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. Faculty Handbook –Campus Council (adopted March 1985) –Faculty Handbook 2007 Reaffirm the value of teacher & course evaluation History or around too long

6. The evaluation of teaching serves two related/separate objectives: Instructor’s effort to teach effectively Administrator’s decisions regarding salary, P & T Faculty Handbook

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 now… we didn’t know then Both faculty and chairs agree –P–Purdue doesn’t reflect quality teaching –P–Purdue is weighted too heavily Faculty are less satisfied –N–Not useful for improving teaching What does Purdue measure? –P–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 ???