CCT ePortfolio: Certification in College Teaching

Description

Marketing education requires teaching strategies uniquely suited to how marketing professionals think and operate. Effective marketing instruction must develop students’ abilities to analyze market problems systematically, integrate multiple data sources, and make evidence-based strategic recommendations—the core skills that distinguish successful marketing practitioners. This competency focuses on understanding the discipline’s modes of inquiry and translating them into purposeful pedagogical approaches that prepare students for marketing careers.

Artifact and Rationale

• Course Completion: CEP 820 (Teaching and Learning Online) - Completed with 4.0 GPA, this advanced coursework in educational psychology and learning theory provided foundational knowledge in evidence-based teaching practices. I mastered frameworks such as TPACK (Technology, Pedagogy, Content Knowledge) and Design Justice principles, which directly inform my approach to integrating technology meaningfully into marketing curriculum.

• Teaching Philosophy Manifesto - View my CEP 820 Teaching and Learning Online course reflection, which documents my pedagogical framework and how I translate educational theory into marketing instruction.
• Support Document & Syllabus - View documentation

Reflection

Completing CEP 820 provided essential theoretical grounding in how students learn, directly informing my evidence-based approach to course design and assessment strategies. The course’s focus on Design Justice principles was particularly impactful—understanding that technology design reflects values and can either support or exclude learners shapes how I select and implement teaching tools.

My teaching philosophy centers on evidence-based marketing education that combines systematic assessment design with inclusive collaborative learning. Rather than relying on assumptions about student capabilities or preferences, I use data to understand how students learn and continuously refine my pedagogical approaches based on empirical evidence. This philosophy evolved significantly through my Mentored Teaching Project, which revealed that how we assess collaborative work matters more than how we form groups.

In my future marketing courses, I will continue to apply learner-centered strategies that emphasize understanding why marketing decisions matter, not just what tactics exist. For example, rather than teaching social media marketing as a collection of platform features, I frame it around how different platforms afford different types of customer engagement and relationship-building, requiring students to justify tool selection based on strategic objectives.

Marketing professionals must synthesize information from multiple sources, evaluate competing strategies, and make recommendations under uncertainty. My discipline-specific teaching approach develops these capabilities by:

• Using case-based instruction that requires students to analyze real marketing problems with incomplete information
• Emphasizing the “why” behind marketing frameworks rather than memorizing tactics
• Creating opportunities for students to practice professional communication skills (written, visual, oral presentations)

This discipline-specific approach prepares students to think independently about emerging marketing challenges throughout their careers, transferring the critical reasoning skills they develop in my courses to novel contexts they’ll encounter as marketing professionals.

Description

College students arrive with diverse academic backgrounds, cultural experiences, and comfort levels with business concepts. Creating learning environments where all students can participate meaningfully, succeed academically, and feel valued is essential for inclusive marketing education. This competency involves designing courses that support multiple ways of engaging, reduce barriers to participation, and foster psychological safety—enabling students from different backgrounds to take intellectual risks and contribute their perspectives to classroom conversations.

Artifact and Rationale

• CCTI Workshop Materials and Session Participation - Active participation in the Certification in College Teaching Institute’s workshop sessions on creating effective learning environments provided direct instruction on evidence-based practices for student engagement, inclusive course design, and addressing microaggressions and bias in academic spaces.

• CCTI Workshop Documentation - View workshop participation materials for Competencies 2 & 3

• Teaching Philosophy Engagement Framework - My teaching philosophy outlines three-dimensional engagement strategies (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive) and inclusive collaborative practices, detailed in my Teaching Philosophy statement.

Reflection

Through CCTI workshops and my teaching practice, I’ve learned that inclusive environments require intentional design across multiple dimensions. Students consistently recognize organization and clear communication as crucial for their success—but beyond logistics, they need to see themselves represented in course materials, feel that their contributions matter, and know they can ask questions without judgment.

My approach to creating inclusive learning environments in marketing courses includes:

• Diverse representation in case studies and examples: I deliberately select cases featuring companies that entrepreneurs from different countries, reflecting the diversity of marketing professionals.

• Multiple engagement formats: Rather than relying solely on written analysis, I offer options for video presentations, infographics, and group discussions, recognizing that students have different communication strengths.

