Frequently Asked Questions

It’s a multi-year, multi-phased initiative to bring greater consistency and equity to the evaluation of teaching at SLU. It focuses on aligning our teaching evaluation practices with the literature on effective, responsible evaluation. It also will support us in better recognizing and rewarding teaching. In its broadest form, the project will help us to better define, document, enhance, evaluate, and recognize effective teaching in meaningful ways that align with our institutional identity. In Phase 1, SLU adopted a University-wide Teaching Effectiveness Framework. Subsequent phases will focus on establishing parameters for the evaluation of teaching.

There are many reasons to do this work, but perhaps the most important one is: Because SLU faculty have asked for it. And they've been asking for a while.

The Faculty Senate has recommended significant change in the annual evaluation of faculty performance, and in particular, in the area of teaching evaluation. The Provost-Faculty Senate Gender Equity Committee also has identified the need for meaningful change in this area. Throughout the process of developing our current Academic Strategic Plan, faculty repeatedly identified teaching – its evaluation and valuing – as a significant focus area. And the faculty who engaged in SLU's NSF ADVANCE project echoed the calls for serious and substantive change in the evaluation of teaching. While the evaluation of teaching happens within academic units, it has become clear that we need more consistent, evidence-informed evaluation practices across the University. This is a common challenge across higher education, and like other institutions, SLU is ready to make significant strides forward.

Comprehensive, multi-faceted evaluation of teaching is essential to equitable faculty evaluation – and to truly valuing teaching. While the University has been in a period of tremendous growth in research/scholarship, SLU has long been a place that deeply values teaching. But our evaluation and reward practices have not always reflected this value. 

In 2018, SLU adopted a University Policy on End-of-Term Student Evaluation of Courses (now the University Policy on End-of-Term Course Feedback Surveys), which made clear that evaluation of teaching should be “comprehensive” and should not rely solely on student feedback. However, the adoption of more robust, multi-faceted evaluation practices has been uneven at best. At an institutional level, we have not devoted the attention to this effort that it requires. Thankfully, both faculty and academic leaders have been asking for meaningful change in this area for quite some time. Over the last several years, the Faculty Senate recommended changes to annual faculty performance evaluation (with specific recommendations to improve the evaluation of teaching), and faculty and academic leaders across the University indicated that this work should be a top priority in our Academic Strategic Plan (ASP). It is, in fact, the very first item in our new ASP. 

This project is focused on moving from our current state (where teaching is evaluated in vastly different ways across the University, primarily based on student course feedback) to a comprehensive, holistic system of evaluation that is grounded in multiple sources of evidence, representing multiple perspectives, and consistent with the literature on effective teaching evaluation. The focus is, then, not primarily on student feedback (a.k.a., "student evaluations" or "student course evaluations"), although we do anticipate some changes to student course feedback as part of the larger initiative.

This work will unfold in multiple phases over several years. Faculty input and feedback will be critical every step of the way. As the initiative progresses, there will be different working groups and project teams, focused on different aspects of the work, with many opportunities for faculty to  shape this work. Regular - and meaningful - faculty engagement is essential for this initiative to be successful. As is an explicit focus on and commitment to equity. 

Phase 1 was completed with a small working group (the Phase 1 Project Team) to keep things moving, but broader faculty input shaped the development of SLU's Teaching Effectiveness Framework in multiple ways. The Project Team's work was informed by faculty serving as Teaching Advocates and Equity Advocates. Additionally, faculty across the University participated in online surveys (including feedback on draft frameworks) and in-person and virtual feedback/listening sessions. All departments and schools/colleges were invited to host sessions with the Phase 1 Project Team during faculty meetings and/or faculty assembly/council meetings.

Phase 2 will continue to feature a smaller Project Team, Teaching Advocates and Equity Advocates, and multiple opportunities for faculty to engage.

This project is a partnership between the Faculty Senate and the Provost. Dr. Lisieux Huelman serves as co-lead of the project (representing Faculty Senate), along with Dr. Debie Lohe (representing the Provost).

Lisieux is Associate Professor in English as Second Language and Co-Chair of the Faculty Senate’s Academic Affairs Committee. Debie serves as Associate Provost for Teaching and Learning and as Chief Online Learning Officer for the University. Debie and Lisieux are committed to a transparent, participatory approach to the project and to each phase of the work. 

