This page provides background on the Teaching Effectiveness Framework developed for SLU in Phase 1 of the joint Provost/Faculty Senate Teaching Effectiveness Project (TEP).
The Teaching Effectiveness Project is a multi-year, multi-phased initiative to better define, document, enhance, evaluate, and recognize effective teaching at Saint Louis University in ways that align with our institutional identity and the research on effective practice. The project’s overarching goals are (1) greater consistency and equity in how teaching is evaluated at SLU and (2) more meaningful recognition and valuing of effective teaching across the University.
Consistent with the literature on holistic, responsible evaluation of teaching, Phase 1 of the project focused on articulating a common set of expectations for all teaching across the University, regardless of discipline. These expectations form the basis of the final Teaching Effectiveness Framework. The framework was developed through an iterative and community-engaged process. Click on the down arrow next to each heading below to learn more about the framework, how it was developed, and how it will be used. The content on this page also is downloadable in a print-friendly PDF version.
Note: Phase 1 focused on the development of a framework that applies to formal, credit-bearing course instruction that is designed to advance a structured curriculum and takes place in classrooms, labs, online courses, etc. While instruction also happens in more individualized contexts, both informal (such as one-on-one mentoring) and formal (such as clinics), the essential practices for such instruction often differ from course-based instruction. Future phases of the larger project will need to consider the expectations for more individualized instruction and the place of that work in a holistic system of evaluation.
The Teaching Effectiveness Project was designed to bring greater consistency and equity to the evaluation of teaching, and the development of the Teaching Effectiveness Framework is an important foundational step in that process.
This framework is more than just the foundation for responsible evaluation. It affirms that effective teaching is central to our identity as a Jesuit institution and critical to our mission to form students intellectually, morally, and spiritually. By offering shared language for what effective teaching looks like at Saint Louis University, the framework can help make the work of teaching more visible, more valued, and more meaningfully supported across the University.
Throughout the development of the framework, the Phase 1 Team has been guided by several key commitments, all of which are visible in the final Teaching Effectiveness Framework. These include commitments to:
SLU’s Catholic, Jesuit identity – our values as an institution and our identity as a Jesuit university inform all three dimensions of SLU’s Teaching Effectiveness Framework, as well as their associated Essential Practices. Jesuit education is human-centered and prioritizes learning that transcends technical knowledge and instruction that actively engages students in meaningful ways.
Research-informed practice – the research on effective teaching and learning is robust and includes work embedded within all academic disciplines and work that transcends disciplinary difference (including research from the learning sciences). All the Essential Practices articulated in SLU’s Teaching Effectiveness Framework are supported by research, including those listed as Mission-Aligned practices.
The highly contextualized nature of teaching – both the literature and the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm make clear there is no one-size-fits-all approach to teaching and no specific instructional methods will be right for all contexts. There are evidence-based features of effective teaching that all instructors should adopt; many of these appear in the framework’s Essential Practices. However, the ways in which each instructor demonstrates those Essential Practices will vary, based on discipline, students, teaching philosophy, course level, course type, and other contextual factors (including their own development as teachers).
A comprehensive and growth-oriented conception of the work of “teaching” – teaching is much more than what happens within the confines of a classroom or an online course. Thus, SLU’s Teaching Effectiveness Framework includes the often-invisible work of teaching (such as course design and preparation, instructor development and growth over time, etc.). The framework conceives of teaching as all the work that happens before, during, and after courses. It also foregrounds the idea of teaching as a living, evolving process, which no instructor is ever really finished with because our students, our disciplines, and the research on learning all change over time.
The framework is rooted in several key assumptions, including:
Care for teaching and the work of teaching is a way to demonstrate care for students. Cura personalize in this context is demonstrated through reflective practice, continuous learning, and evidence-based approaches to instruction. (Evidence-based instruction is attentive both to published scholarship on teaching and to evidence drawn from one’s own courses.)
There are many possible uses for a teaching effectiveness framework. These include individual instructor reflection and growth, formative feedback on teaching, summative evaluation of teaching, and effective criteria for teaching awards. How this particular framework will be used at Saint Louis University will be the focus of future phases of the Teaching Effectiveness Project. See Using the Framework below for more on how individuals and academic units should approach using the framework going forward.
A teaching effectiveness framework must focus on observable, demonstrable actions and behaviors. Certainly, teaching includes internal beliefs and intangible commitments, but for the framework to inform formative and/or summative evaluation of teaching, it must focus on activities for which there would be observable evidence.
SLU’s Teaching Effectiveness Framework establishes an aspirational set of expectations for effective teaching, toward which all instructors at SLU should strive. Each instructor will meet these expectations in different ways and at different times in their development as teachers. For all instructors, the framework can serve as a scaffold to which developmental milestones may be mapped.
The framework is organized around the idea that effective teachers at SLU are . . . Learning-Focused, Mission-Aligned, and Growth-Oriented.
The framework is presented in a horizontal table format, with Mission-Aligned in the center to visually signal that SLU’s mission is at the heart of our shared educational enterprise.
However, it is important to note that no one dimension is more important than another. So, while the framework appears in a table, the three dimensions serve as dynamic parts of a larger whole. Each intersects with and reinforces the others. For example, research on learning indicates that inclusive teaching practices can both support students’ sense of belonging (mission-aligned) and improve student learning (learning-focused). The graphical representation offers a way to visualize the interconnectedness of the three dimensions.
Each dimension appears with a brief definition (the italicized text beneath each dimension’s column heading, which is intended to convey succinctly the most important aspect of each dimension).
