Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WHY WE ARE DOING THIS
BENCHMARKS FOR TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
Advice
CLASSROOM CLIMATE & STUDENT
PERCEPTIONS
REFLECTION & ITERATIVE
GROWTH
MENTORING & ADVISING
INVOLVEMENT IN TEACHING SERVICE,
SCHOLARSHIP OR COMMUNITY
ACHIEVEMENT OF LEARNING
OUTCOMES
TEACHING PRACTICES
The Center for Teaching Excellence has developed a framework called Bench-marks for Teaching E�ectiveness to support better methods of reviewing, documenting, and evaluating teaching. The framework is organized around a multidimensional rubric for reviewing faculty teaching. Seven rubric dimensions (below) have been designed to capture teaching in its totality. The rubric includes guiding questions and de�ned expectations for each dimension (see reverse). Departments are encouraged to adapt the rubric to �t disciplinary expectations and to weight areas most meaningful to the discipline.
Most evaluations focus on a narrow range of teaching practice and prioritize a limited source of evidence. Often, teaching is measured either through student evaluations, which contain inherent biases, or peer observations of a single class period. The Benchmarks framework provides a comprehensive, balanced view of faculty teaching contributions by broadening the types of activities that are reviewed and the sources of information on those activities. Thus, the Benchmarks aligns with KU policy, which requires multiple sources in teaching evaluation and speci�es students, peers, and the faculty member as required sources in promotion and tenure and progress-toward-tenure processes.
Benchmarks Goals and Objectives
1. Broaden faculty perspectives on and build consensus on e�ective teaching
2. Encourage the use of multiple sources of information to evaluate teaching (instructor, peers, and students)
3. Improve synthesis and representation of this information at the department or school level.
Center for Teaching Excellence
Benchmarks Contact Information
If you have any questions or if you would like more information, please
contact:
Andrea Greenhoot Doug Ward CTE Director CTE Associate Director [email protected] [email protected] (785) 864-4193 (785) 864-7637
Kaila Colyott Project Manager [email protected] (785) 864-7637
CTE has received funding from the National Science Foundation for a 5-year-project that supports department-level adaptation and use of the Benchmarks framework. With assistance from CTE, participating departments are having conversations about what e�ective teaching is and how it should be evaluated. As they do this, they are adapting the rubric and identifying materials that that could provide information for each category. They are sharing their e�orts with colleagues in other departments and with colleagues at the University of Colorado, Boulder and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which have created similar programs. The goal is to develop models that can be applied in other departments and other institutions.
GOALS, CONTENT, & ALIGNMENT
EXPLORING APPLICATIONS OF THE FRAMEWORK
*See reverse for complete rubric
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DUE-1726087. Any opinions, �ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily re�ect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Ru
bric
for F
acul
ty T
each
ing
Effe
ctiv
enes
s (de
part
men
t sho
uld
mod
ify a
s nee
ded)
F
air u
se o
f KU
’s B
ench
mar
ks fr
amew
ork
is pe
rmitt
ed th
roug
h th
e Cr
eativ
e Co
mm
ons A
ttrib
utio
n-N
on-c
omm
erci
al 4
.0 In
tern
atio
nal L
icen
se. I
t may
be
reus
ed, a
dapt
ed a
nd d
istrib
uted
as l
ong
as
you
prov
ide
appr
opria
te c
redi
t, bu
t it m
ay n
ot b
e us
ed fo
r com
mer
cial
pur
pose
s. P
leas
e ci
te a
s Fol
lmer
Gre
enho
ot, A
., W
ard,
D.,
& B
erns
tein
, D. (
2017
). Be
nchm
arks
for T
each
ing
Effe
ctiv
enes
s.
*A
ligne
d wi
th K
U P
rogr
ess-
tow
ard-
Tenu
re a
nd P
rom
otio
n &
Ten
ure
ratin
g sc
ales
.
