FacultyE1

SEOIs are carried out in all instructional classes. The following quarter, faculty are provided with copies of students written comments and a statistical summary of standardized questions for each course.

Faculty revise their courses in keeping with this feedback, plus discussions and classroom visits by other faculty and their own evaluation of what has gone well and how well students have achieved course objectives.  The department uses comprehensive exam given as a pre and post test in the major.  Resources for revising this important instrument and developing further our exit survey would be useful. Support for attending the American Anthropological Association national meeting to participate in sessions and roundtables related to the effective teaching of anthropology would be useful.  (Currently support for attending meetings is closely tied to presenting a scholarly paper.) Also, such efforts should qualify as scholarship of teaching and be recognized as legitimate contributions.

All faculty are notified prior to the end of each quarter that scheduling of evaluations is required.  Students are appointed to distribute, administer and collect student evaluations of instructors.

Following the department chair’s quarterly review of SEOI data for all classes this data is distributed to all concerned faculty.  In addition, faculty supervisors of graduate assistants meet with the student instructor to review and discuss their teaching evaluations.  

The Department of Art Personnel Committee evaluation of Faculty Performance Review portfolios provides another level of observation and review of SEOIs in regards to individual teaching loads, course objectives and outcomes, as well as faculty narratives.

Faculty administer the MFAT and review the comments of students concerning their coursework. Faculty are also involved in working groups that assemble questions to assess students knowledge in specific fields. This evaluation will also be administered during the BIOL 499.1 course. An example of a series of questions assembled by the Cellular and Molecular Biology working group are attached to this report. The scoring of this exam is performed by faculty and the results discussed among the specific working groups. The entire department will be involved in the discussion of these results, however, the implementation of this assessment tool has only recently been initiated.

The Chemistry Department measures teaching effectiveness in three ways: Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) results, self-reflection on teaching and peer review.

Student Evaluation of Instruction – SEOI scores for the Chemistry Department as a whole, College of the Sciences as a whole, and University as a whole, as provided by the Office of Institutional Research, are used as one measure of the effectiveness of the instructor. Both qualitative and quatitative data are reviewed. Chemistry course content is rigorous and requires substantial quantitative reasoning skills of students. Despite the demanding nature of chemistry course content and potential for student dissatisfaction due to the course difficulty, the SEOI data indicate that chemistry faculty as a whole are delivering effective instruction. Chemistry values are consistently at or above a value of 4, on a 1 – 5 scale in which 5 is rated “most” effective. This is particularly impressive given the number of assisant professors and non-tenure track faculty. Faculty are expected to use SEOI data in their self-reflection on teaching effectiveness.

Self-Reflection on Teaching - Faculty are expected to reflect at least annually on their teaching effectiveness. These reflections are reviewed when faculty are evaluated. Self-reflections should show that faculty are maintaining currency in the area they teach in and that they are using student and peer evaluation data to improve their teaching.

Peer Review – Tenured and tenure-track faculty are expected to undergo annual peer review of their instruction as a means to document effectiveness and to gain ideas for improvement. The review generally consists of a class visitation and follow-up conversation, but may also include extensive evaluation of course materials (e.g., syllabi, exams, textbook).

A. Teaching: The Communication Department requires several methods of assessing pedagogy as expressed in the candidates’ self-reflective statement.

1. At least three written peer evaluations conducted during the probationary period, following approved department classroom review and observation procedures. One should be in the first year of the review period, one in the last year, and the other in between; all will be scheduled by the Personnel Committee in consultation with the candidate.

2. Department faculty members are required to obtain student evaluations of their teaching and course content for each course, each quarter. The SEOIs are one measure of teaching excellence that must be included in each dossier. If a faculty member falls below a mean of 3.75 (5.00 being excellent and 1.00 being poor) on items 28 and 29 of the current SEOI form, he/she shall meet with the department chair and department mentor to draft a teaching improvement plan. The improvement plan may include further student assessments (e.g. through focus groups or mid-term assessments) to clarify evaluations, as well as strategies for teaching improvement.

3. The candidate’s response to previous evaluation letters by the Department Chair or Personnel Committee, including:
a. Contributions to course and curriculum development

b. Currency in the candidate’s field,

c. Documented participation in field and/or teaching enrichment activities, and

d. Other relevant aspects of the candidate’s pedagogy.

e. Addressing any issues described in the previous letters.

