How can faculty teach more effectively, more joyfully, and more efficiently? That question guided the work of Duke’s 2030 Teaching and Mentoring Excellence Committee, a group of faculty from across the university charged with rethinking how teaching and mentoring are defined, supported and rewarded.
Over the summer, the committee delivered its recommendations to Provost Alec D. Gallimore, and the university’s Academic Council recently approved three key components of the report: the implementation of teaching and mentoring frameworks, clearer promotion standards, and new titles and career tracks for regular-rank faculty outside the tenure track.
In reflecting on the committee’s work, co-chair Bridgette Hard of psychology & neuroscience emphasized the values that shaped their approach. “We started with the assumption that Duke faculty care about teaching and mentoring, and that they want to be, and generally are, good at it,” she said. The challenge, she noted, is that “without having clear definitions of what we mean by ‘good’ teaching and mentoring, it’s hard to reward that effort.”
Those definitions, however, needed flexibility across disciplines. Co-chair Jerry Reiter of statistical science pointed to the wide range of teaching contexts at Duke. “Medicine is different than math, which is different than English, which is different than Nicholas,” he said. “So having one set of criteria is not going to work. … We viewed the frameworks as starting points for departmental conversations around effective teaching.”
Ultimately, Reiter said, impacting culture is a large part of the committee’s goal. “We really think that (this reflection) will help move the needle toward a culture in which teaching is more valued and more fun for everybody.”
To read the full interview with 2030 Teaching and Mentoring Committee co-chairs Hard and Reiter, go to the Office of the Provost.
