faculty senate report march 12, 2008 student evaluation committee teaching academy

Faculty Senate Report

March 12, 2008

Student Evaluation Committee

Teaching Academy

Who are we?

• The Teaching Academy is an honorary society at the U of A for outstanding teachers that advocates and represents teaching interests as well as sponsoring events.

Members:

• B. Shadden• C. Murphy• D. Gay• T. Jensen• I. Fort (Co-Chair)• J. Johnson

• J. Parry• S. Martin• L. Holyfield• B. Harter• M. Neighbors• R. Di Brezzo (Chair)

Blame David Gay

• Task force– Established to examine Purdue Cafeteria

System– Interested in implementation, value, and use

of Purdue System for student evaluation of teaching

• Faculty Handbook– Campus Council (adopted March 1985)

– Faculty Handbook 2007• Reaffirm the value of teacher & course evaluation

Historyor

around too long

The evaluation of teaching serves two related/separate objectives:

• Instructor’s effort to teach effectively

• Administrator’s decisions regarding salary, P & T

Faculty Handbook

Faculty Handbook cont.

• Evaluations of others are valuable and encouraged

• No one form or procedure is suitable for all classes

• One form may not be equally appropriate for realizing both objectives

Campus Council Specifies:

• Each department adopt formal procedure

• Student comments for instructor ONLY unless released

• Evaluation forms distributed by someone other than the instructor

What we did (SNAP)

• Pilot surveys

• Sent surveys to all faculty

• All chairs/heads– Via e-mail– Returned to me

Who talked to us

• Faculty from all colleges (225)

• Faculty from all ranks– Instructors (27)– Assistants (30)– Associates (77)– Professors (81)– University / Distinguished Professors (10)

• Department Chairs / Heads (26)

Faculty Differences in Teaching Weights & Evaluations

Faculty differ in their teaching weights and perceptions of how teaching is / should be evaluated.

Faculty Perceptions of Purdue

• Faculty do NOT differ in their perceptions of Purdue.• Negative to Neutral at best.

Chair & Faculty Differences in Teaching Weights & Evaluations

• Chairs and Faculty differ in percent of teaching evaluation that is / should be based on Purdue. • Both feel Purdue should be emphasized less.

Chair & Faculty Perceptions of Purdue

• Chairs and Faculty differ in their perceptions of Purdue. • Chairs are more positive (less negative) than faculty.

What they said

• Purdue Evaluation System does not reflect “quality” of teaching

• Comments suggest penalty for rigor and/or trying new things

What do we know now…we didn’t know then

• Both faculty and chairs agree– Purdue doesn’t reflect quality teaching– Purdue is weighted too heavily

• Faculty are less satisfied– Not useful for improving teaching

• What does Purdue measure?– Performance vs. quality

• Purdue should not be used in isolation

Recommendations

• Standardized procedure for administering Purdue

• Evaluate timing of distribution of class evaluations– Is last week best time?

• Return evaluations sooner– Faster feedback for faculty

• Consider alternative methods of evaluating teaching– Exit interviews– Portfolios

Recommendations cont.

• To ensure quality of teaching, use formative evaluations as opposed to summative

• Faculty committee to investigate selected dimensions of teaching and learning– How best to evaluate?– Who should we evaluate?– Who should do the evaluations?

QUESTIONS

???