There is a robust and evidence-based body of work on responsible teaching evaluation. In brief, the literature is consistent and clear about what is required for a responsible, equitable system of evaluation for teaching. First, we must articulate what we're evaluating for (that is, define "effective teaching"). Then, we must develop a system of evaluation that considers multiple sources of evidence, representing multiple perspectives, with attention to formative feedback and growth over time. Institutions operationalize this work in a variety of ways, informed by their own context, but effective approaches are grounded in evidence-based understandings of what constitutes effective teaching and in evidence-driven processes that consider the work of teaching in a holistic manner.

Because teaching is evaluated by human beings, there are biases in all evaluation processes and in all the data that informs evaluation. While we often hear about the biases that come through student feedback on teaching, peers and administrators also have biases when evaluating teaching (including biases about specific pedagogical practices). Thus, the goal is not to achieve an "objective" measure of teaching effectiveness (which, arguably, is not possible). Rather, the goal is to develop a system of evaluation that can mitigate the impact of biases. When we use multiple measures, representing multiple perspectives, grounded in multiple types of evidence, we are more likely to see patterns of behavior and to be better able to discern the ways in which those patterns do -- or do not -- align with the standards against which we are evaluating. In other words, triangulation of data moves us to more reliable measures.

Eventually, probably so -- and that work should begin to be factored into our collective understanding of what it takes to recognize and reward teaching in meaningful ways. As the project progresses, it will be imperative that we are honest about what it really takes to evaluate teaching well, and how to account for that work in faculty members' and administrators' workload assignments. Much will depend on where we end up. If, for example, SLU opts to develop a peer observation "corps" -- a group of trained classroom/course observers who are prepared to provide effective formative feedback on instruction -- faculty members serving in that corps should receive recognition for that work (e.g., through adjusted workload assignments, professional development funds, stipends, etc.). When we get to that aspect of the project, it will be important for the University to consider effective, feasible ways to recognize that labor. 

At the same time, it's important to keep in mind that one goal of the larger project is to bring visibility to all the teaching-related work faculty are engaged in already, including work that is often invisible. 

SLU’s approved Teaching Effectiveness Framework will (eventually) have multiple uses. Now that it's been approved, it can guide individual instructors’ development and growth. In the future, it will inform evaluations of teaching, tenure and promotion standards, and institutional recognitions of effective teaching. Phase 2 (and beyond) will determine and articulate what these applications of the framework look like across units. Learn more about how the framework can/should be used here.

Regarding the evaluation of teaching: It is important to note that decisions about how teaching will be evaluated in the future have not yet been made. Consistent with the research on responsible evaluation of teaching, the (eventual) system of evaluation adopted at SLU likely will require multiple sources of evidence (e.g., syllabi, Canvas sites, course materials, teaching observations, student feedback surveys, etc.), drawn from multiple perspectives (e.g., instructor self-evaluation, observations and course material reviews by peers, feedback from students, etc.), over multiple points in time (e.g., across courses, across semesters).

Not yet. While you can certainly begin to use this framework now as a reflective tool (e.g., shaping your own growth as a teacher, guiding conversations about teaching, informing course design or revision, supporting peer observation or mentoring, aligning professional development with shared values and expectations), academic units should not yet move to use the framework for teaching evaluation. The framework is not itself an evaluative instrument, and the University has not yet made decisions about how the framework will/should be used as a basis for evaluation.

Phase 2 of the Teaching Effectiveness Project (in AY 2025-2026) will engage the University community in determining future parameters for the evaluation of teaching, which will include the ways in which the framework should inform evaluation. See TEP Phase 2 At-A-Glance for more information about the work to come.

Some academic units already have a teaching framework (or set of criteria or definitions for effective teaching). And since teaching is already evaluated in every department, school, and college, there are many different approaches to teaching evaluation in play across the University.

Academic units that already have a framework (or other definitions of effective or excellent teaching) will eventually need to analyze the alignment of their framework to the Teaching Effectiveness Framework. Any gaps will need to be addressed in the future. It's important to note that, for the purposes of evaluation, academic units will have opportunities to expand on the Framework to provide disciplinary specificity as appropriate.

Once Phase 2 is complete and SLU has an approved set of expectations for the evaluation of teaching, all academic units will be expected to align their evaluation practices to those expectations. This work is for Phase 3 and beyond; it will necessarily involve disciplinary customization and allow for different timelines of implementation, depending on where a given unit is at the time.