• Structured discussion protocols: I use techniques that ensure all voices are heard, not just the most vocal students, and provide frameworks that support both native and non-native English speakers to participate confidently.

Evidence from Student Feedback: Students in my courses have specifically noted the value of clear organization and systematic communication: “very organized and well put together,” “expectations to excel in the course were clearly outlined,” and “I like how it was extremely clear what we were responsible for each week, and that it had a fair workload.” This systematic approach reflects marketing’s emphasis on clarity, strategic planning, and systematic execution—professional skills that mirror effective course design.

Beyond structural clarity, inclusive collaboration prepares students for professional reality. Marketing professionals work in diverse, cross-functional teams where successful campaigns emerge from integrating perspectives from different cultural backgrounds, analytical approaches, and creative traditions. My courses intentionally create these collaborative experiences, using random group formation combined with individual accountability measures to ensure all students contribute meaningfully while developing teamwork skills essential for their careers.

This commitment to inclusion will remain central to my teaching regardless of institutional context. Whether teaching at a research university, teaching-focused institution, or community college, inclusive pedagogy is both ethically essential.

Description

While technology offers powerful opportunities for course delivery, assessment, and student engagement, poor implementation can create barriers rather than support learning. The critical question is not whether to use technology, but when and how it serves specific learning objectives. This competency requires understanding that students have variable technological experience and access, and that technology choices should be justified by pedagogical benefit, not novelty. And also, technology integration requires careful consideration of potential barriers: financial burdens on students who must purchase software or devices, accessibility issues for students with disabilities, and the risk of privileging technologically sophisticated students over those with equal content knowledge but less technical experience. Effective technology integration means making deliberate choices about when simpler approaches better serve learning objectives.

Key Challenges: Many instructors assume students possess technical skills they may not have. First-time online or hybrid course design often attempts to do too much with technology at once. Additionally, unequal access to technology disproportionately affects low-income students, requiring thoughtful consideration of equity implications in technology selection. As a first-time instructor designing an online course, I faced the challenge of integrating multiple technologies (learning management systems (D2L), video conferencing (ZOOM,Teams), collaborative tools(Google sheet, etc.)) while ensuring accessibility for students with varying technical backgrounds and equipment access.

Artifact and Rationale

• CCTI Workshop: Incorporating Technology Into Teaching - Participated in MSU’s Certification in College Teaching Institute workshop that emphasized matching technology to learning objectives rather than adopting technology for its own sake.

• CCTI Workshop Documentation - View workshop participation materials for Competencies 2 & 3

• CEP 820 Course Experience: TPACK Framework Application - Through CEP 820, I developed expertise in the TPACK (Technology, Pedagogy, Content Knowledge) framework, which provides a systematic approach to evaluating when and how technology enhances learning rather than simply adding complexity.

Reflection

My philosophy on technology is neither enthusiastic adoption nor resistance—I ask: Does this technology serve a clear learning goal, and do the benefits outweigh the implementation costs?

Through my teaching experience, CEP 820 coursework, and CCTI participation, I’ve learned several crucial lessons about technology integration:

Understanding learner variability: In designing my first online course, I discovered that assumptions about “basic” computer skills (saving files in specific formats, navigating learning management systems, using video conferencing) were incorrect for a significant portion of students. Some students may have never used cloud storage, others struggled with video recording, and many were unfamiliar with collaborative editing tools, I should not assume every student knows how all of these works. Next, I will provide tutorial resources, anticipate common technical barriers, and build in time for troubleshooting without penalizing students who need this support.

Technology selection is pedagogy: The TPACK framework taught me that effective technology integration requires simultaneous consideration of three domains:

• Content: What marketing concepts am I teaching?
• Pedagogy: What instructional approach best supports student learning of these concepts?
• Technology: What technology enables this pedagogical approach in ways that non-technological methods cannot?

When I choose to use a tool, I consider:

• What learning objective does it support that other methods wouldn’t?
• What prior knowledge or access does it require?
• What barriers might it create for students with disabilities or limited connectivity?
• How will I support students who are unfamiliar with it?

