What are the core values of teaching effectiveness?

In order to effectively assess teaching, it is important to clearly outline the core values that drive these efforts and expected outcomes. These values must be broad enough to be applicable across the entire university, yet specific enough to direct evaluation of teaching in ourselves and others.

As these are core values, they should be represented in any holistic assessment of an individual’s teaching, and every tool used for such assessment should be relevant to at least one of these core values. Ideally, every core value should be addressed by more than one assessment tool. Assessment tools may be relevant to more than one core value and no one tool can address all the core values, let alone be said to be the sole indicator of even one specific core value.

More specific values, attributes, behaviors, etc. in teaching will be valued across the university, though these specifics may vary by Unit and should still connect to one or more of these core values. The fact that these core values all appear at the same level in a single list should not necessarily be taken as an indication that they must all have equal importance or weight in evaluation processes, nor should the number and/or type of assessment tools appropriate to each core value be taken as an indication of their importance.

Units will decide how each core value relates to teaching for the academic disciplines represented in the Unit. Units will also determine how best to use the recommended assessment tools to evaluate performance holistically. It is incumbent upon each college, governance unit, etc. responsible for these evaluations to formally approve in policy more detailed instructions as to the nature of these core values, more specific details, assessment tools, and how they should be used in line with this policy and using this guiding document for reference on best practices.

These core values are important for teaching in all modalities (face-to-face, online, hybrid, point-to-point, etc.). Faculty members should submit materials and be evaluated on teaching in all modalities in which they teach. Formal policy within governance units should address the type and frequency of use of assessment tools such that an evaluation of an individual’s teaching performance reflects their typical range and distribution of modalities across all these core values.

What are the multiple measures?

UW Green Bay is an institution committed to student success and understands that at the heart of this is teaching effectiveness. Teaching effectiveness cannot be defined by any one thing -- it occurs in multiple contexts and can be demonstrated in myriad ways. Understanding that nuances cannot be captured solely by quantitative data, this evaluation process mirrors international best practices to recommend a holistic method that includes self-assessment and reflection, peer feedback, and student feedback in order to encourage continuous development of teaching effectiveness.

Teaching is an ever-evolving process that demands balancing content, delivery, innovation and experimentation. Effective teachers are reflective teachers, and multiple measures of evaluation enable instructors the latitude to consider their pedagogical choices and practices (what worked and what didn’t) via self-reflection, utilize constructive criticism to gauge effectiveness from peer feedback, and see how these choices are affecting the student learning experience via student feedback.

By using multiple measures for evaluation, UW Green Bay recognizes that each instructor brings a unique perspective and experience level into the classroom; this method of evaluation affords instructors and evaluators the ability to consider that level of experience, command of their discipline, and use of best practices in teaching and learning in their respective field to gauge effectiveness.

Further, teachers cannot grow without support, and UW Green Bay endeavors to provide communal support, opportunities for professional development and mentorship.

UW Green Bay aims to encourage self-reflection and evaluation of teaching in order to enhance and improve the student learning experience by concentrating our evaluations on the following categories:

Self Reflection
Peer Feedback
Student Feedback

Suggested kinds of evidence for the multiple measures:

Self Reflection	Peer Review	Student Feedback
Narrative reflection Teaching statement CV Examples of course materials Examples of graded student work Certificates of completion/confirmation of participation	Class visitation (including online and other modalities representative of the instructor's teaching load) Examples of course materials Examples of graded student work	Student ratings (e.g. CCQ) Student feedback Student letters

When do we use multiple measures for evaluating teaching effectiveness?

UW-Green Bay values teaching effectiveness and seeks to support instructors in improving their teaching at all levels and ranks. Demonstrating and documenting effective teaching and improvement efforts through multiple evaluation methods should be a component of all types of review (annual reviews, merit reviews, tenure-track reviews, tenure decisions, promotion to full professor, and post-tenure reviews).

Suggested methods of evaluating teaching effectiveness are grouped into three categories. They are:

Self Reflection
Peer Feedback
Student Feedback

Consistent with current procedures and policies outlined in the Faculty Handbook, faculty and teaching academic staff should include evidence of teaching effectiveness by way of multiple measures of assessment. To ensure this, instructors should include evidence acquired by methods from all three categories listed above in documentation used for reviews. As Subbaye and Vithal note, “The higher the rank level applied for, the greater the demands on the quality of the evidence presented in the teaching portfolio” (55). High-level reviews representing a larger body of work and experience should include a more robust body of evidence from each category than those reviews representing a shorter or smaller record.