*Bel
ow E
xpec
tatio
ns: 1
- 2
Poor
(1):
Cons
iste
ntly
at t
his l
evel
M
argi
nal (
2): S
ome
teac
hing
at t
his l
evel
Mee
ts E
xpec
tatio
ns: 3
C
ompe
tent
E
xcee
ds E
xpec
tatio
ns: 4
- 5
Prof
essio
nal (
4): S
ome
teac
hing
at t
his l
evel
Ad
vanc
ed (5
): Co
nsist
ently
at t
his l
evel
G
oals
, con
tent
, and
al
ignm
ent
Wha
t are
stud
ents
expe
cted
to le
arn
from
the
cour
ses t
augh
t? A
re c
ours
e go
als a
ppro
pria
tely
cha
lleng
ing?
Is
cont
ent a
ligne
d w
ith th
e cu
rric
ulum
?
• C
ours
e go
als a
re u
ncle
ar, i
napp
ropr
iate
, or
mar
gina
lly re
late
d to
cur
ricul
um
• C
onte
nt a
nd m
ater
ials
are
outd
ated
or
unsu
itabl
e fo
r stu
dent
s in
the
cour
ses
• R
ange
of
topi
cs is
too
narro
w o
r too
bro
ad
• C
onte
nt is
not
cle
arly
alig
ned
with
cur
ricul
um
or in
stitu
tiona
l exp
ecta
tions
• C
ours
e go
als a
re a
rticu
late
d an
d ap
prop
riate
fo
r cur
ricul
um
• C
onte
nt is
cur
rent
and
app
ropr
iate
for t
opic
, st
uden
ts, a
nd c
urric
ulum
•
Cou
rse
topi
cs in
clud
e an
app
ropr
iate
rang
e •
Stan
dard
, int
elle
ctua
lly so
und
mat
eria
ls
• C
ours
e go
als a
re w
ell-a
rticu
late
d, h
igh
qual
ity, a
nd c
lear
ly
conn
ecte
d to
pro
gram
or c
urric
ular
goa
ls •
Con
tent
is c
halle
ngin
g an
d in
nova
tive
or re
late
d to
cur
rent
is
sues
and
dev
elop
men
ts in
fiel
d •
Topi
cs a
re o
f app
ropr
iate
rang
e an
d de
pth,
with
inte
grat
ion
acro
ss to
pics
•
Hig
h qu
ality
mat
eria
ls, w
ell-a
ligne
d w
ith c
ours
e go
als
Tea
chin
g pr
actic
es
How
is in
-cla
ss a
nd o
ut-o
f-cla
ss ti
me
used
? W
hat a
ssig
nmen
ts, a
sses
smen
ts,
and
lear
ning
act
iviti
es a
re
impl
emen
ted
to h
elp
stude
nts l
earn
?
• Te
achi
ng p
ract
ices
are
not
suffi
cien
tly
plan
ned
or o
rgan
ized
, or a
re p
oorly
im
plem
ente
d •
Prac
tices
are
not
wel
l exe
cute
d; li
ttle
deve
lopm
ent i
n m
etho
ds d
espi
te e
vide
nce
of
need
•
Stud
ents
lack
opp
ortu
nitie
s to
prac
tice
the
skill
s em
bedd
ed in
cou
rse
goal
s •
Stud
ent e
ngag
emen
t is v
aria
ble
• Te
achi
ng p
ract
ices
are
wel
l pla
nned
and
or
gani
zed
• St
anda
rd c
ours
e pr
actic
es c
arrie
d ou
t; fo
llow
s co
nven
tions
with
in d
iscip
line
and
insti
tutio
n •
Stud
ents
have
som
e op
portu
nitie
s to
prac
tice
skill
s em
bedd
ed in
cou
rse
goal
s •
Stud
ents
cons
iste
ntly
eng
aged
• A
ctiv
ities
are
wel
l pla
nned
, int
egra
ted,
and
refle
ct c
omm
itmen
t to
pro
vidi
ng m
eani
ngfu
l ass
ignm
ents
and
asse
ssm
ents
• U
ses e
ffec
tive,
hig
h-im
pact
or i
nnov
ativ
e m
etho
ds to
impr
ove
unde
rsta
ndin
g
• In
- and
out
-of-c
lass
act
iviti
es p
rovi
de o
ppor
tuni
ties f
or p
ract
ice
and
feed
back
on
impo
rtant
skill
s and
con
cept
s •
Stud
ents
show
hig
h le
vels
of e
ngag
emen
t
Ach
ieve
men
t of l
earn
ing
outc
omes
W
hat i
mpa
ct d
o th
ese
cour
ses h
ave
on
lear
ners
? W
hat e
vide
nce
show
s the
le
vel o
f stu
dent
und
ersta
ndin
g?
