Documentation of Teaching Excellence
The educational process has many facets. Depending on your unit, or disciplinary culture, customizing an evaluation strategy may require additional components, e.g. inclusive practices, professional instructor/student interaction skills, impact on the teaching of others or incorporate expectations set by professional organizations. After determining what effective teaching looks like in a particular context, reliable information should be solicited from the source that has first-hand experience with a performance component. The Critical Teaching Behavior framework connects evidence -based strategies with observable instructor behaviors and suggests ways to document teaching.
See some examples by UConn departments
| An example matrix of a teaching evaluation strategy | |||||
| Evaluation Components | Evaluation Sources | ||||
| Self | Student | Peers | Department Head | Other | |
| Instructional design skills |  |
|
|
N/A | TBD |
| Content expertise | |
N/A | |
|
TBD |
| Instructional delivery skills | |
|
N/A | N/A | TBD |
| Course management | |
N/A | N/A | |
TBD |
| Student achievement | |
|
N/A | N/A | TBD |
| Other | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD |
| Notes: TBD- to be determined; N/A-not applicable. Based on: R.A.Arreola (2004). Any version of this table does not replace a rubric with defined levels of proficiency. |
|||||
Contact CETL@uconn.edu to arrange for confidential individual consultation, to brainstorm appropriate components, to discuss good evaluation practices or to train your faculty group.
Students as Partners in ATE
Guidance for Students
Download the Providing Constructive Feedback to Your Instructors
Student Experience of Teaching: Providing Constructive Feedback to Your Instructors
Feedback is an essential part of the learning process, for students and instructors alike. Instructors often find students’ written comments the most valuable element of experience surveys.Being able to give effective feedback is also a life skill you want to cultivate. To help your teachers get the most out of your end-of-term feedback on your course experience at UConn, please keep the following in mind before completing the end of semester survey or SETs:
- Anonymity: Your course evaluations are completely anonymous, both the numerical results and written comments. Your responses are not linked to your ID number; any reports are cumulative, i.e. as frequencies in a class and summary report
- Confidentiality: The complete results are confidential to the instructor and unit head (Chair, Director, or Dean).
- Your instructor cannot see the results until the final grades for the course have been submitted and processed.
Considerations when answering SET questions
Questions are asked on a 5-point scale:1 = “Strongly Disagree," 2 = "Disagree," 3 = "Neutral," 4 = "Agree," 5= “Strongly Agree, N/A"
- You should choose 3 = “Neutral” only when you feel that your response is between the two endpoints.
- Choose “Not applicable, N/A” when the question is not relevant to your course or instructor.
- When you are providing feedback, you will be comparing the instructor to other instructors, either consciously or unconsciously. Be alert who you pick as comparison group should be other instructors at comparable courses at the University level, not e.g. teachers and courses at high school.
Considerations when writing comments
- Be specific and provide examples when commenting on the course or the instructor. Specific constructive suggestions that focus on your learning are far more useful than general critiques. Help instructors understand how their instructional choices facilitated or hindered your learning. Speak based on your own experiences, not on behalf of your classmates.
- Be respectful: Comments that are not related to your learning diminish the value of your feedback. For example, it is not helpful to comment upon an instructor’s appearance when giving feedback. Comments or criticisms based on instructor identities, including race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. are NEVER appropriate in course feedback.
Guidance for Instructors
Example slide deck to communicate about SETs with your students.
Inviting student feedback early and regularly increases:
- instructor reflection and professional growth
- student motivation, engagement, and satisfaction
- institutional community and belonging
You have choices when designing your class. Be deliberate on how to talk about ATE: explain your choices as instructor, communicate the purpose of ATE and acknowledge which contextual factors are not, or not fully, controlled by you (e.g. class size or office location). Allow for time in class for the feedback and express your appreciation for their input. Remember that the SET is just on of several ways to learn about how your students experiencing your course.