For each dimension, the framework also offers five broad, overarching behaviors that, together, form the essential elements of each dimension. These are called Essential Practices. While there are many other practices individual instructors may deem “essential,” the Essential Practices establish common expectations for all instructors at SLU. All instructors should aim to adopt all Essential Practices, even as they are evolving in their teaching practice.
The Essential Practices are intentionally written to be broad, leaving ample room for them to look different in different contexts. Indeed, the Essential Practices will not look the same for every instructor, in every course. Each instructor will animate the Essential Practices in different ways, across different course types and levels, with different students, in different phases of their own growth and development. The Representative Examples document offers some examples of the ways in which instructors might demonstrate the Essential Practices in their own courses.
The list of Essential Practices within each dimension is intentionally ordered with a kind of loose sequence. This means the first items in a given list are, generally, necessary to later items in that list. It is important to note that the Essential Practices also are ones that can be documented and verified through a variety of sources of evidence, once the framework is adapted for use in evaluation. Such sources might include: instructor written self-reflections, course artifacts (e.g., syllabus, assignments, rubrics, lesson plans), student learning artifacts (e.g., essays, exams), class observations, professional development activities, and more. Note: This list offers examples of how one might document their alignment with items in the framework. The framework itself is not an evaluation instrument. Future phases of the TEP will focus on moving toward a holistic system of teaching evaluation that is grounded in the framework. As the work continues, recommendations and decisions will be made about which sources of evidence should be considered during the evaluation of teaching.
The framework articulates behaviors for which there can be many different expressions, at different levels of effectiveness. These behaviors are not the same as basic teaching responsibilities – such as having a syllabus, attending class as scheduled, holding office hours, etc. Such basic teaching responsibilities are essentially binary; either an instructor does them or not. Given feedback from the SLU community (particularly in the Defining Effective Teaching survey conducted in spring 2024), we have included a reference to basic teaching responsibilities under the Teaching Effectiveness Framework.
This text is meant to serve as a reminder of the basic teaching responsibilities established by the Faculty Manual and other University and academic unit policies. These activities should be understood as basic requirements; they do not themselves constitute effective teaching (though if basic teaching responsibilities are not met, it is difficult to gauge effectiveness). Note: Previous framework drafts included a header for this text (Foundational Practices). The heading was removed based on community feedback that “foundational” and “essential” might be too close in meaning. While the heading has been removed in the final draft, the content remains and has been slightly expanded, based on community feedback.
In addition to the framing information above, the team is providing additional resources (most updated based on community feedback) to support engagement with the framework. These include:
Graphical Representation of the Framework: Offers a way to visualize the interconnectedness of the three dimensions of effective teaching. The final version of the graphical representation was developed in partnership with SLU's Marketing and Communications division to ensure appropriate SLU colors and marks.
Representative Examples of Essential Practices: Provides examples of some of the ways different instructors might demonstrate the Essential Practices in their own courses and instructional contexts. There are a few additions from what was shared in the penultimate draft, based on community feedback. However, the lists are by no means exhaustive, and examples will vary by discipline/instructor.
Glossary: Defines key terms in the framework. Based on community feedback, we’ve added terms, and we’ve also removed terms that only appeared in the Representative Examples.
Curated References: Shares a curated list of resources that were particularly informative for the development of the framework. As the document explains, it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of the published research that supports all items in the Essential Practices.
As SLU begins to use the framework, these resources can be updated as needed.
As SLU instructors begin to use the framework, they will necessarily look for pedagogical resources on the Essential Practices. Fortunately, SLU has a comprehensive center for teaching and learning – the Reinert Center – whose mission is to support teaching development for faculty, graduate students, and teaching staff at the University.
The Reinert Center already maintains a substantial set of pedagogical resources, and they offer professional development opportunities on all the topics in the framework. Going forward, the Center will gradually begin to map existing resources and add new digital ones on specific framework items. Additionally, the Reinert Center will be able to highlight the ways in which their programs support development on items in the framework.
As the Teaching Effectiveness Project continues, future project teams will develop additional resources to support the evaluation of teaching, including guidance on how the framework will/should inform that effort.
The final framework was developed by the Phase 1 Project Team, with extensive input from the SLU community, primarily from faculty. As with earlier drafts in this process, the final draft reflects the intersections of input from SLU stakeholders and current, transdisciplinary literature on effective teaching and the learning sciences.
Community feedback on the penultimate draft (March/April 2025) was overwhelmingly positive. Faculty, staff, administrators, and students endorsed the draft framework’s organization, main ideas, and wording. Community members noted the benefits this framework could have on student learning and equity in faculty evaluations once implementation begins in the coming years. Community members also noted the positive resonances between the draft framework and SLU’s mission and institutional identity. Although the team received some comments about specific wording, the SLU community identified no substantive changes to the framework itself.
The team interpreted this positive feedback as a mandate to keep the framework’s conceptual organization centered on the three existing dimensions and their associated Essential Practices (with some small revisions). For all feedback, the team reviewed every comment across all feedback modalities and decided as a team how to respond to each one.
To read more about the feedback obtained on the penultimate draft, and the revisions made to the final draft, see the Summary Report: Feedback on Penultimate Draft and Actions Taken. To see a mark-up version of the revisions made, see the Final Teaching Effectiveness Framework with Tracked Changes.
There are many possible uses for a teaching effectiveness framework, including:
Individual instructor reflection and development
Annual goal-setting for instructors
Formative feedback on teaching
Teaching award criteria
Course feedback survey revisions
Summative teaching evaluation
At this time, academic units should not 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.
However, faculty and units can begin using this framework now as a reflective tool, to guide conversations about teaching, inform course design or revision, support peer observation or mentoring, and align professional development with shared values and expectations.
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.