• In
suffi
cien
t atte
ntio
n to
stud
ent l
earn
ing
– qu
ality
of s
tude
nt le
arni
ng is
not
des
crib
ed o
r an
alyz
ed w
ith c
lear
stan
dard
s •
Evid
ence
of p
oor s
tude
nt le
arni
ng; l
ow le
vel
of sk
ill/u
nder
stand
ing
is re
quire
d or
ach
ieve
d w
ithou
t cle
ar a
ttem
pts t
o im
prov
e
• C
lear
stan
dard
s for
eva
luat
ing
the
qual
ity o
f st
uden
t und
erst
andi
ng
• Ty
pica
l stu
dent
ach
ieve
men
t for
cou
rses
at
thes
e le
vels
• St
anda
rds f
or e
valu
atin
g stu
dent
und
erst
andi
ng a
re c
onne
cted
to
prog
ram
or c
urric
ulum
exp
ecta
tions
, or u
se a
uthe
ntic
as
sess
men
ts
• Ef
forts
to su
ppor
t lea
rnin
g in
all
stud
ents
• Q
ualit
y of
lear
ning
supp
orts
succ
ess i
n ot
her c
onte
xts (
e.g.
, su
bseq
uent
cou
rses
or n
on-c
lass
room
ven
ues)
, or i
s inc
reas
ing
over
succ
essi
ve o
ffer
ings
C
lass
room
clim
ate
and
stud
ent p
erce
ptio
ns
Wha
t are
the
stude
nts’
vie
ws o
f the
ir le
arni
ng e
xper
ienc
e? H
ow h
as st
uden
t fe
edba
ck in
form
ed th
e fa
culty
m
embe
r’s t
each
ing?
• C
lass
room
clim
ate
does
not
pro
mot
e ci
vilit
y or
dis
cour
ages
stud
ent m
otiv
atio
n an
d en
gage
men
t •
Con
siste
ntly
neg
ativ
e stu
dent
repo
rts o
f te
ache
r acc
essib
ility
, int
erac
tion
skill
s •
Poor
sens
e of
lear
ning
am
ong
stude
nts
• Li
ttle
atte
mpt
to a
ddre
ss c
once
rns v
oice
d by
st
uden
ts
• C
lass
room
clim
ate
prom
otes
civ
ility
•
No
cons
isten
tly n
egat
ive
stud
ent r
atin
gs o
f te
ache
r acc
essib
ility
, int
erac
tion
skill
s •
Mos
t stu
dent
s ind
icat
e pr
ogre
ss w
ith th
eir
lear
ning
•
Inst
ruct
or a
rticu
late
s som
e le
sson
s lea
rned
th
roug
h stu
dent
feed
back
• Ev
iden
ce th
at c
lass
room
clim
ate
is re
spec
tful,
coop
erat
ive,
and
en
cour
ages
mot
ivat
ion
and
enga
gem
ent
• St
uden
t fee
dbac
k on
teac
her a
cces
sibili
ty, i
nter
actio
n sk
ills i
s ge
nera
lly p
ositi
ve
• St
uden
ts pe
rcei
ve th
at th
ey a
re le
arni
ng im
porta
nt sk
ills o
r kn
owle
dge
• In
stru
ctor
is re
spon
sive
to st
uden
t fee
dbac
k in
shor
t- an
d lo
ng-
term
R
efle
ctio
n an
d ite
rativ
e gr
owth
How
has
the
facu
lty m
embe
r’s
teac
hing
cha
nged
ove
r tim
e? H
ow h
as
this
bee
n in
form
ed b
y ev
iden
ce o
f st
uden
t lea
rnin
g?