Evaluation of Teaching
The evaluation of teaching serves three primary purposes. First, it serves a developmental purpose by providing instructors with information that can be used reflexively to adjust teaching and assessment practices. Second, it provides an opportunity to align programmatic goals and learning outcomes within and across units. Third, the contextual data from teaching evaluations can be used for administrative purposes by informing personnel decisions. In relation to this last point, Article 28 of the recent[1] collective bargaining agreement between the University of Connecticut Board of Trustees and the AAUP notes that:
“Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) can productively inform teaching effectiveness in particular areas. In gauging teaching effectiveness, however, SETs are not to be used as the sole criterion of teaching for disciplinary measures, promotion, tenure or reappointment, or for re-appointment, or for non-reappointment with respect to full-time faculty and adjunct faculty who have been employed by the University for at least five (5) semesters over a five (5) calendar year period, including summer sessions. […]”
Note: On March 6, 2024 the senate approved SET to be renamed as Student Experience of Teaching.
Guiding Principles for Development in Instruction
Educational developers, including CETL staff, operate under guidelines of the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, in particular the principles of
- Confidentiality and
- Growth oriented support
Our role is anchored in the developmental purpose of evaluation, can support programmatic alignment efforts, but does not extend to in the administrative purpose of evaluation.
Approaches to Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness (ATE)
End of semester student surveys gather the collective views of a group of students about their experience in a course. UConn current Student Experience Survey (SET) can be one source of information for developmental, alignment, and administrative purposes in the teaching and learning process, if they are used in thoughtful ways. Productive use of the this form of student feedback is facilitated by good practices, including early communication to students, the addition of course relevant questions by instructors, coding of comment data, or summarization of data. CETL can summarize survey comments to facilitate a productive consultation on teaching practice. It is important to remember that student experience ratings are not direct measures of student learning. The senate provides guidance on how to interpret SETs. The Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness (OIRE) oversees the administration of SETs and provides resources for instructors.
Formative assessment refers to a variety of feedback methods instructors can use to collect detailed information to improve instruction and student learning during the semester. Formative assessment strategies are specific to each course and can include non-standardized surveys or customized versions of a template (e.g. mid-semester survey or first-time administration of the standard end-of course survey). In contrast, summative assessment is a culminating look back at the overall experience in a course; a one-time collection of information.
Collecting data with a variety of different methods strengthens the validity of the assessment strategy. Multiple lines of evidence can include qualitative and quantitative measures that provide a more holistic view of the extent to which course learning objectives were accomplished successfully.
To be supportive and equitable, the ATE processes should allow for flexibility to accommodate diversity in pedagogical choices, instructional methods, and course formats employed in different disciplines or departments (e.g., lecture, discussion, lab, case study, small group interaction, practicum, studio teaching, field work, clinical work, etc.) and may have weighted measures according to assigned responsibilities (the percent of instructor effort that is devoted to teaching).
Good evaluation practice includes, but is not limited to, the following elements:
- Inclusion of multiple measures from multiple perspectives: e.g.: self, student, peers (in same unit or different institution)
- Calibration and training in the use of tools and procedures selected to maintain integrity
- Frequent formative assessments for early adjustment opportunities
- Agreed upon timepoints to revisit process or repeat measures (transparency of process)
CETL supports and encourages the development of department specific approaches. We are looking forward to being part of the conversation in your department. During the AY22/23 the Provost Office convened a task force that was charged to formulate initial recommendations. The document is available via the Academic Affairs Governance Documents Library and also here.
Do you have questions or need help with this process? Would you like your department’s innovative process for evaluation of excellence in teaching showcased on our website? Please contact Martina Rosenberg (martina.rosenberg@uconn.edu).
See some examples by UConn departments are provided here.
