Why re-envision teaching evaluation?

The Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness Working Group began work in Fall 2019, charged by the Provost's office to review our current practices, research best practices, and revise a university-wide approach to evaluating teaching effectiveness. You can learn more about the background of how the committee completed the work here: The Creation of the Evaluation Tools .

One of the key take-aways from the research was the importance of using multiple measures to evaluate teaching effectiveness; our presentation shares the framework for these multiple measures. Our work promotes unit/program choice in how to enact these multiple measures, while at the same time recognizing the need for transparency of what these measures are and what criteria units and programs will use in order to evaluate teaching effectiveness.

We invite you to explore the framework for evaluating teaching effectiveness, and join in a discussion about how to use this framework in your unit or program.

Why use multiple measures?

The UW Systems Board of Regents policy explicitly states that evaluation of teaching effectiveness should use multiple measures: “Student evaluation data shall be used in conjunction with, and not as a substitute for, other methods of evaluating teaching effectiveness. Teaching effectiveness may also be evaluated through a variety of other means such as peer observations of teaching; evaluation of syllabi, examinations and other course materials; and evaluation of contributions to development and strengthening of departmental curriculum. To the extent possible, institutions shall seek to ensure colleagues with expertise both in the subject matter and in standards of content and achievement in the faculty member’s field of expertise are used to provide peer judgment of teaching effectiveness. Faculty shall have a role in determining the components and processes of evaluating teaching effectiveness.” (Regent Policy Document 20-2) 

The Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness subcommittee on other evaluation methods explored numerous models, from the Wisconsin K-12 teacher evaluation model, to the University of Kansas rubric for Evaluating Teaching, to various research articles that chronicle teaching evaluation at a range of universities across the world. What was clear across these models was the importance of articulating core values of teaching for our institution, and then designing methods of evaluation that are best suited to measure these core values.  

In one of these articles, scholars Subbaye and Vithal state “having multiple teaching criteria broadens the range of teaching-related activities and outcomes that can be assessed, providing academics with multiple opportunities to demonstrate achievements in teaching” (54-55). While multiple measures of evaluation can be seen as more complex and time-consuming, they can also better capture the entirety of teaching, helping individuals better represent their teaching philosophy and practice. This, in turn, can result in a more equitable evaluation of teaching effectiveness.  

As A. Cashmore et al. note, the complexity of teaching necessitates forms of evaluation best suited to capture these activities: “It is important for policy-makers and promotion panels to realize that since teaching encompasses a wide range of activities and roles, demonstration of excellence in these will require a range of possible types of evidence, much of which will be qualitative in nature, and this will necessarily be more difficult to assess than that of research excellence” (32). 

Furthermore, Devlin and Samarawickrema argue that “shared understanding of effective teaching is important to ensure the quality of university teaching and learning. This understanding must incorporate the skills and practices of effective teachers and the ways in which teaching should be practiced within multiple, overlapping contexts” (Devlin and Samarawickrema). Multiple measures of teaching allow instructors and evaluators to consider these “multiple, overlapping contexts” that foreground the teaching experience. From student and instructor identities, to academic discipline practices and values, and beyond, these contexts shape the approach to instruction, which can be best illustrated through multiple forms of evidence.  

The shift to more explicitly requiring multiple measures of evaluation and multiple forms of evidence may increase workload, depending on how units implement these new policies. At the same time, having clear, written forms of evaluation and criteria may streamline the process for both those being evaluated and those doing the evaluation. This guiding document contains information about the kinds of multiple measures to use to evaluate the core values of teaching effectiveness, as well as additional resources to aid units in making these changes. Additionally, this shift will necessitate continuing resources to aid in equitable evaluation.  

Benefits of using a multiple measures approach to evaluating teaching effectiveness include: 

More equitable evaluation 
Shared institutional values that shape a culture of teaching effectiveness 
Individuals can more fully represent their teaching by including a range of evidence that represents the contexts in which they’re teaching 
Multiple measures can be scaled for different kinds of reviews/positions/rank

Works Cited

Cashmore, A., C. Cane, and R. Cane. 2013. "Rebalancing Promotion in the HE Sector:  

Is Teaching Excellence Being Rewarded?" Accessed November 20, 2019.  

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/hea_reward_publication_rebalancingpromotion_0_1568036858.pdf 

Devlin, M., and G. Samarawickrema. 2010. “The Criteria of Effective Teaching in a 

Changing Higher Education Context.” Higher Education Research &  

Development 29 (2): 111–124. Accessed November 20, 2019.  

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07294360903244398 

“Student Evaluation of Instruction.” Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin System, 4

June 2020, www.wisconsin.edu/regents/policies/student-evaluation-of-instruction/. 

Subbaye, Reshma, and Renuka Vithal. “Teaching Criteria That Matter in University  

Academic Promotions.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 42, no. 1, Feb. 2017, pp. 37–60. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1082533. 