Handbook of
ing News
Policies and Resources ~ http://www.cte.umd.edu/con-
• Can I reschedule a final exam?
• What are the University’s guidelines for
tactus/TLNMailingList.html ~
attendance policies?
For more than fifteen years TLN has included articles,
• In what cases I am required to submit early
notes, and schedules to keep the campus informed about
warning grades?
new technologies, available grants, fellowship notices,
• What must be included in my course syllabi?
workshops and roundtables, distinguished lectures, as-
• Do I need approval to sell my own textbook
sessment, learning outcomes, classroom management
to students taking my course?
strategies, consultation programs, new conferences,
This guide offers a brief introduction to the
established programs, award winners, grant recipients,
University’s policies, procedures, and resources
University policies on teaching, and other valuable in-
related to teaching, advising and mentoring. It is
formation for faculty and graduate teaching assistants.
available at the following address:
Most important, it always suggests ways to enhance
teaching for better learning. Subscribing to the TLN list-
h t t p : / / w w w. f a c u l t y. u m d . e d u / t e a c h /
serv list takes about twenty seconds and means that you
InstructionalGuide.htm
will receive approximately five emails a year, notifying
you that a new issue of the only regular campus-wide
publication on teaching and learning has arrived.
 18 Center for Teaching Excellence
Center For Teaching Excellence
University of Maryland
2301 Marie Mount Hall
College Park, MD 20742
301.405.9356
cte@umd.edu
http://www.cte.umd.edu
Teaching and Learning News
Spencer Benson, Director
Lisa Marie Rhody, Editor

Work with a Faculty Consultant

T
he Faculty Teaching Consultation Division is designed to help provide support for campus instruc-
tors who would like to improve their teaching. Teachers work one-on-one with a Faculty Teaching
Consultant, based on their own goals. The requesting teacher determines the issues to be explored,
and the consultant provides an outside perspective, peer support for a plan of action, and suggestions for
additional resources.
Consultations can address any number of areas, including, among other issues, assessment, active learn-
ing, collaborative learning, lecturing, instructional technology, syllabus construction, rubrics for grading,
and scholarship in teaching and learning.
Any faculty member who teaches for the University of Maryland at College Park can request a teaching
consultation, and they are completely confidential. For more information, contact the Center for Teaching
Excellence at 301-405-9356 or via email at cte@umd.edu.

End-of-Semester Calendar

April
7, Thursday 12 PM Workshop: “Education Abroad”
12, Tuesday 7 PM Marquee Lecture Series: “The Future of Global Energy and Climate”
21, Thursday 3 PM Graduate Lilly Fellows Project: “Defining and Evaluating Pedagogies
for Active Learning at the University of Maryland”
29, Friday all day 5th Annual Innovations in Teaching and Learning Conference

May
11, Wednesday 3:30 PM Distinguished Teaching Assistant Award Ceremony
12, Thursday 7 PM Marquee Lecture Series: “Pollinators in Crisis: Challenges
and Opportunities”

June
2-5 all day Lilly-DC Conference on University Teaching and Learning

Follow the latest news and upcoming events by checking our website:
http://www.cte.umd.edu.
You can also follow us on Twitter @CTE_UMD or find us on our Facebook page at
http://www.facebook.com/UMD.CTE.