Faculty Senate Report

1
Faculty Senate Report

• March 12, 2008
• Student Evaluation Committee
• Teaching Academy

2
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.

3
Members

• 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)

4
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

5
Historyoraround too long

• Faculty Handbook
• Campus Council (adopted March 1985)
• Faculty Handbook 2007
• Reaffirm the value of teacher course evaluation

6

Faculty Handbook

• The evaluation of teaching serves two
  related/separate objectives
• Instructors effort to teach effectively
• Administrators decisions regarding salary, P T

7
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

8
Campus Council Specifies

• Each department adopt formal procedure
• Student comments for instructor ONLY unless
  released
• Evaluation forms distributed by someone other
  than the instructor

9
What we did (SNAP)

• Pilot surveys
• Sent surveys to all faculty
• All chairs/heads
• Via e-mail
• Returned to me

10
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)

11
Faculty Differences in Teaching Weights
Evaluations
Faculty differ in their teaching weights and
perceptions of how teaching is / should be
evaluated.
12
Faculty Perceptions of Purdue

• Faculty do NOT differ in their perceptions of
  Purdue.
• Negative to Neutral at best.

13
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.

14
Chair Faculty Perceptions of Purdue

• Chairs and Faculty differ in their perceptions
  of Purdue.
• Chairs are more positive (less negative) than
  faculty.

15
What they said

• Purdue Evaluation System does not reflect
  quality of teaching
• Comments suggest penalty for rigor and/or trying
  new things

16
What do we know nowwe didnt know then

• Both faculty and chairs agree
• Purdue doesnt 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

17
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

18
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?

19
QUESTIONS ???