Recent revisions are in red.

EVALUATION OF TEACHING
REPORT OF TASK FORCE:  SPRING 2002

Members of Task Force:  Jack Berkley (co-chair), Bob Booth, Joan Burke (co-chair), Roger Byrne, Bill Jungels, Barbara Mallette, Dick Reddy, Joe Straight, and Paul Schwartz.

 
Introduction:
    
    As Fredonia’s “Conceptual Framework” makes clear, becoming a responsive teaching professional is part of a life-long learning process.  We assume that faculty members have the desire, the knowledge, and the skills with which to improve teaching effectiveness.  In order to encourage such professional growth and to evaluate its progress, the Task Force on the Evaluation of Teaching submits the following set of guidelines for tenure-track faculty and faculty seeking promotion.  
    
    
I.      The evaluation of teaching effectiveness in all departments and schools should reflect a variety of information sources.  Since teaching is best evaluated by its effect upon students, various measures of student change - academic achievement, critical thinking skills, attitudes - should be included if at all possible.  Nevertheless, it is clear that a major component of these evaluations will be the perceptions of students expressed in comments and ratings on course evaluation forms.  It is important, however, that these perceptions be supplemented by input from other relevant sources.  Ideally, any departmental evaluation of teaching effectiveness will include perceptions from all four populations listed below:
A.    Teacher
B.    Students
C.    Faculty Peers
D.    Departmental Administrators (Chairs, Directors, etc.)
II.        As support for the basic principle above, we expressed agreement with the following statement in Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching (1999) by Peter Seldin & Associates:

         Each source of information – student, peer, administrator,
        self-assessment – offers important but limited insights.
        No single source is enough for tenure, promotion,
        or retention decisions (219).

Peter Seldin’s book is quoted here because it is familiar to several faculty members who attended his workshop on teaching portfolios, but many other educational theorists have expressed similar concerns.  Parker J. Palmer, for instance, in The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life decries the fact that too often academic institutions operate on the belief that “good teaching can be crammed into the scales of a survey questionnaire” filled out only by students (94).

III.       The Task Force proposes some revisions in each of the following categories:
A.      Teacher’s self-appraisal: In addition to the revised CV included with his/her renewal dossier, each faculty member will submit a one-page self-appraisal which will reflect on teaching progress made since the last renewal and which will identify goals for the subsequent reappointment period.  In keeping with our College-wide commitment to the improvement of teaching and our realization that honest self-reflection is a pre-requisite for teaching excellence, the chairpersons, directors, and deans encourage honesty and candor in these statements.  [Although beyond its charge, the Task Force recommends that such brief appraisals also be prepared for scholarship and for service.]

B.    Students: Course Evaluations prepared by students provide another perspective of the faculty member’s teaching.  In all evaluations, we recommend that students be provided opportunities to indicate ratings for teaching effectiveness and to write comments that provide a necessary context for the ratings.  Students should be asked to reflect upon their own performance in the course as well as the degree to which they have benefited from the course.  Students may also be asked to evaluate any and/or all of the following: teaching skills, organization of the course, course materials and/or texts, course assignments, work load, teacher-student interaction, opportunities for conferences with the instructor, and interest in taking another course from the faculty member.

The decision about what form(s) to use is to be made by the faculty member within his/her departmental guidelines for Evaluation of Teaching.  Each department will be free to use the College form and/or to create others for its members.  Each dean will then review the forms to be certain they ask appropriate questions.

C.    Faculty Peers: As a statement of minimal requirements involving collegial review, we recommend the following:

1.    During a faculty member’s first year of teaching at Fredonia, he/she is to be observed twice by the same senior faculty member (a tenured associate or full professor) in the department.  Selection of the observer is to be made according to departmental procedures.  One of those observations should be conducted early in the first semester and the observation report formally submitted before the chairperson writes the initial letter of renewal (often by November 1st).  Another observation of the same or a different course will be done during the second semester, and the observation report is to be included in the subsequent renewal dossier.  The frequency of future observations will be at the department’s discretion.

2.     As preparation for classroom observations, we recommend that during AY 2003-2004, departments discuss the elements of a successful discipline-specific observation, and that guidelines for peer observations be distributed to all members of the department. As a starting point for these discussions, chairpersons might consider Appendices 12.4 and 12.5 in Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching (1999).

3.    Additional peer reviews may be submitted by a senior faculty member, perhaps the instructor’s mentor, who will review an instructor’s teaching materials, student work submitted, interest in teaching, and/or mastery of content knowledge.

4.    In the candidate’s 6th year (or in the year of the candidate’s tenure decision, should that happen before the 6th year), we recommend that departments encourage at least one peer observation before the chairperson’s letter of recommendation. 

D.     Administrators (Chairs, Directors, etc.).  Although departmental administrators write the renewal letters to the dean and hence will include information from A, B, and C above, their comments also provide a fourth and perhaps wider perspective on the instructor’s teaching effectiveness since the previous renewal.  The Task Force has focused most significantly on clarifying the expectations for the chairperson’s portion of the process with the hope that increased clarity at this stage will have a positive impact on all earlier and subsequent parts of the evaluation process.  While standardizing the process has not been our primary goal, some needed measure of consistency will undoubtedly result.  We recommend that chairpersons consider Joan DeGuire North’s essay, “Administrative Courage to Evaluate the Complexities of Teaching,” in Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching (183-193).

We also recommend that the chairperson’s letter to the dean include the following:

1.  Paragraph One – Introduction

a)   First person recommendation indicating appropriate consultation as defined by departmental guidelines for renewal, the vote of the department, and whether or not the chair supports this recommendation

b)   Present rank of the candidate, an indication of the candidate’s years of service within the department, and the intended term of reappointment.  (“We recommend that Assistant Professor X, a third year faculty member in the department, be renewed for her 5th year reappointment.”)

c)   Clarification of prior service credit, if applicable.  It might be useful to include the specific date for consideration for continuing appointment.  (“Dr. DuPont is scheduled to be considered for continuing appointment in the Spring 2006 semester.”)

2.  Paragraph Two – Assessment of Teaching

     a)   Identification of courses taught since candidate’s last renewal, student      enrollment, other teaching duties.

      b)  Discussion of the candidate’s teaching self-appraisal and/or an invitation to see the attached teaching statement.

      c)  Discussion of the results of student evaluations, including specific enough numerical information to indicate clearly the level of student satisfaction.

      d)  Concise summary of peer observation(s), and/or an invitation to see those attached.

      e)  Summary of chair’s or peer review of syllabi, handouts, assignments, tests, and other teaching materials.

      f)  Brief discussion of any other teaching documentation provided by the candidate.

      g)  If there are concerns about teaching effectiveness, a statement should be included to indicate expectations for improvement, suggestions/advice on how improvement might be accomplished, and a supportive statement indicating resources (such as peer observations and conferences, consultation with mentor or other faculty & staff, workshop attendance, etc.) that would be available to the faculty member to improve his/her teaching; indication of an appropriate time frame for progress toward these improvements.

E.     At the conclusion of the evaluation/renewal process, we recommend that chairpersons   and candidates hold annual conferences to discuss the instructor’s self-appraisal, teaching plans for the next reappointment period, and any teaching problems either would like to address.