Developing Metrics for Assessing Engineering Instruction What Gets Measured Is What Gets Improved (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Measuring Teaching Performance
5 Measuring Teaching Performance
Pages 23-32
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 23... ...
: • content expertise • instructional design skills • instructional delivery skills • instructional assessment skills • course management skills These are the five performance components that were outlined in Table 4.2. When the total "act" of teaching is defined in terms of these five broad components, it becomes clear that the evaluation of teaching cannot be accomplished by using a single measurement tool or by basing it on the judgment of one administrator or peer committee who 23
|
From page 24... ...
A more accurate and more valid assessment of teaching performance of necessity involves gathering information on all five dimensions of teaching performance. This might include (1)
|
From page 25... ...
Instructional delivery Peer review of course materials (to include Portfolio: evidence of items previously Student rating strategies and listed) combined with form methods of delivery peer assessment of and communication classroom presentation skills Instructional assessment Portfolio: evidence of Peer review of course Compliance with techniques, materials (syllabus, policies and strategies, and Student rating readings, procedures methods of assessing form experiments, concerning testing student learning and examinations, and grading providing meaningful handouts, etc.)
|
From page 26... ...
If a professionally designed student-rating form is used, results show a high correlation with ratings by peers and supervisors; in addition, these assessments are not affected by grades. Weaknesses: If a professionally developed form is not used, external factors, such as class size and gender, may influence student ratings.
|
From page 27... ...
Description: Instructor gathers information to assess his/her own performance relative to personal needs, goals, and objectives. Strengths: May be part of a program of continuous assessment.
|
From page 28... ...
The examples below use a common 1 to 4 scale, with 4 as the highest rating and 1 as the lowest. All forms, including questionnaires, interview schedules, and any other measurement tools used to collect student ratings, peer ratings, and department head ratings report results on that scale.
|
From page 29... ...
(20%) Content expertise 4 4 Instructional design 3 4 4 Instructional delivery 4 3 4 Instructional 2 3 4 3 assessment Course management 2 3 Weighted AVERAGE 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.6 Sum WEIGHTED 0.75 1.575 0.6 0.36 3.3 AVERAGE The weighted sum shown in the right-hand column is the final evaluation of teaching for the instructor in this case.
|
From page 30... ...
3.4 The development of the metric for the evaluation of teaching as shown in tables 4.2, 5.1, and 5.6, as well as the metric for the overall evaluation shown in Table 5.7, provide a consistent mechanism for using faculty evaluation data in promotion and tenure decisions, as well for determining the allocation of merit-pay dollars: • The standards for awarding a promotion could be set in terms of a specific overall evaluation value for a certain number of years.
|
From page 31... ...
Professional enrichment programs in educational psychology, instructional technology, conflict management, public speaking, and organizational management, for example, may assist faculty in achieving excellence in the full range of their professional performance. The experience of the committee members indicates that no matter how well faculty evaluation systems are designed, if they are implemented without reference to opportunities for professional enrichment, they are inevitably considered primarily punitive.
|
From page 32... ...
It is important that everyone, both faculty and administrators, understand that evaluation data will be used both to provide faculty with diagnostic information to encourage their professional growth and to provide administrators with information that will be used in making personnel decisions (promotion, tenure, pay raises, etc.) An institution may emphasize one use over another, but it would be a mistake to pretend that faculty evaluation data will only be used for professional enrichment purposes.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.