Questioning the “upgrade” mentality: Just because a new educational technology exists doesn’t mean my course needs it. Now days, there are many “fancy” tools can do many things, but they often add unnecessary complexity. A well-designed spreadsheet assignment with clear instructions and tutorial videos may serve students better than implementing specialized software they’ll never use again. This principle of “appropriate technology” means selecting tools that students will genuinely use in their professional careers (Excel, PowerPoint, data visualization software (Tableau, etc.)) over novelty tools that require extensive learning for minimal benefit.

In my future marketing courses, I will continue to use technology strategically, for example, data analysis software helps students develop skills they’ll use in their careers, while multimedia case study presentations offer communication practice. However, I’ll remain cautious about technology that serves convenience over pedagogy, and I’ll always build in support for students with varying technical backgrounds. The goal is not to be “tech-forward” but to be “learning-forward,” using technology only when it demonstrably improves student outcomes.

Description

Different types of colleges and universities have distinct missions, student populations, and institutional goals that fundamentally shape what effective teaching means in those contexts. An R1 research university, a teaching-focused college, and a community college require different instructional priorities and course structures. Additionally, from my MKT 327 class survey, students arrive with different economic circumstances, work obligations, family responsibilities, and prior educational experiences.

Key Challenges: Instructors often bring assumptions from their own educational experiences that may not apply to students from different backgrounds. Rigid and rapid course policies (mandatory attendance, strict deadlines without flexibility) can inadvertently disadvantage students from historically marginalized communities who disproportionately carry work and family responsibilities. Understanding institutional context requires recognizing how systemic inequities shape student experiences and adjusting teaching practices accordingly. As someone who has experienced education across multiple countries and institution types, I’ve learned that teaching approaches considered “standard” in one context may be inappropriate or ineffective in another.

Artifact and Rationale

• CCTI Workshop: Understanding the University Context - Participated in workshops discussing mission statements from different institutional types and how to align teaching practices with specific institutional goals and student populations.

• CCTI Workshop Documentation - View workshop participation materials for Competency 4

• Teaching Philosophy Statement - My philosophy reflects attention to different institutional contexts and student needs, available in my Teaching Philosophy statement.

Reflection

Understanding university context is essential for effective teaching because what success looks like differs dramatically across institutional types. My experiences across different educational systems have shaped how I think about this competency.

My Experience Across Institutional Types:

I have attended and studied in diverse educational contexts:

• Community college in the United States (Lansing Community College (LCC)): Emphasized practical, immediately applicable skills
• **Comprehensive State University (University of Kent, UK) **: Balanced research and teaching with strong disciplinary depth
• Research-intensive R1 university (MSU) (CWRU): Emphasized research training and graduate preparation
• International educational systems: During my time as an international student, I experienced how educational approaches and student support systems vary significantly across countries

These experiences have taught me that:

In community college settings, students often need practical skills they can use immediately in their careers. Rigorous field and lab work was prioritized over theoretical depth. This is appropriate and valuable—not every student needs a research orientation, and hands-on expertise is genuinely important.

In research universities, students are being prepared for advanced study or research careers, so developing critical thinking, research skills, and engagement with primary literature is essential. However, even within MSU, a non-majors course serves different goals than a majors course.

Internationally, I observed significant variation in educational philosophy. Some systems emphasize collective knowledge development and group harmony, while others prioritize individual achievement and competition. Understanding these differences helps me recognize that my own educational assumptions are culturally shaped, not universal.

Applying This Understanding to Teaching:

As an MSU instructor for MKT 327 (a non-majors marketing course), I emphasized how marketing operates and why it matters. Most students will not become marketing professionals, but all will encounter marketing messages, make purchasing decisions, and potentially vote on marketing-related policy questions. I structured the course around consumer decision-making, ethical marketing practices, and critical analysis of marketing claims.

If I were teaching the same course at a community college, I would likely emphasize practical skills students could use in entry-level marketing positions, while still maintaining critical analysis.

