190 likes | 273 Vues
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. B. Shadden C. Murphy D. Gay
E N D
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.
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) Members:
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
Historyoraround too long • Faculty Handbook • Campus Council (adopted March 1985) • Faculty Handbook 2007 • Reaffirm the value of teacher & course evaluation
Faculty Handbook The evaluation of teaching serves two related/separate objectives: • Instructor’s effort to teach effectively • Administrator’s decisions regarding salary, P & T
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?