4. Other methods of documenting teaching effectiveness are listed below. Candidates are not required to comment on each item and are free to provide evidence of items not listed.
a. Samples of Teaching:
• illustrative examples of student creative or scholastic work
• running a successful internship program
• evidence of academic students advising
• evidence of help given to colleagues on teaching improvement
• evidence of integration of technology into pedagogical applications
• evidence of implementation of service learning within courses
b. Efforts Made to Improve Teaching:
1) steps taken to evaluate and improve one's teaching (e.g., mid-quarter assessment)
2) maintaining a record of pedagogical progress resulting from self-evaluation
3) reviewing new teaching materials for possible application to courses and programs
4) collaborating on course materials with a colleague from another institution
5) participating in seminars, workshops, and professional meetings intended to improve teaching

c. Sample Information from Others:
1) unsolicited written comments from students
2) unsolicited comments on advising or out-of-class assistance
3) honors received from student groups or organizations
4) written statements from colleagues who have observed teaching
5) written comments from faculty who teach courses for which a particular course is a prerequisite
6) honors or recognitions, such as a distinguished teacher award
7) alumni ratings or other graduate feedback
8) written comments from parents of students
9) reports from employers of students

January, 2008
The department requires faculty participation in the annual peer-review of teaching and assessment of student learning outcomes.  Here each faculty member will conduct a thorough review of one class (or perhaps a pair of sequenced classes.  Each faculty member is asked to prepare a complete portfolio for the class (or classes) by preparing a portfolio of the class under consideration.  Portfolios include the following information (as taken form the department Policy Manual):  

- Course materials including: syllabi, web pages, examinations, and supplementary materials
- SEOIs 
- Classroom peer-reviews
- Class preparation
- Evidence of learning assistance provided to students
- Content of courses taught
- Demonstrable efforts to improve teaching skills
- Efforts at developing innovative teaching techniques and methods
- Evidence of currency of knowledge in the subject field
- Ability to teach a reasonable variety of courses appropriate to the faculty member’s expertise
- Awards of teaching
- Course / curriculum development
- Instructor or lab manuals and other course support materials
- Supervision of internship and independent study
- Student participation in research
- Student publications and/or participation in conferences
- Goals – current and evaluations of prior
- MFT results

Evaluation of teaching effectiveness is inherently a subjective process that cannot be reduced to simple quantitative measures.  Nonetheless, such evaluations must be performed. The list above is an attempt to catagorize what the department perceives to be important components in the evaluation.  It is important that faculty members receive periodic feedback on their teaching performance, and that sufficient information on teaching effectiveness is maintained to allow evaluations to be made fairly. 

It is through annual evaluations like those described that the department was able to areas of concern in our instructional activities (such as that described above in part 5.B. Remediating Difficiencies).

SEOIs are administered in all classes and are used for both formative and summative purposes.  For formative purposes, faculty are expected to use SEOI information to inform their teaching and to reflect on changes made in narrative statements.  Recognizing that the validity and reliability of SEOI data are problematic, we use them for summative purposes in the context of self-reflective statements, peer evaluations, and a review of teaching materials.  SEOIs are reviewed quarterly by the chair and, where appropriate, may lead to consultation with the chair or assignment of a mentor.

Besides the standard SEOI forms required by the university to be administered at the end of each course prior to final exams, we evaluate the effectiveness of instruction in at least two ways–formal peer evaluation of instruction and informal peer evaluation of instruction.  Each faculty is expected to formally evaluate a colleague’s instruction once each quarter.  This evaluation may occur as a formal classroom visit or via a review of various teaching materials.  On an informal basis, largely because of our constrained physical space, department facilities are well suited for enabling frequent, ad hoc interactions among faculty regarding instructional methods, successes, and failures. 

Feedback from students is highly valued by our faculty.  Students evaluate all courses taught in the department using the standard SEOI forms, and supplemental written comments are especially encouraged when these forms are handed out at the end of every quarter in all of our classes.  The results, in terms of both individual student comments and the numerical rankings of standardized questions, are reviewed for both instructional and program concerns.  In the context of student performance at the program level, the GEOG 489–Geography Capstone course has been the primary tool for an overall, end-of-studies assessment of our geography majors.  This course is under the supervision and facilitation of the department Chair, and is a required course for all graduating seniors.  The results of student interviews and other feedback from this course are used as a basis for considering program directional adjustments, as well as formal curricular or other instructional shifts, including responding to any identified need for more offerings of one course or fewer offerings of another.  

A more formal peer review process takes place for instruction of students, during which we examine each other’s classroom activities as well as instructional materials such as syllabi, lab exercises, and fieldtrip itineraries.   The main data used to assess whether our goals are achieved from the student perspective is the successful passage of our graded coursework and the earning of the undergraduate degree in geography or the graduate degree in resource management.

