|
|
|
SAMPLE POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS - Lynda Harding 2/2/2006 Teaching is central to the mission of the University and, therefore, its effectiveness must be assessed. The dual purpose of the assessment of teaching effectiveness is to provide the individual instructor with specific information to enhance instruction and to provide information for use in personnel actions. The primary responsibility for assessing all aspects of teaching effectiveness rests with the faculty. This policy establishes the framework for the assessment of teaching effectiveness, including procedures for the two major components of the assessment: (a) peer review of instruction and (b) student evaluation of instruction. Care should be taken to examine the number of course preparations, level and type of classes taught (graduate, undergraduate, required, elective, etc.), the instructional format lecture, discussion, lab, seminar, etc.), time of day and length of class period, and any other factors which may affect teaching effectiveness or its assessment. Individuals involved in the assessment of teaching effectiveness must be most careful to avoid bias based upon race, color, religion, national origin, marital status, pregnancy, age disability, veteran's status, sexual preference, or sex. Everyone also must be alert to the possibility of such bias on the part of others. Statistical data must be analyzed in the context of the foregoing paragraph and with the realization that serious limitations exist relative to the accumulation and analysis of such data. For example, because the precision of most student ranking data is limited, computations such as arithmetic means should be reported to no more than a single decimal place. Frequency distributions are an appropriate way of illustrating results of student evaluations and, generally, are less likely to lead to over-interpretation of data than other mathematical computations that may suggest more precision than actually exists. The assessment of statistical data should always attempt to identify and focus upon patterns of performance rather than upon idiosyncratic responses. Statistical data shall not be the only information considered in evaluating teaching effectiveness. Department faculty members are expected to go beyond the examination of numerical data and the comparisons of numerical rankings in their assessment of teaching performance and to make appropriate use of qualitative analyses of course materials, reports of classroom visits by faculty peers, and written comments on student evaluations. I. The assessment of teaching effectiveness should address at least four basic components of instruction: subject matter (learning outcomes and course content), course design, implementation of design, and instructional climate. A. Subject Matter. The assessment of subject matter consists of evaluation of the instructor's knowledge of the subject matter and how this knowledge is reflected in the content of the course. Because of their subject matter expertise, faculty peers are in the strongest position to assess this component; thus, their judgment normally should carry greater weight than student comments. Reviewers should examine whether the scope and level of content are appropriate for the nature of the course and its students; how well the course builds upon any prerequisites and provides a basis for courses to which it serves as a prerequisite; and the extent to which the course addresses relevant student learning outcomes defined in the program’s student outcomes assessment plan. Appropriate sources of information include the course syllabus (including student learning outcomes); textbooks and other course materials (including online materials); and class visitations.
B. Course design. The assessment of course design includes the evaluation of the extent to which course materials and assessments are aligned with learning outcomes described in the course syllabus, and the overall flow of course topics. Faculty peers are the more important source of information on course design. Appropriate information sources include the course syllabus, assignments and assessments, discussions with the instructor, and to some extent, student evaluations of instruction.
C. Implementation of design. Assessment of implementation consists of an evaluation of the instructor's ability to transfer knowledge, to motivate students, and to encourage inquiry. The assessment of this aspect of instruction will vary considerably with teaching modality. Because students are in a position to evaluate instruction over the entire semester, their comments normally should be given substantial weight. Faculty peer observation of instruction or examination of online materials and discussion boards are also important sources of evidence. In addition, the effectiveness of instruction can be evaluated through examination of direct evidence of student learning, including graded samples of student work and instructor-initiated scholarship of teaching and learning projects.
D. Instructional climate. Instructional climate, including both student-faculty and student-student components, is set primarily by the faculty member’s interactions with individual students and with the class as a whole. Student comments should be given substantial weight, but faculty peer observation of instruction or review of discussion boards can also be useful.
