2.5 - Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness

Student Ratings of Teaching (SRT)

The Georgia Board of Regents Policy manual (BoR Policy Manual 8.3.5.1) requires that all faculty within the University System of Georgia be evaluated annually. More specifically, students must be provided with the opportunity to provide written feedback on faculty teaching. Kennesaw State University collects student feedback using an electronic, online system that ensures anonymity of the students. The feedback is then provided to faculty for use in improving instruction.

The items currently used by the University are listed below.

Three items rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree or not applicable.

The instructor was effective in helping me learn.
The instructor created a learning environment wherein I felt comfortable participating.
Overall, the content of this course contributed to my knowledge and skills.

Four open-ended response items.

Please provide your feedback on the instructor’s role in supporting your learning in this course.
Please comment on the instructor’s strengths.
Please comment on how the instructor can improve your learning in this class.
Please comment on how the course can be improved.

Guidelines for using SRTs

Individual faculty members may use SRT data to improve their own classes. The data may also be used during the annual review process or for purposes of promotion and tenure. When data are used for evaluating teaching performance, several important guidelines should be followed. First, it is important to note that SRTs constitute only one measure of teaching effectiveness, so SRTs should never be used as the sole criterion for evaluation.

Data from objectively scored items (Likert items) should be compiled in the form of frequency tables that include both counts and percentages for each Likert category (i.e., strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, not applicable). Response rates should also be provided for each course section. Data should not be reported as an average (mean) because it is not appropriate to interpret mean values for Likert scale data. It is also not appropriate to compare means between faculty for purposes of evaluation.

Although SRTs offer useful quantitative data that is important in the overall evaluation of teaching effectiveness, the data should not be oversimplified. Qualitative data offer equally useful data about teaching effectiveness that demonstrate trends across semesters. Thus, it is important to provide guidance to faculty and administrators to ensure effective use of the data.

Additional Measures of Teaching Effectiveness

Additional measures of criteria include pedagogical skills, professionalism, assessment of student learning, professional development, and reflective practice. Examples of additional measures of teaching effectiveness were developed across each of the five criteria. Faculty may wish to include an additional measure of teaching effectiveness from among the following examples.

Pedagogical Skills

Samples of course materials, such as syllabi, daily/weekly schedule outlining content, course readings, resources, materials, standards, learning outcomes, activities, exams, and project guidelines.
Peer evaluation of classroom performance and/or course materials.
Explanation of situational context and impact on pedagogy (e.g., special courses such as large lecture courses, lab courses, and/or studio courses).
Self-report on pedagogies and technologies used in the classroom, including discussion of diversity of techniques and innovation.
Explanation of quality and significance of administration and/or coordination activities, along with materials developed and commentary from faculty and/or students involved.
Reports on students mentored and/or supervised and in what contexts (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, research, studio, lab, teaching, clinical work).
Written comments on teaching, mentoring, and/or supervising from students, community partners, or clients-solicited or otherwise.
Examples of student work completed under teacher’s supervision, along with descriptions of venues for presentation and any recognition, with student permission granted or with identifying information removed.
Letters from students commenting on mentoring/supervising that indicate how the mentoring has influenced student learning.
Letters attesting to impact of guest presentations in classes at KSU and/or elsewhere.
Excerpts of books, websites, or other teaching materials generated, and any letters attesting to quality/impact of those materials.

Professionalism

Peer evaluation of classroom performance.
Examples of work with other KSU entities (e.g., Writing Center, Library, Learning Community Program, Career Center/Experiential Learning) to support teaching and student learning.
Written comments/letters on the professionalism of teaching, mentoring, and/or supervising from students, community partners, or clients-solicited or otherwise.
Responses to student feedback (e.g., from student ratings of teaching, consultations with peers or chairs about student concerns).

Assessment of Student Learning

Samples of assessments (exams, project guidelines, rubrics, etc.).
Samples of feedback provided to students to promote learning. Trend data showing the impact of the teacher on student learning (e.g., comparing pretests and posttests).
Samples of student work demonstrating student learning.
Examples of work with other KSU entities (e.g., Writing Center, Library, Learning. Community Program, Career Center, Experiential Learning) to support teaching and student learning.
Examples of any local, regional, and/or critical review and recognition of student work.

Professional Development

Seminars attended or conducted on teaching, including description of new approaches learned from workshops or descriptions of how ideas have been incorporated into teaching.
Examples of collaboration with faculty at KSU or elsewhere to support teaching.
Examples/explanations of faculty colleagues mentored on teaching, including comments from colleagues about shared work.
Evidence/explanation of participation in learning communities, book clubs, and listservs.
Conference programs/descriptions for presentations, letters, or other evaluations of quality of presentations; samples of presentations or published proceedings.
Explanation of quality and significance of department, school, college, and/or University teaching committees or presentations at KSU.
Educational contributions to professional organizations.

Reflective Practice

Narrative that articulates how supporting evidence demonstrates the faculty member’s level of achievement in one or more of the specific criteria for effective teaching.
Narrative that addresses plans for future adjustments and course development.
Describes how evidence or artifacts demonstrate adjustments of teaching.
Adjustments to teaching practices based on relevant evaluations (e.g., students, peers, chair).
Evidence of change in student, peer, or supervisor evaluations.
Evidence of engagement in the scholarship of teaching and learning.
Uses the results of assessments to improve the quality of instruction.