Formative + Summative Evaluation Tools
Vision statement
A key part of improving instruction is having clear and high expectations, getting feedback on teaching, and having your improvements and acccomplishments in teaching be recognized / valued. The department has a system of three connected teaching evaluation methods that are research-based, fair, transparent, coherent, and aim to provide extensive formative feedback.
Want additional information, have a comment, or want to contribute? Use the feedback button at the bottom of each page.
Annual evaluation
On an annual basis as part of the faculty evaluation process, all faculty self-report:
the extent to which they focused on a specific area of improvement and the details of that improvement work, including supporting evidence
the extent to which they implemented research-based and inclusive teaching practices that year
The survey is implemented in qualtrics, and supporting evidence are uploaded as part of the survey. A word version of the survey and the rubrics applied to the survey responses can be found here. The rubrics distinguish general expectations from leader-levels of teaching excellence and apply only to the second part (use of research-based and inclusive teaching practices).
Responses in the survey are also used to find common challenge areas and local expertise, driving decisions and participation at teaching program-hosted learning events.
Classroom observations
As part of reappointment processes and promotion & tenure processes, classroom observations are conducted by faculty serving on the evaluation of teaching committee. The observed faculty shares the syllabus and particular materials for the observed class (e.g., readings, pre-activities), and self-reflection document. The observer uses a detailed observation rubric, which can also be used for self assessment. The rubric uses a 1-5 scale on a wide range of specific teaching behaviors. Aspects not relevant to a specific type of class are marked as NA. The department expects a consistent rating of 4 on the rubrics. A level of 5 is considered advanced/leader levels of teaching excellence.
A draft of the completed rubric is shared with the faculty member being observed and the two individuals have a conversation. One the basis of the conversation, the observer updates their assessment, but this document is not shared with others. An observation letter is then produced, drawing upon evidence from the rubric, and this letter is placed in the faculty member's file for reappointment and p&t processes.
Portfolio evaluation
As part of the reappointment and promotion & tenure processes, faculty submit a portfolio of materials that document their teaching successes that they have obtained and the processes they used to reach that level of success. Sources of evidence include:
teaching artifacts
peer observations
annual evaluations
student feedback
institutional data
The evaluation committee applies a rubric that covers 7 different dimensions, with subdimensions pertaining to either general teaching excellence and inclusion/equity in teaching. Each subdimension uses a 1-4 scale. Level 2 is required for initial reappointment and level 3 is required for tenure / extended reappointments. Level 4 recognizes leadership in teaching excellence.