UPDATED JULY 2008
SEOIs are evaluated by the chair each quarter and by the personnel committee during each review. In general, SEOI numerical values and comments are scrutinized for patterns that are manifested over several quarters. If a pattern does emerge that suggests an aspect of instruction requires attention, the chair and/or chair of the personnel committee discusses this issue with the instructor. During each review cycle, tenure-track faculty provide a reflection statement regarding their teaching, including comments about specific aspects of their SEOIs. Any issues that are flagged by the instructor are also discussed. In cases where development opportunities may help, the chair discusses those with the instructor. In many cases, instructors seek help from accomplished colleagues. This type of informal interaction happens frequently.

Other forms of evaluation include peer review. For each probationary TT faculty, the chair reviews teaching at least once during the year. In many cases, other instructors also provide peer review. For each NTT faculty member, the chair reviews instruction at least once per year. In the case of new instructors, several peer reviews are provided early in the first quarter so that the instructor gets comments early in his/her teaching experience. For post-tenure review, the chair or other instructor provides a peer review.

All forms of review are used to address aspects of teaching that require attention. For example, if a pattern emerges that suggests an instructor is not well-organized in class, then this issue is discussed with the instructor. The chair might suggest the instructor talk with a more experienced colleague who is known to have well-organized, well-executed classes. The issue is reviewed again after one of two quarters to ensure that the instructor received helpful mentoring, and the chair examines the SEOIs and peer reviews to assess what type of progress has been made in addressing the issue. Development opportunities inside and outside the university are also noted. For example, if it appears that an instructor might benefit from attending a workshop, then that workshop is brought to the attention of the instructor, and where possible, the department provides the resources required for attendance.

SEOI’s are used by individual faculty members as a starting point for continuous quality improvement.  All SEOIs are reviewed by the department chair after each quarter if isues are present the department will meet with the faculty member involved to determine the cause and potential remedy.  As part of the faculty review process, peer evaluations of instruction is required.  The department chair performs evaluations on all faculty at least once an academic year. The evaluation identifies commplemntary items and provides the faculty member with suggested improvements.

Traditional methods of instructional assessment are utilized by the department, including Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI), a self-reflective paper, and advising/office hours. SEOI evaluations are mandatory for each course within the College of Education and Professional Studies.  ITAM faculty are required to administer SEOIs every quarter for every class taught; including summer.  

Through the SEOI process, we have learned that our students do not like DE (interactive video) courses, but appreciate when faculty use Blackboard and/or a web site to enhance their curriculum. With only a couple of exceptions, the faculty use Blackboard and/or a web site to enhance teaching.

· The SEIO forms are administered for each class every quarter.  The written comments are transcribed and returned to each instructor, along with the forms and summary sheet.  A copy of the comments and summary sheets are kept for evaluation in the music office.

· The intrinsic nature of the discipline is such that public demonstrations of teaching effectiveness is an almost daily occurrence, since so much of the instruction is performance-oriented, and takes the form of ensemble directing or coaching or the private tutoring associated with applied lessons.  Frequent student recitals, end-of-quarter concerts by student ensembles and other events, such as opera productions, provide much evidence of teaching effectiveness.

· The final exam in all applied music courses takes the form of a “jury” performance—a short performance by each student in front of a group of faculty provides a snapshot of the student’s present performing skill, and the improvement of the student in successive juries demonstrates not only the student’s work, but the effectiveness of the instruction. Each faculty observer fills in a jury report form, with comments on the performance. These reports and a jury repertoire form are kept in the student’s file in the Music Office.

· For music education students, their performance in the student teaching experience provides a capstone demonstration of their success in acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the field, and, by implication, the effectiveness of the instruction they received.  All music student teachers are observed twice by department faculty members, who provide first-hand reports on their progress.

All members of the faculty are evaluated with Student Evaluation of Instruction (or SEOI) forms at the end of every course.  The chair reviews these on a quarterly basis. The results are included in faculty files for dean’s review when appropriate. Faculty-chair discussions are held if results warrant consultation.  Faculty under review for reappointment, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review submit their evaluations to the Personnel Committee for its consideration. Faculty invite colleagues to observe them in the classroom as part of the review process. Faculty Professional Records are evaluated by the department chair and the dean of the college. Faculty also attend faculty development workshops.

The Physics Department measures teaching effectiveness in three ways: Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) results, self-reflection on teaching and peer review.

