Prototype Drafts

Overview

Phase 1 of the University’s Joint Provost/Faculty Senate Teaching Effectiveness Project focuses primarily on developing a common teaching effectiveness framework that will serve as the basis for teaching development, evaluation, and recognition going forward. This phase of the project focuses on formal instruction (by any instructor, in any role) that is intended to advance a structured curriculum and that takes place in credit-bearing classrooms, labs, online courses, etc. Other forms of instruction that take place one-on-one or in more experiential contexts (e.g., mentoring, research experiences, clinical experiences, practicum experiences, internships, etc.) are not the focus in this phase of the project.

At this time, the Phase 1 Project Team is excited to share three prototype drafts with the SLU community for feedback. Feedback may be shared via the Initial TEP Prototype Drafts Feedback Form until Friday, January 31.

Purpose of a University Teaching Effectiveness Framework

A University-wide Teaching Effectiveness Framework helps to establish shared understandings of key elements of effective teaching that cut across disciplines. While no framework can fully account for the specific behaviors that make for effective teaching in all contexts, having a common framework establishes broad priorities – grounded in research – that create mutual expectations for effective teaching at SLU.

Once SLU has adopted a common framework, the framework will be customized at the department/college level to allow for disciplinary specificity. This approach is comparable to that taken at many other institutions. It balances the need for consistency and equity across the University with the need for discipline-specific contextualization. Note: unit-specific customization of the framework will come in a future phase of the Teaching Effectiveness Project.

How the (Eventual) Teaching Effectiveness Framework Will be Used

SLU’s Teaching Effectiveness Framework (once customized by department/college) will guide individual instructors’ development and growth, reviews of teaching, tenure and promotion standards, and institutional recognitions of effective teaching. Future phases of the Teaching Effectiveness Project will determine and articulate what these applications of the framework look like across units. Once a framework has been adopted, we anticipate a robust toolkit of materials would accompany its implementation, including resource guides, tip sheets, etc. Additionally, the Reinert Center will be able to link its various resources and offerings to elements of the adopted framework. The framework will serve as a developmental guide for less experienced instructors, as well as for instructors seeking to enhance their current practice. 

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, we expect the (eventual) system of evaluation adopted at SLU 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.). For all of the prototype drafts, different kinds of evidence could allow an instructor to demonstrate their effectiveness for each framework element, and all prototypes assume a continuum of performance and learning for each element.

Where These Prototypes Came from

To develop the initial prototypes, the team engaged with a variety of materials, including: meta-analyses on evidence-based effective teaching strategies that cut across disciplines (Critical Teaching Behaviors, Small Teaching); sample teaching effectiveness frameworks from other institutions farther along this path than SLU (including those from Penn State, Boise State, University of Virginia, Texas Tech University, Gonzaga University, University of Colorado Boulder, University of Kansas, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and more); example teaching evaluation materials from SLU schools/colleges/departments (for units that opted to share); and community input collected in the spring 2024 Defining Effective Teaching Survey (SLU Google login required to view the summary report).

The team also met with faculty groups (upon request) and drew upon the expertise of faculty and staff in the Teaching Advocates pool, the Equity Advocates pool, and the Reinert Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning. (To learn more about the role of Teaching Advocates and Equity Advocates in this project, see the Project Roles page of the Teaching Effectiveness Project website.) We are now seeking feedback on drafts from the SLU community, and we also will solicit feedback on the drafts from teaching experts in the field of educational development.

Ultimately, the prototype drafts reflect the intersections of input from SLU stakeholders and current literature on effective teaching and the learning sciences. The drafts are offered to the community as three different approaches to what SLU’s framework might look like. None of these drafts has been “chosen” – indeed, SLU’s eventual framework may not look like any of the prototypes – and no single draft is perfect. The ultimate goal is to arrive at a framework that can serve SLU effectively and is the result of faculty input.

Once adopted, the Teaching Effectiveness Framework will outline the central principles and practices that we, as a Saint Louis University community, identify as defining high-quality teaching in alignment with SLU’s Jesuit traditions and values. The framework will support all instructors in fostering a learning environment that is ethically-grounded, learning-centered, and rooted in cura personalis.

The three prototype frameworks highlight essential elements of effective teaching that, together, demonstrate an instructor’s deep care and respect for students and for the work of teaching.

Within the context of teaching, care for students as whole persons is demonstrated through the work instructors do before courses begin, as courses unfold, and after courses conclude. The Jesuit ideal of cura personalis grounds each of the prototype frameworks. Recognizing that “care work” is a loaded concept that often disproportionately burdens junior faculty, women faculty, LGBTQ faculty and faculty of color, these frameworks do not explicitly call out “care” as a distinct framework category. Rather, each prototype positions effective teaching as the demonstration of care for students.

These prototypes are grounded on the assumption that care for teaching 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.) While there are many other facets of effective teaching, these represent what we believe all teaching at SLU should aspire to.

A note about the term, teaching: in these frameworks, it serves as a broad umbrella term that encompasses all the work instructors do: selecting content, designing courses, teaching lessons, assessing learning, making changes to courses/curricula over time, etc. While teaching includes a broad range of intangible commitments, any use of a teaching effectiveness framework to evaluate teaching would focus on demonstrable, observable actions and behaviors.

The Prototype Frameworks At a Glance

Each prototype draft offers a different way of conceptualizing and articulating effective teaching at SLU. You will see a lot of overlap among the three but also some differences. For all three you’ll see: 

• A set of what we’ve initially called Foundational Practices, which serve as a set of minimum teaching activities established by the Faculty Manual and other institutional policies and commitments. While many institutions do not name these activities in their own frameworks, we felt it was important to make clear that these minimums serve as the foundation for effective teaching. In the Defining Effective Teaching Survey (Spring 2024), many SLU students provided responses that fell into this category of what we might consider to be baseline activities, so while the foundational practices themselves do not comprise effective teaching, we believe it is not possible to gauge effectiveness if these fundamental commitments are not in place.

• A strong grounding in research – everything in these drafts is evidence-based, and most elements intersect with feedback collected from the SLU community (as explained above).

• A comprehensive and growth-oriented conception of the work of “teaching” – that is, attention to the often-invisible work of teaching (such as course design and preparation, development and growth over time). All of the drafts conceive of teaching as the various kinds of work that happens before, during, and after courses. And all of the drafts foreground the idea that teaching is a living, evolving process. We heard from many of you that any SLU framework must take an expansive approach to defining effective teaching and must prioritize growth over time, since students, disciplines, and research findings all change over time.

• Elements for which multiple types of evidence could be used to demonstrate one’s effectiveness as an instructor.

• Brief overviews to orient you to each prototype’s design.