• N
o in
dica
tion
of h
avin
g re
flect
ed u
pon
or
lear
ned
from
prio
r tea
chin
g or
feed
back
• C
ontin
ued
com
pete
nt te
achi
ng, p
ossib
ly w
ith
min
or re
flect
ion
base
d on
inpu
t fro
m p
eers
an
d/or
stud
ents
• A
rticu
late
s som
e le
sson
s lea
rned
from
prio
r te
achi
ng a
nd fe
edba
ck
• R
egul
arly
mak
es a
djus
tmen
ts to
teac
hing
bas
ed o
n re
flect
ions
on
stud
ent l
earn
ing,
with
in o
r acr
oss s
emes
ters
•
Exam
ines
stud
ent p
erfo
rman
ce fo
llow
ing
adju
stmen
ts
• R
epor
ts im
prov
ed st
uden
t ach
ieve
men
t of l
earn
ing
goal
s bas
ed
on p
ast c
ours
e m
odifi
catio
ns
Men
tori
ng &
adv
isin
g H
ow e
ffect
ivel
y ha
s the
facu
lty
mem
ber w
orke
d in
divi
dual
ly w
ith U
G
or g
radu
ate
stude
nts?
• N
o in
dica
tion
of e
ffect
ive
men
torin
g or
ad
visin
g stu
dent
s (bu
t exp
ecte
d in
de
partm
ent)
• So
me
evid
ence
of e
ffec
tive
advi
sing
and
men
torin
g (d
efin
e as
app
ropr
iate
for
disc
iplin
e)
• Ev
iden
ce o
f exc
eptio
nal q
ualit
y an
d tim
e co
mm
itmen
t to
advi
sing
and
men
torin
g (d
efin
e as
app
ropr
iate
for d
iscip
line)
Invo
lvem
ent i
n te
achi
ng
serv
ice,
scho
lars
hip,
or
com
mun
ity
In w
hat w
ays h
as th
e in
struc
tor
cont
ribut
ed to
the
broa
der t
each
ing
com
mun
ity, b
oth
on a
nd o
ff ca
mpu
s?
• N
o in
tera
ctio
n w
ith b
road
er c
omm
unity
abo
ut
teac
hing
, inc
ludi
ng in
volv
emen
t with
te
achi
ng-re
late
d co
mm
ittee
s •
No
evid
ence
of k
eepi
ng u
p w
ith re
ports
on
effe
ctiv
e te
achi
ng
• Pr
actic
es a
nd re
sults
of t
each
ing
are
not
shar
ed w
ith o
ther
s •
Act
ions
hav
e ne
gativ
e im
pact
on
teac
hing
cu
lture
in d
epar
tmen
t or i
nstit
utio
n
• So
me
invo
lvem
ent i
n te
achi
ng-re
late
d co
mm
ittee
s, or
eng
agem
ent w
ith p
eers
on
teac
hing
(e.g
., te
achi
ng-re
late
d pr
esen
tatio
ns
or w
orks
hops
) •
Parti
cipa
tes i
n de
partm
ent-l
evel
cur
ricul
um
deci
sion
s
• R
egul
ar in
volv
emen
t in
teac
hing
-rela
ted
com
mitt
ees,
enga
gem
ent w
ith p
eers
on
teac
hing
(e.g
., te
achi
ng-re
late
d pr
esen
tatio
ns o
r wor
ksho
ps)
• O
ccas
iona
l (or
mor
e) lo
cal o
r ext
erna
l pre
sent
atio
ns o
r pu
blic
atio
ns to
shar
e pr
actic
es o
r res
ults
of t
each
ing
• C
ontri
bute
s to
depa
rtmen
t or u
nive
rsity
cur
ricul
ar p
lann
ing
or
asse
ssm
ent
•
Adv
ance
d—Sc
hola
rly p
ublic
atio
ns o
r gra
nt a
pplic
atio
ns
rela
ted
to te
achi
ng