Student Evaluation of Instruction – SEOI scores for the Physics Department as a whole, College of the Sciences as a whole, and University as a whole, as provided by the Office of Institutional Research, are used as one measure of the effectiveness of the instructor.  Student comments are also included on these forms.  Faculty are expected to use student comments and SEOI data in their self-reflection on teaching effectiveness.

Self-Reflection on Teaching – Faculty are expected to reflect on their teaching effectiveness.  These reflections are reviewed when faculty are evaluated during the retention/post-tenure process.  Self-reflections should show that faculty are maintaining currency in the areas they teach and that they are using student and peer evaluation data to improve their teaching.

Peer Review – Tenure-track faculty are expected to undergo annual peer review of their instruction as a means to document effectiveness and to gain ideas for improvement.  Tenured faculty are also expected to undergo a peer review process as well, although it is understood to be less often than tenure-track faculty.  These reviews generally consist of a class visitation and follow-up conversations, but may also include extensive evaluation of course materials (e.g., syllabi, exams, textbook).

-As of 2004-05, the Department has begun implementing a peer evaluation of instruction procedure of tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty. One course per year is sampled (all course syllabi and SEOIs are examined already as part of performance review) by a faculty member (peer reviewer), consisting of the chair or a tenured member. This reviewer then has a discussion with the instructor about the course and how they approach it; reviews the syllabus, makes a  classroom visit complete with a report via a standard form; and then composes a formal letter of evaluation which is placed in the reviewee's Dept. personnel file.

-The Department does relatively well on the Student Evaluation of Instruction survey measure. Overall, for all courses/quarters under the period, the Department had a score of 4.33; the College, 4.29; and the University, 4.32, out of 5. On a quarter-by-quarter basis, the Department received ratings above the College and University means 9 out of the 15 terms. 
Jan. 08

(January 2008)
SEOI data is used by the department chair and personnel committee to recognize excellence in instruction. We nominated Dr. Andrew Downs for the 2006 CWU Alumni Association Excellence in Teaching Award, which he won. SEOI data is used by the department to identify teaching strengths and weaknesses of probationary faculty members whom we mentor in the early years of their career or if problems develop. We also use the Major Field Test and our end-of-major survey in PSY 489, Senior Assessment, to identify long term trends in the teaching effectiveness of the department as a whole. 

Observations of teaching by peers other than the department chair would be helpful. A round-robin method could be employed to this end. Evidence of the effects of instruction on student performance in occupations or graduate school careers would be informative but we see no feasible route to this information.

Each full or part-time faculty member will administer the SEOI survey in every course taught at the University with an enrollment of at least 5 students (anonymity of response is more likely to be compromised when the enrollment falls below 5). When practical, each faculty member will arrange for a member of the secretarial staff to administer the SEOI survey during the last two weeks of instruction for any academic quarter (or at the time of the final examination). Should a member of the secretarial staff not be available at the desired time, faculty members may arrange to have a student distribute and collect the survey forms. This student must return the completed surveys directly to the department secretary. Faculty members may not be present in the classroom when surveys are being completed, and completed surveys may not be turned over to the faculty member.

The department secretarial staff will take responsibility for the verbatim transcription of the qualitative comments section of the SEOI, and ensure that the appropriate university office tabulates the quantitative section. One copy of the qualitative and quantitative results will be returned to the faculty member, another will be retained in the department records.

The Department of Sociology conducts peer review of instruction on two levels. First, both qualitative and quantitative SEOI survey results and course syllabi are reviewed by the chair of the personnel committee and department chair as one means of assessing instructional performance. Second, department faculty members are encouraged to pair up into dyads composed of members who offer similar courses to review syllabi. With the exception of non-tenured tenure-stream faculty who must allow annual direct observation of their instructional performance, this dyad also has the option of conducting direct observations on classroom performance. It is expected that the parties will engage in a dialog consisting of constructive feedback on instructional style and course logistics. Through this exchange of information it is anticipated that the faculty will enhance their classroom performance.

All members of the faculty distribute student evaluation (or SEOI) forms to their students at the end of every course.  These are reviewed by the chairman quarterly and by the dean annually.  Faculty-chair discussions are held if results warrant consultation.  In conjunction with student evaluations, faculty annually assemble their course syllabi, reflective essays on their teaching goals, evidence of participation in conferences and workshops devoted to better teaching.  They invite colleagues to observe them in the classroom, attend the quarterly Faculty Development Workshops, and discuss pedagogy on a daily basis over lunch.

QUESTION: FacultyE1