II. Peer Visit Forms and Student Evaluation Questionnaires A. Schools and/or departments shall adopt forms for classroom visits by peers and for the student evaluation of instruction. The forms, at a minimum, shall provide for the assessment of the four areas described. The forms shall be submitted to the School Dean for approval. Upon approval the forms shall be used by all faculty in the department or school. Peer observation forms shall be signed by the evaluator. B. Student evaluation questionnaires normally shall consist of both quantitative and open-ended questions. Questions shall focus primarily upon aspects of organization and delivery. (See Section I.) Questionnaires shall not consist only of open-ended questions. The questionnaires shall be unsigned.
III. Frequency of Implementation
A. Reports of Classroom Visits By Peers
1. Each department or school shall establish a written policy that describes the frequency and scheduling of peer evaluations of instruction. The following minimum frequency shall apply:
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and, thereafter, at least one course every other year of employment regardless of a break in service;
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two courses each semester for the first year and two courses each academic year thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, two classes (to include as many courses as possible) every semester.
d. For tenured faculty, one course each academic year on a rotating basis such that during a five year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Additional peer evaluation of instruction may be requested by the instructor or required by the Dean or Vice President for Academic Affairs.
B. Student Evaluation of Instruction
1. Each department or school should establish a written policy that describes the frequency and scheduling of student evaluation of instruction. The following minimum frequency shall apply:
a. For full-time and part-time temporary faculty, two representative classes per academic year. However, each course shall be evaluated the first two times it is taught by an individual;
b. For probationary faculty, every class every semester; and
c. For tenured faculty, two representative classes per academic year on a rotating basis such that during a five year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Additional student evaluations may be requested by the instructor or required by the Dean or Vice President for Academic Affairs.
IV. ConfidentialityInformation obtained from peer visitation reports and/or student evaluation questionnaires shall be confidential. Possession or use of this information shall be restricted to: A. The instructor, who may at his/her discretion, make such information available to others; B. Those charged with conducting evaluations or administering this policy; C. Those with access to the Open Personnel File.
V. Administration of Reports of Peer Review of InstructionA. Conducting Peer Review of Instruction 1. Only tenured and probationary faculty shall conduct classroom visits by peers. Although participants in the Faculty Early Retirement Program and tenured faculty being considered for promotion may not participate in personnel actions, they may conduct peer reviews pursuant to this policy. 2. As the first step of the peer review, the evaluator and the faculty member should discuss a plan for the evaluation, including the examination of relevant materials such as textbooks, syllabi, representative materials, and examinations. 3. The evaluator should avoid any unnecessary disruptions of normal classroom activities. 4. For classroom visits, multiple visits by one or more evaluators are expected in order to provide a more complete perspective of classroom performance. For online courses, multiple instructional modules are expected to be reviewed. 5. Evaluators shall not interview students before, during, or after the class session. (Any information placed in the Open Personnel File must be identified by source.) B. Reports of Peer Evaluations 1. Using the approved departmental or school format, the evaluator shall prepare a written report. Multiple classroom visits by the same evaluator may be combined into a single report. The report should include specific observations upon which the assessment is based and, minimally, reference should be made to subject matter, course design, implementation of design, and instructional climate (see above). 2. The evaluator and the faculty member should discuss the visit prior to the submission of the written report to the department chair. 3. Each report shall be signed by the evaluator and submitted to the department chair for placement in the Open Personnel File following appropriate notification. VI. Administration of Questionnaires for Student Evaluation of InstructionA. Administration of Questionnaires 1. Questionnaires shall be administered under the direction of the school dean. The dean will issue written instructions identifying the individuals who will administer the student evaluations and the written and/or oral instructions to be given to the students. 2. At a minimum, the instructions shall include:
a. Advising the students that the dual purpose of the evaluations is to enhance teaching effectiveness and to provide information for use in personnel actions (if any).
b. Informing the students of the procedures for using the questionnaires.
c. Informing the students that the original or a copy of the original of the comments (if any) will be given to the instructor.
d. Assuring the students that the evaluation results will not be made available to the instructor until after final grades have been turned in.
