1. Evaluation of Teaching Performance for Improvement and Accountability Center for Teaching Excellence and Learning Technologies: A Colloquium November 1, 2007 Larry Gould

2. The Current State of Affairs 1.Less than useful primary instrument (e.g. formative feedback, personnel evaluation, program evaluation, advisement, who and for what? etc.) 2.Poor applicability to virtual learning environment/what gets evaluated? 3.Instruments inconsistent with policy 4.Administration of TEVAL does not create confidence in results 5.Less than efficient processing and analysis

3. An Alternative Future: Pedagogical Responsibility 1.Only things important* Were exams and other graded materials returned on a timely basis? Was there sufficient feedback on tests and papers? Were students tested on materials covered in the course? Were course materials well prepared? Did the course unfold as promised in the syllabus? Was the instructor accessible? No more than ten questions related to pedagogical responsibility/comments for improvement 2.Virtual learning environment – support systems, use of technology, receipt of materials, etc. * adapted from Stanley Fish, “Who’s in charge here?” Chronicle of Higher Education, 2/5/2005.

4. Abuses and Misuses 1.Beyond student input: over reliance on ratings in the evaluation of teaching 2.Making too much of too little Relationship between teaching and learning/how does a student know? Biases (gender, foreign-born instructors, ethnicity, attractive professors, easy graders, untenured professors, personality, class size, type of class, subject areas, required courses, instructor contamination, etc.) Cutting the log with a razor, 3.0 versus 3.1? Huh? 3.Not enough information to make a good judgment (one course does not a teacher make)

5. Abuses and Misuses 4.Questionable administration of ratings 5.Using the elements of the instrument inappropriately (instructional delivery skills vs. content expertise questions) 6.Confusion and lack of attention to purpose, learning environment and efficiencies in design processes 7.Failure to conduct research to assess validity and reliability 8.Considerations in selection of method for administration (online, paper, timing, who, etc.)