On November 30, 2015, I participated in a forum on teaching evaluation entitled Weighed in the Balance: Evaluating Teaching in Higher Education held at the University of Windsor. The forum was promoted as an opportunity for participants "to begin the process of identifying fair and effective evaluation practices that legitimately contribute to teaching improvement and to a more comprehensive, sophisticated understanding of teaching quality; and to explore how universities have successfully taken on the task of doing evaluation better."
The event drew participants from a number of universities. Attendees were asked to complete an online survey to help guide the keynote speaker, Nira Hativa, in her presentation, which was entitled Almost Everything you Wanted to Know about Student Ratings of Instruction (SRI) (PDF) . As Hativa explained, she (and other experts) prefer the term "rating" to "evaluation" because faculty evaluations should comprise more than just student feedback; in this post, I'll use Hativa's terminology.
In her presentation, Hativa drew on both the research literature and her own studies of SRI to address the first and second of the seven topics most frequently requested in the pre-forum survey (in order of frequency):
- SRI validity
- SRI myths
- Written comments
- Effects of SRI on teaching development
- Faculty concerns about online SRI
- SRI forms
- Reporting SRI results
I was disappointed that more people weren't interested in F. SRI forms, as that's where my own interest was focused, but the presentation was packed full of evidence from research that supported the validity of and refuted the myths about SRI.
In addition to the keynote, a number of University of Windsor faculty and staff members presented findings and resources related to teaching evaluation; each of the presentations listed below can be found in the presentation file: Weighed in the Balance (PDF) .
- Defining Teaching Evaluation, presented by Erika Kustra, Acting Director, Centre for Teaching and Learning, University of Windsor
- Teaching Evaluation: The Ontario Context, presented by Bev Hamilton, Academic Initiatives Officer, Office of the Provost, University of Windsor
- A Short History of SETs at uWindsor, presented by Kai Hildebrandt, Department of Communications, Media and Film (Emeritus), University of Windsor
- Peer Collaboration Network, presented by Judy Bornais and Dave Andrews, University of Windsor
- SET Data Visualization, presented by Phil Granerio, Creative Arts, University of Windsor
- E-Portfolios for Program Evaluation, presented by Veronika Mogyorody, Creative Arts, University of Windsor
- New Technological Directions, presented by Bala Kathiresan, IT Services, University of Windsor
- Teaching Dossier, presented by Alan Wright, Faculty of Education, University of Windsor
- What is teaching quality? Universities need to be able to articulate what they do and why they do it. Bev Hamilton, Office of the Provost, University of Windsor
The Exploring the Teaching Evaluation Landscape Prezi prepared by the University of Windsor's Centre for Teaching and Learning is quite informative. It includes an overview of current teaching evaluation projects at a selection of Canadian universities.
But by far the most informative resource discovered through this event was a report on The Ontario Universities' Teaching Evaluation Toolkit: Feasibility Study (PDF). This comprehensive report thoroughly reviews current and best practices in teaching evaluation and lists three recommendations as being urgently needed in Ontario's universities:
- Implement the use of teaching dossiers
- Use teaching evaluation to inform development
- Make the analysis and visualization of SRI data easily accessible and useful
The report pinpoints what I think should be the central tenet of teaching evaluation efforts:
Continuing to use and accept a system that is clearly and, by any standard of empirical evidence, insufficient for the purposes to which it is put simply reinforces the belief that teaching, and the effort involved in good and great teaching, is not truly valued by universities. To allow decisions to continue to be made based on insufficient data using insufficient decision-making structures reinforces patterns of cynicism and disengagement that damage the aspirational culture of universities. It also reinforces belief in the pre-eminence of research over teaching in universities, a pattern that has become increasingly incompatible with the demands and needs of the university sector as a whole. Good teaching must be correctly valued, and then correctly rewarded. Problems in teaching – individually and in broader patterns – need to be identified, explored, and mediated in order to give teachers the best chance to improve. The system through which we value this practice speaks volumes about the true value we place on it
The appendices are also full of good information:
- Appendix B - Core Practices Involved in the Evaluation of Teaching
- Appendix C - Teaching Frameworks
- Appendix D - 21 Elements to Consider in Fostering Quality Teaching
- Appendix E - An Environmental Scan of Teaching Evaluation in Ontario
- Appendix I - SRI Data Aggregation and Visualization
Wright, Alan W.; Hamilton, Beverley; Mighty, Joy; Scott, Jill; and Muirhead, Bill, "The Ontario Universities' Teaching Evaluation Toolkit: Feasibility Study (PDF)" (2014). Centre for Teaching and Learning