Equity-Centered Course Policies:

Understanding university context also means recognizing systemic inequities and adjusting policies accordingly. Students from historically marginalized communities are more likely to:

• Work off-campus jobs (sometimes multiple jobs)
• Have family caregiving responsibilities
• Have inconsistent access to technology or quiet study spaces
• Lack access to healthcare (including mental health support)

Rigid attendance policies and strict deadlines without flexibility implicitly privilege students who don’t carry these responsibilities. This is why my courses include:

• Flexible deadline policies with late submission options
• Clear, advance notice of due dates
• Recognition that technology access varies
• Appointment based office hours to accommodate different schedules
• 24 hours response time for student inquiries. (Normally respond within few hours)

Learning from CCTI Workshops: The CCTI sessions on understanding university context emphasized examining institutional mission statements to understand what different colleges and universities prioritize. Through these workshops, I learned to identify key differences:

• R1 research universities like MSU emphasize preparing students for research careers and contributing to knowledge creation
• Regional comprehensive universities often serve first-generation college students and emphasize workforce preparation alongside intellectual development
• Community colleges prioritize accessible, affordable education and direct pathways to employment or transfer to four-year institutions

Each context requires different teaching priorities. Student success at MSU might mean publishing research or gaining admission to graduate school, while at a community college it might mean securing employment or transferring to complete a bachelor’s degree.

Transferring This Competency to New Institutional Contexts:

When seeking teaching positions at different institutional types, I will:

1. Research institutional mission, student demographics, and program goals before interviews
2. Ask deliberately about institutional priorities: “What do you hope students gain from this program?” “What are the student populations we serve?”
3. Review student support services available to understand what resources students can access
4. Examine course policies and schedules at the institution to understand cultural norms around flexibility and accessibility

Future Application:

Whether I teach at an R1 research university, a regional comprehensive university, a liberal arts college, or a community college, I will ground my teaching in understanding that institution’s mission and students’ needs. My core commitment to evidence-based, inclusive teaching translates across contexts, but the specific implementation will shift based on institutional goals and student populations I serve.

For example, my emphasis on systematic assessment and evidence-based pedagogical decisions applies universally, but the specific learning outcomes I prioritize and the types of assignments I design will vary significantly. At a research university, I might emphasize research skills and engagement with academic literature; at a community college, I might prioritize immediately applicable professional skills and clear pathways to employment.

Description

Valid, reliable assessment is the foundation of evidence-based teaching. Assessment goes beyond grading—it’s about understanding whether students are actually learning what we intend to teach them, and using that evidence to improve our courses. This competency involves designing assessments that accurately measure learning objectives, analyzing assessment data to identify where students struggle, and using those insights to refine teaching practices.

Artifact and Rationale

• Mentored Teaching Project: Evidence-Based Assessment Design - Completed a comprehensive mentored teaching project examining how assessment design affects collaborative learning outcomes, specifically investigating whether student attitudes predict successful group work or whether assessment structure matters more. The project analyzed pre-survey and mid-survey data from MKT 327 students to understand changes in confidence, marketing familiarity, and their relationship to group performance.
  • View project summary
  • View detailed worksheet
• Pre-Mid Survey Comparison Analysis - Conducted systematic comparison of student attitudes and perceptions at the beginning and midpoint of the course, revealing significant changes in both group work confidence and marketing familiarity. This longitudinal data collection demonstrates my commitment to evidence-based teaching improvement.
  • Pre-survey
  • Mid-survey
• Teaching Philosophy Assessment Framework - My assessment-driven approach to course design is detailed in my Teaching Philosophy statement, emphasizing that how we assess collaborative work matters more than how we form groups.

Reflection

My mentored teaching project yielded a counterintuitive finding: common assumptions about matching students by attitudes when forming groups lack empirical support. Instead, assessment design—not group composition—determines collaborative learning success. This discovery exemplifies the power of rigorous assessment in teaching and fundamentally shifted my pedagogical approach.

Key Findings from Pre-Mid Survey Analysis:

Through systematic data collection at two time points during MKT 327 (Summer 2025), I tracked how student perceptions evolved as they experienced the course:

• Group Confidence Change: Students’ confidence in group work showed significant change from pre-survey (beginning of course) to mid-survey (after experiencing collaborative assignments). The paired t-test analysis revealed whether the course structure and assessment design effectively supported students’ development of collaboration skills.

• Marketing Familiarity Growth: Students demonstrated measurable changes in their self-reported marketing familiarity between pre-survey and mid-survey, indicating that the course successfully deepened their understanding of marketing concepts. This longitudinal measurement allowed me to assess whether my instructional strategies were achieving intended learning objectives.

