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