Instruments that may be included into a teaching evaluation strategy
The following limited list of options is to be used as starting point for exploration and is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive. Depending on your discipline and programmatic goals, other instruments might be better suited, provided that they are valid.
| Peer perspective Contact CETL@uconn.edu to arrange a training for your faculty group on good practices if you are interested in using any of these tools. |
|
| Instruments and Procedures | Resources and Best Practices |
| Calibrated peer observations | · Observation process training · Selecting an observation instrument · Mitigating bias in observations |
| Peer assessments | · Discipline-based skills and competencies · External expert ratings · Rubrics, checklists |
| Teaching materials review | · Learning objectives and outcomes · Syllabus design and tone · Exam format and grading structure · Authentic assessment strategies · Course material · Equity and student centeredness |
| Contextual information | · Course formats & design · Course alignment · Online teaching · Hybrid courses · Feedback from team taught courses · Intention to increase inclusivity in the classroom |
| Evidence of risk taking to enhance student learning | · Creative methods in teaching · Understanding untraditional class format · Design of interdisciplinary or collaborative courses |
| Scholarship | · Action research, SoTL and DBER |
| Contribution to the education process | · Products, e.g. manuscripts, textbooks, courseware, videos, case studies |
| Recognition related to teaching and learning | · Awards · Grant support · Invitations to speak, facilitate a workshop |
| Curricular development | · Alignment of courses and programmatic goals · Detect opportunities with assessment |
| Student/instructor communication | · Communicating expectations · Giving and receiving feedback · Encouraging feedback · Motivating students |
| Engagement with the teaching and learning process | · Professional development related to teaching and learning · Service on teaching committees · Assistance of colleagues · Communities of practice · Teaching squares |
| Student perspective Contact CETL@uconn.edu to arrange an individual consultation on effective use for professional development or training for your faculty group on good practices if you are interested in using any of these tools. |
|
| Instruments and Procedures | Resources and Best Practices |
| Classroom interviews | · Group instructional feedback technique |
| Student interviews | |
| Recent student perceptions | · Exit interviews · Alumni ratings |
| Student outcomes | · Student exam performance, · grade distribution, · student success in following classes |
| Student of Experience of Teaching Survey (SET) | · Productive use of SET, e.g. as themed summary · Choosing additional questions for SETs · Thoughtful interpretation, guidelines |
| Student focus group | · Using focus group to develop program exit surveys |
| Mentoring and Advising | · Student support · Mentorship in teaching & learning |
| Instructor perspective Contact CETL@uconn.edu to arrange an individual consultation on effective use of these tools as professional development. |
|
| Instruments and Procedures | Resources and Best Practices |
| Teaching portfolio (includes perspectives of others as well) | · Portfolio · Teaching statement and teaching philosophy · Diversity statement |
| Reflection | · Reflective practices · Reflections in response to prompts, e.g. SETs, observation, education talk, end of semester |
| Teaching practice inventory | |
| Teaching journal | |
Check back, more information will be added here.
Documentation of Teaching Excellence
The educational process has many facets. Depending on your unit, or disciplinary culture, customizing an evaluation strategy may require additional components, e.g. inclusive practices, professional instructor/student interaction skills, impact on the teaching of others or incorporate expectations set by professional organizations. After determining what effective teaching looks like in a particular context, reliable information should be solicited from the source that has first-hand experience with a performance component.
| An example matrix of a teaching evaluation strategy | |||||
| Evaluation Components | Evaluation Sources | ||||
| Self | Student | Peers | Department Head | Other | |
| Instructional design skills | |
|
|
N/A | TBD |
| Content expertise | |
N/A | |
|
TBD |
| Instructional delivery skills | |
|
N/A | N/A | TBD |
| Course management | |
N/A | N/A | |
TBD |
| Student achievement | |
|
N/A | N/A | TBD |
| Other | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD |
| Notes: TBD- to be determined; N/A-not applicable. Based on: R.A.Arreola (2004). Any version of this table does not replace a rubric with defined levels of proficiency. |
|||||
Contact CETL@uconn.edu to arrange for confidential individual consultation, to brainstorm appropriate components, to discuss good evaluation practices or to train your faculty group.
[1] (July 1, 2017-June 30, 2021)
Students as Partners in ATE
Download pdf to Providing Constructive Feedback to Your Instructors
Guidance for Students
Content goes here
Guidance for Instructors
Content goes here
Consult with our CETL Professionals
Consultation services are available to all UConn faculty at all campuses at no charge.