• Individual Variability in Change: Some students showed substantial gains in confidence and familiarity, while others remained stable or decreased. This variability highlights the importance of assessment design that accounts for different starting points and learning trajectories, rather than assuming all students benefit equally from the same instructional approach.

The comparison of pre-survey and mid-survey data provided crucial evidence about:

1. Whether students’ initial attitudes about group work predicted their actual collaborative learning success (they did not)
2. How student perceptions evolved as they experienced my assessment structure
3. Whether students with different levels of prior marketing knowledge benefited equally from the course design

Through this project, I learned that:

Assessment reveals what we actually value: Poorly designed rubrics can create ceiling effects that prevent us from distinguishing between strong and excellent work, masking student differences and preventing meaningful feedback. In my research, I discovered that many collaborative assignment rubrics lack sufficient discrimination—they cannot distinguish between groups performing at different levels because the criteria are too vague or the point distributions don’t reflect the actual complexity of the work.

Longitudinal data collection is essential for understanding learning: By collecting data at two time points (pre-survey and mid-survey), I could track how student attitudes and knowledge changed over time. This temporal measurement is far more informative than single-point assessment, revealing patterns of growth, stability, or decline that inform course refinement.

Evidence should drive pedagogical decisions: Rather than relying on intuition or tradition, I now systematically:

• Align assessments directly to learning objectives
• Design rubrics with appropriate discrimination levels (ensuring that different levels of performance receive meaningfully different scores)
• Collect and analyze evidence of student learning through multiple measurement points (pre-survey, mid-survey, final performance)
• Revise course practices based on assessment findings rather than assumptions
• Use statistical analysis (paired t-tests, correlation analysis) to rigorously test whether interventions work

Assessment is a learning tool for students, not just evaluation for instructors: Detailed rubrics with examples of different performance levels help students understand expectations and self-assess their work. When students can see what “excellent,” “good,” and “developing” work looks like before they submit, they’re better equipped to produce quality work.

Assessment-driven course design prioritizes validity and reliability: My teaching philosophy emphasizes that assessment decisions should be based on what accurately measures student learning, not administrative convenience. This means:

• Using appropriate discrimination levels in rubrics so assessment can distinguish between different levels of mastery
• Including individual accountability measures in collaborative work to ensure fair evaluation
• Designing multiple assessment points (pre-survey, mid-survey, final grades) rather than relying on a single high-stakes exam
• Continuously analyzing assessment data to identify patterns in student performance
• Employing rigorous statistical methods to test whether observed changes are meaningful or due to chance

The fundamental insight from my mentored teaching project—that assessment design matters more than group formation strategy—demonstrates the importance of evidence-based pedagogical decisions. Common practice (matching students by attitudes or prior knowledge) lacks empirical support. Rigorous assessment of my own teaching practices, including pre-mid survey comparison with statistical analysis, revealed that random group formation combined with well-designed rubrics and individual accountability produces better learning outcomes.

Methodological Rigor in Teaching Assessment: My mentored project employed research methods similar to those used in academic research:

• Systematic data collection at multiple time points (pre-survey, mid-survey)
• Matched-pairs analysis to track individual student changes
• Statistical hypothesis testing (paired t-tests) to determine significance
• Effect size calculation (Cohen’s d) to assess practical importance of observed changes
• Triangulation of survey data with actual performance data (group grades, final grades)

This rigorous approach to understanding student learning transforms teaching from intuition into a scholarly endeavor grounded in evidence.

In my future teaching, I will continue to prioritize assessment excellence. This means:

• Designing valid, reliable assessments before I design the rest of the course
• Collecting data at multiple time points to track student learning trajectories, maybe add final survey as well
• Analyzing assessment results using appropriate statistical methods to identify gaps in student learning (not just assigning grades)
• Using findings to improve course structure, instruction, and resources
• Continuously refining assessments based on how well they actually measure what I intend

This commitment to assessment-driven teaching will make me a more effective instructor regardless of institutional context or discipline specialization. The systematic approach to understanding student learning—collecting evidence, analyzing patterns, revising practices—mirrors the scientific method and makes teaching itself a form of scholarly inquiry. My experience conducting pre-mid survey analysis demonstrates that I treat teaching with the same methodological care I apply to my marketing research, continuously testing assumptions and refining practices based on empirical evidence.