In 2023-24, a Senate-charged committee revised the existing teaching evaluation process, creating a new Teaching Evaluation Framework consisting of two key elements:
The following Teaching Evaluation Framework was recommended by the Women Faculty Committee, developed by the Ad-hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation, and endorsed by the Faculty Senate in Spring 2024.
Fort Lewis College defines effective teaching through the which were designed to:
An instructor’s identified goals for growth are at the center of the evaluation process, and they will influence who they work with and how they structure their review. Developing personal goals around teaching, which can be based on previous student and/or peer feedback, can, in turn, guide both peer and reflexive feedback. Annual teaching goal(s) should align with the Dimensions of Effective Teaching and allow the instructor to focus their professional development and growth opportunities on a specific area(s) or skill(s). Teaching goals allow feedback to be evidence-based and can help guide the type of observation that the instructor will seek from their colleague(s).
Begin the goal-setting process by choosing one of the five Dimensions of Effective Teaching. Consider where you want to refine your teaching based on past input from students, colleagues, supervisors, or interest.
Once you choose a dimension, review its criteria as outlined in the Dimensions of Effective Teaching page.
Attend professional development offered by CTL or other campus entities, read the literature on your topic, attend webinars, or consult with colleagues. Identify and integrate new evidence-based teaching techniques.
Collect evidence of teaching successes aligned with your teaching goal. Analyze peer feedback and student feedback. Reflect on what went well, how you know, and what you will revise as you continue to refine your teaching practice.
Teaching evaluation at Fort Lewis College should consistently include the following three components. Each section details key considerations for effectively assessing these components, drawing on research and best practices from other institutions.
Being reflexive means questioning our own attitudes, thought processes, and assumptions toward the ultimate goal of understanding how we come across to others. The self-evaluation process is a crucial aspect of our professional development as faculty. This self-evaluation activity is designed to foster a culture of continuous improvement and responsiveness to the unique educational, cultural and historical perspectives on our campus.
Completing a thorough self-evaluation of teaching can offer an opportunity for colleagues to deepen insights into their instructional practices. In addition to reflecting on the course from the perspective of student experiences and peer feedback, a comprehensive self-evaluation of teaching includes reflection and reflexivity.
The purpose is to examine your thoughts and experiences to encourage creativity and innovation and to clarify and set new goals based on new understandings of yourself as an educator in the broader system of our campus. Self-evaluation and reflexive feedback should demonstrate continued evidence of growth toward one or more .
鉃★笍 See for support in engaging in reflexive feedback.
Peer reviews of teaching can offer a powerful opportunity for colleagues to gain new insights into instructional practices and the experiences of learners while exploring a shared trade and engaging in constructive dialogue. Both the instructor and the observer can benefit and learn from one another to reflect on and improve their practice.
Discussion and reflection between the observer and the instructor, aligned with evidence-based strategies that are supported by FLC’s Dimensions of Effective Teaching, can foster opportunities for growth and renewed excitement for teaching.
锔忊灐锔� See for the purpose of peer feedback and different ways to engage in the peer feedback process.
The College’s course evaluation system collects student feedback about the course and instructor through 13 rating-scale questions and 2 open-ended questions, focusing on students’ learning experiences. The 2024 revised questions were informed by best practices, other institutional models, and the Dimensions of Effective Teaching.
Additionally, instructors are encouraged to solicit student feedback at multiple points in the learning process (e.g., throughout course and end-of-course). This feedback may be gathered through facilitated discussion, student interviews, anonymous surveys, etc. The goal is to gather feedback throughout the term from a variety of methods.
鉃★笍 See for the revised questions adopted by the College.
Given the complexity of the work of teaching, multiple sources are required to provide insight into teaching quality and effectively guide instructors鈥� continued growth (e.g. Berk, 2012; De Courcy, 2015). This multipronged approach to evaluating teaching is in line with current literature on best practices in student evaluations of teaching (e.g., Berk, 2018; Kreitzer & Sweet-Cushman, 2022; Medina et al., 2019; Williams, 2007) and peer evaluations of teaching (e.g., Blackmore, 2005; Harrison et al., 2022), as well as models of teaching evaluation at other institutions (e.g., University of Colorado, Boulder; University of Kansas; University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Michigan State University; Indiana University/Kokomo, 2017).
Berk, R. A. (2018). Start spreading the news: Use multiple sources of evidence to evaluate teaching. Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 73-81.
Bernstein, D., Burnett, A. N., Goodburn, A. M., & Savory, P. (2006). Making teaching and learning visible: Course portfolios and the peer review of teaching. Wiley.
Blackmore, J. A. (2005). A critical evaluation of peer review via teaching observation within higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(3), 218-232.
De Courcy, E. (2015). Defining and measuring teaching excellence in higher education in the 21st century. College Quarterly, 18(1), n1.
Fileborn, B., Wood, M., & Loughnan, C. (2020). Peer reviews of teaching as appreciative inquiry: learning from “the best” of our colleagues. Higher Education, 1-15.
Finkelstein, N., Corbo, J. C., Reinholz, D. L., Gammon, M., & Keating, J. (2018). Evaluating teaching in a scholarly manner: A model and call for an evidence-based, departmentally-defined approach to enhance teaching evaluation for CU Boulder.
Fletcher, J. A. (2018). Peer observation of teaching: A practical tool in higher education. The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 51-64.
Kreitzer, R. J., & Sweet-Cushman, J. (2022). A Review of Measurement and Equity Bias in SETs and Recommendations for Ethical Reform. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20, 73–84.
Harrison, R., Meyer, L., Rawstorne, P., Razee, H., Chitkara, U., Mears, S., & Balasooriya, C. (2022). Evaluating and enhancing quality in higher education teaching practice: A meta-review. Studies in Higher Education, 47(1), 80-96.
Identifying Pathways for Teaching Excellence (2017). Indiana University, Kokomo.
Medina, M. S., Smith, W. T., Kolluru, S., Sheaffer, E. A. & DiVall, M. (2019). A Review of
Strategies for Designing, Administering, and Using Student Ratings of Instruction.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83, 5.
Williams, D. A. (2007). Examining the Relation between Race and Student Evaluations of Faculty. Profession, 1, 168-173.
Wolfe, J. (2022, January 20). Let’s stop relying on biased teaching evaluations. Inside Higher Ed.