Faculty and teaching academic staff should attempt to use all three categories for all reviews, including merit; these should be enhanced for higher level reviews:

Tenure-track: annual reviews, contract renewal, tenure decisions
Promotion to Full professor
Post-tenure review

Example pairings of core values of teaching effectiveness with multiple measures of evaluation

Core values of teaching effectiveness	Measures of evaluation
Aligns teaching practices with course, program/department/unit, and academic discipline objectives and values (including course design, student assessment activities, and instructor feedback to students).	Self reflection Peer feedback
Engages in ongoing reflection and continuous development of teaching	Self reflection
Fosters student learning achievements through effective and/or innovative teaching methods, classroom practices, learning activities, knowledge building and expertise, high-impact practices, etc.	Self reflection Peer feedback Student feedback
Demonstrates commitment to inclusion, diversity, and accessibility in course design, teaching practices, and learning environment.	Self reflection Peer feedback Student feedback
Participates in ongoing professional development related to teaching (including practicing scholarly teaching, undergoing self-assessment and improvement, reading and applying pedagogical research, participating in workshop/conference/continuing education opportunities through CATL and/or other sources, etc.)	Self reflection
Effectively engages, guides, advises, and/or mentors students in their learning through curricular and/or extracurricular activities, including independent studies, formal and/or informal academic advising, etc.	Self reflection Student feedback

Best practices for evaluating teaching effectiveness

In order to facilitate the effective implementation of multiple measures of teaching evaluation at UWGB, the following recommendations are suggested:

Guidelines must be clear, transparent, written, and easily accessible by everyone in the unit/department/program
Each unit must use multiple measures for teaching evaluation and include all three categories of evidence.
Instructors need training and resources to enhance peer review of teaching effectiveness, specifically regarding class visitation. Suggested models include a cohort of leaders on teaching effectiveness, a train-the-trainer model, etc.
Units must use a common template for evaluating teaching effectiveness
Units must use a common template for peer observation of teaching
Evaluators need ongoing implicit bias training
Instructors need to be evaluated in all modalities and instruction types in which they teach, with the understanding that training in evaluating different modalities may be required (for example, online, face-to-face, hybrid, blended, virtual classroom, interactive video, in-person with online capabilities, etc.)
Evaluation should include the range of courses taught (for example, teaching in different departments/programs, general education, upper level, graduate, independent study, etc.)

Additional resources for units, departments, programs

For Self Reflection:

“Evaluation of Faculty Teaching: Methods of Evaluation”, University of Colorado – Dayton, https://csal.colostate.edu/docs/cwpa/evals/University-of-Dayton-Teaching-Portfolio-Guide.pdf
“Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness.” University of Toronto, 2020, https://teaching.utoronto.ca/teaching-support/documenting-teaching/teaching-dossier/evidence-of-teaching-effectiveness/
“Guidance on Writing a Philosophy of Teaching Statement.” Ohio State University, 2020, https://ucat.osu.edu/professional-development/teaching-portfolio/philosophy/guidance/
“Teaching Statements.” Vanderbilt University,2020, https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/teaching-statements/

For Peer Feedback:

Bandy, Joe. “Peer Review of Teaching” Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, 2020, https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/peer-review-of-teaching/#limit.
Brent, Rebecca and Felder, Richard M. “A Protocol for Peer Review of Teaching.” Paper presented at Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 2004, peer.asee.org/13897
Campbell, Erica. “Chapter Four: The Value of the Non-Evaluative: Rethinking Faculty Observation. Structuring Equality: A Handbook For Student Centered Learning and Teaching Practices, ed. Hilarie Ashton, 2017, HASTAC@Duke, www.hastac.org/blogs/ericaec/2016/12/05/chapter-4-value-non-evaluative-rethinking-faculty-observation
“Evaluation of Faculty: Methods of Evaluation,” University of Colorado - Dayton, 2020, csal.colostate.edu/docs/cwpa/evals/University-of-Dayton-Self-Evaluation-Rubrics.pdf
Gormally, Cara et al. “Feedback about Teaching in Higher Ed: Neglected Opportunities to Promote Change.” CBE Life Sciences Education vol. 13,2 (2014): 187-99. doi:10.1187/cbe.13-12-0235
“Rapport POR: Peer Observation and Review of Teaching and Learning Guide,” Canterbury Christ Church University, 2013, https://www.canterbury.ac.uk/learning-and-teaching-enhancement/docs/rapport.pdf

For Student Feedback:

“Gathering Student Feedback” Center for Teaching and Learning, University of Washington, 2020, https://www.washington.edu/teaching/topics/assessing-and-improving-teaching/gathering-student-feedback/