Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats

In October 2004, members of the Center for the Advancement of Teaching's Strategic Planning and Implementation Group (SPIG) and other faculty members conducted a SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats). The list of items associated with each of the four areas was further refined in November, when the SPIG members identified what they considered to be the most important items.

Each of the prioritized items was subsequently assigned to one or more of the following categories: Staff, Programs, Funding, Communication, Facilities and Resources. These five categories are intended to represent the elements that make the Center for the Advancement of Teaching what it is.

Finally, we'd like to note that these are the opinions of the faculty and staff members who participated in the SWOT Analysis. The opinions expressed are neither necessarily consensus opinions nor the opinions of CAT staff.

Staff

Strengths

Has a clear focus on the value of good teaching
Provides technology support
Has responsive and knowledgeable staff
There is continuity of support: communities formed as part of programs continue to function, help for projects available semester after semester
Is flexible, adaptable; has healthy approach: not ossified
Provides one-on-one assistance for teaching projects
Provides safe (nonjudgmental and formative) place to take risks and maintains confidentiality.
Is open to and seeks faculty input

Weaknesses

Has insufficient expertise in assessment of teaching and learning
Has insufficient expertise in theory and literature of teaching and learning
Its leadership (director or associate director) is not trained in faculty development
Has an inadequate number of staff
Does not do a good job of communicating its successes, accomplishments, programs, or outcomes
There is a perception that the Center's programs are only for a few, select faculty
Needs to close the loop regarding what the Center does and student learning outcomes
Does not following through with assessment

Opportunities

Actively seek new grants
Regarding classroom design, serve as a liaison to facilities management personnel
Represent selves better to administration
Actively engage administrators and faculty in dialogue on Center activities and needs

Threats

Unrealistic expectations
Possibility of losing staff; no associate director, no "backup" should the director leave
Demand for services could exceed capacity to deliver
Micromanagement by the Administration could be a threat, while, at the other extreme, neglect by the Administration could be a threat

Programs

Strengths

Sponsors helpful workshops
There is continuity of support: communities formed as part of programs continue to function, help for projects available semester after semester
Encourages innovative strategies through grants and initiatives
Experiences 75% faculty participation in programs

Weaknesses

Has no method to assist faculty to assess their own teaching needs
Needs to close the loop regarding what the Center does and student learning outcomes
Does not following through with assessment

Opportunities

Assist faculty in assessing their own needs
Integrate new knowledge about teaching and learning (information from neurobiology, etc.)
Provide evidence to support movement toward active learning approaches (and other effective approaches.)
Move away from lecture to field work, service learning, etc. (teacher facilitates active learning projects)
Stay ahead of the curve to influence the teaching and learning culture
Demonstrate that what the Center does is effective and important
Become resource for assessment component of SACS by helping individual faculty with guidance, models, and data
Develop expertise in determining optimal conditions for learning and retention, e.g., class size, classroom configuration, teaching and learning models
Include Center's activities in rank and tenure considerations
Use data more effectively
Become the go-to place for faculty seeking to improve teaching
Specialized program for new faculty beginning at orientation but going beyond
Build bridges with other campus groups (e.g., Center for Undergraduate Research, University 1010 and 1020 faculty and staff, Environmental Programs, Faith and Learning Programs, Information Technology Center, Service Learning Program, Center for International and Intercultural Programs)
If new supplemental instructional programs start, should coordinate with CAT for any portions that have to do with teaching and learning

Threats

Time limits on faculty and workload
Decreases in availability of grants that would result in lack of funds to continue initiatives that are currently funded only through grants (lack of continuity for these programs)
Unrealistic expectations
Demand for services could exceed capacity to deliver
Micromanagement by the Administration could be a threat, while, at the other extreme, neglect by the Administration could be a threat
Proliferation of faculty development opportunities on campus; fragmented, territorial
Lack of voice in University planning
Lack of perception among faculty (and administrators) that using CAT is a necessity (e.g., for tenure and promotion)

Funding

Strengths

Provides technology support
There is continuity of support: communities formed as part of programs continue to function, help for projects available semester after semester

Weaknesses

Has insufficient expertise in assessment of teaching and learning
Has insufficient expertise in theory and literature of teaching and learning
Has an inadequate number of staff
Needs to close the loop regarding what the Center does and student learning outcomes
Demand for services could exceed capacity to deliver

Opportunities

Actively seek new grants

Threats

Decreases in availability of grants that would result in lack of funds to continue initiatives that are currently funded only through grants (lack of continuity for these programs)
Micromanagement by the Administration could be a threat, while, at the other extreme, neglect by the Administration could be a threat
Proliferation of faculty development opportunities on campus; fragmented, territorial

Communication

Weaknesses

Does not do a good job of communicating its successes, accomplishments, programs, or outcomes
There is a perception that the Center's programs are only for a few, select faculty

Opportunities

Represent selves better to administration
Build bridges with other campus groups (e.g., Center for Undergraduate Research, University 1010 and 1020 faculty and staff, Environmental Programs, Faith and Learning Programs, Information Technology Center, Service Learning Program, Center for International and Intercultural Programs)
Actively engage administrators and faculty in dialogue on Center activities and needs

Threats

Micromanagement by the Administration could be a threat, while, at the other extreme, neglect by the Administration could be a threat
Proliferation of faculty development opportunities on campus; fragmented, territorial
Lack of voice in University planning
Lack of perception among faculty (and administrators) that using CAT is a necessity (e.g., for tenure and promotion)

Facilities and Resources

Weaknesses

Needs more pedagogical resources on Center's website and in Center

Opportunities

Actively seek new grants

Participants in the SWOT Analysis, October 23, 2004

Center for the Advancement of Teaching
- Bart Everson
- Todd Stanislav
- Gayna Stevens-Credle
College of Pharmacy
- Lanny Foss
Communications
- Joe Melcher
Division of Education
- Deborah Bordelon
- Rosalind Hale
English
- David Lanoue
Mathematics
- Susan Fredine
Psychology
- Elliott Hammer
Theology
- Mark Gstohl

March 2005