3. The instructor being evaluated may not be present in the classroom during the administration of the questionnaire. For online evaluations, the instruction may not have access to identifying information.
4. The person administering the questionnaire shall not interview students before, during or after the class session.
5. The evaluations shall occur within the last four weeks of the semester. [The literature on student evaluations suggests that earlier in the semester would be fine. And the last two weeks are sooo hectic. I wonder if he 9th – 13th week wouldn’t be better. Also, this policy assumes that all courses last a whole semester, an assumption that may not hold true in the near future as online instruction increases faculty flexibility for scheduling.]
B. Analysis of Student Evaluation Data
1. Quantitative Results
a. A written interpretation of the quantitative results of the student evaluation shall be prepared by the department. This interpretation shall be known as the Summary Report.
b. Each Summary Report should include an explanation of how the questionnaire results support the generalizations, interpretations and conclusions made.
c. The quantitative portion of the questionnaire shall be assessed in the Summary Report with comparisons to appropriate data (standards, means, modes, medians, etc.) for the department.
Quantitative computations should be reported only to the first decimal place and differences of a few tenths between scores should be considered insignificant. Item frequency distribution of student responses are an appropriate way to display results.
d. The instructor should receive a copy of the quantitative data and a copy of the Summary Report. In the interest of instructional improvement and fairness to retention/tenure/promotion candidates, these copies should be provided to the instructor as soon as possible after final grades are turned in. Candidates for retention/tenure/promotion should have priority over temporary and tenured faculty in the receipt of this information.
e. After final grades are turned in by the instructor, the Summary Report shall be placed in the Open Personnel File.
2. Open-Ended Comments
a. The department may require that a written summary of the open-ended student comments be prepared for each instructor for inclusion in the Summary Report. The summary of open-ended comments should be a generalization of the comments and should neither focus upon isolated remarks nor be simply a listing or typed iteration of the individual comments.
b. The instructor shall receive the original or a photocopy of the original open-ended comments. (The copy of the Summary Report provided to the instructor will include the summary of the open-ended student comments.)
In the interest of instructional improvement and fairness to retention/tenure/promotion candidates, these copies should be provided to the instructor as soon as possible after final grades are turned in. Candidates for retention/ tenure/ promotion should have priority over temporary and tenured faculty in the receipt of this information.
VII. Preparation of an Overall Evaluation of Teaching Performance
For recommendations regarding personnel actions, the written reports peer reviews and the Summary Reports of student evaluations along with other appropriate information in the Open Personnel File shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and effectiveness. These assessments, at a minimum, shall include discussions of subject matter, organization, and delivery as outlined in Section I above.
VIII. Summary of Needed Department/School Policy Decisions
In accord with the foregoing provisions, departments or schools should adopt questionnaires and forms for student evaluations and peer reviews and develop written policies/procedures which describe:
A. The frequency (if the minimum described above is to be exceeded) and scheduling of student evaluations and peer reviews.
B. Whether or not the instructor will be notified beforehand of the date(s) for classroom visits by peers.
C. Whether or not a summary of open-ended comments will be included in the Summary Report.
D. How faculty peers will be selected to carry out peer reviews.
E. How faculty peers will be selected to prepare the Summary Reports.
Ethelynda Harding February, 2006
|
|
|
February 2 – 3-4 pm
EST References, Resources:
|
|
|
Your Questions, Suggestions, Comments If you have any questions or comments about this workshop, please contact Lisa Star at online@tltgroup.org Please send your questions or suggestions for improving our online workshops - including topics or leader/presenters that you would like us to include.
Send to Steve Gilbert at:
|
|
Joys and Sorrows
|
|
|
|
|
|
TLT-SWG Highly Moderated Listserver Since 1994 Faculty/Professional Development Program |
|
