Skip to site navigation

Department of Leadership, Foundations, & Policy - Curry School of Education

As part of the University-wide focus on "teaching effectiveness," the Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Policy engaged in a discussion of current teaching practices, evaluation procedures, and suggestions of ways in which we might improve instruction. A majority of those engaging in the discussion insisted that teaching across the Curry School was very strong and taken seriously by faculty.

Evaluation of Teaching:

The question emerged: "Are we concerned about measuring teaching because of the need for remediation or better distribution of rewards?" There was some sentiment expressed that merit raises did not take teaching into account.

Various ways to evaluate teaching were discussed. It was noted that the Darden School places heavy emphasis on peer- review and team teaching. In Curry, most teaching is highly individualized. In team-taught courses, professors tend to offer each other constructive advice.

There seemed to be general agreement that our method(s) of evaluating teaching could be improved. A number of concerns were raised about the student evaluation of teaching instrument currently in use by the Curry School. Among the points made:

  • Some choose not to use the standard form because it lacks demonstrated validity and reliability measures.
  • The standard form doesn't work well in seminars in which a single paper is the main task. Students rate professors "low" on frequency of feedback.
  • The current instrument doesn't discriminate very much; everyone scores above 4.0. The differences are minor. (The counter-point was made that strong discrimination among us is difficult because we are a good teaching faculty; it is to be expected that rankings cluster.
  • Evaluation currently is basically a one-shot deal; no follow-up.
  • The evaluation form does not get at depth or scope of learning. Expectations, rigor, etc., may be a sign of a good course but may also result in poor rankings by students who object to the work load or standards.
  • A major problem with our current evaluation scheme is that we measure individual courses. We need to give more attention to content of courses and programs. How do the offerings fit? Are there gaps in the programs? Are we up-to-date? These and other issues are missed when we evaluate course by course only.
  • We currently use the same form for both improvement (formative evaluation) and merit pay. This is a problem; the same form/questions should not be used for both purposes.
  • Evaluation at the end of a course doesn't allow us to get at "long-range usefulness" or opinions of students after they are in the workplace and have an opportunity to reflect back on which courses and teachers were most worthwhile.
  • Discussion led to the observation that much of our graduate level teaching is 1:1, professor and student (research, dissertation, advising, etc.) We don't seem to have any good way to discriminate among the variety of teaching strengths and styles. It is not all (or even mostly) classroom performance.

Objections to the evaluation procedures noted above were countered by those who stressed that the course evaluation form was not the only form of feedback professors now receive. Informal feedback is important and is used.

It was noted that peer evaluation has been tried by some and is a good way to improve teaching. It is helpful to sit in on other professors' classes; one can pick up new ideas, techniques.

"Exit interviews" were mentioned as another useful form of evaluation. The Office of Student Affairs conducts exit interviews routinely.

"Portfolios" was mentioned as another means of evaluation, although no examples of current usage in the Curry School were given.

"Course materials, syllabi, etc." need to be reviewed as well as classroom instruction. We should ask our colleagues to review our materials, provide advice on improvement. This could/should be done on a non-coercive, voluntary basis--as with peer review, classroom visits, etc.

The point was made that we can turn to the Teaching Resource Center for instructional aid. Those who have attended workshops and programs offered by the Center called them "outstanding," "helpful."

Incentives Related to Good Instruction:

How do we get good data and reward it?

Several strongly insisted that salary is not the primary motivator for those who try to be excellent teachers. Intangibles such as reputation stimulate good teachers more than salary increases. If we link instructional improvement and evaluation to salary, we may be missing the point.

Good teaching, maintained some, is not directly tied to increases in salary suggesting, however, that the link should be made more direct than is now the case.)