Using the Seven Principles as a Framework for the Evaluation of Student Ratings and Teaching

Karl Wirth and Adrienne ChristiansenSerie Center for Scholarship and TeachingMacalester College

IDEA Users Group MeetingWashington, DC

Outline

• Institutional Context

• Development Process

• Framework for Evaluation of Teaching

• Preliminary Results

Macalester College

• Private residential liberal arts college

• Urban setting

• 35 departments and programs

• 1850 students

• 170 faculty

Faculty Work and Evaluation

• Teaching, Scholarship, and Service

• Annual Addenda

• Third-Year Review, Tenure, and Promotion

• Scholarship evaluated by external

reviewers

Evaluation of Teaching

• Faculty not required to evaluate courses

• Student ratings not required for review,

tenure or promotion

• Letters and questionnaire responses

solicited from students by personnel

committee and candidate

• Other evidence as provided by candidate

Task Force on Improving Teaching

Convened to address concerns about quality

of data available to:

• help faculty improve their courses

• track institutional progress toward key

educational goals

• provide reliable evidence for personnel

review

Process for Change

• Review of best practices

• Examination of existing ratings instruments; consideration of “homegrown” instrument

• Recognition that student ratings are but one lens through which to view teaching

• Conversations about excellence in teaching and purpose of student ratings

• Encourages contact between students and

faculty

• Develops cooperation among students

• Encourages active learning

• Gives prompt feedback

• Emphasizes time on task

• Communicates high expectations

• Respects diverse talents and ways of learningChickering and Gamson (1987)

Defining Teaching Excellence

Building A Culture of Improvement

• Task force pilot of IDEA in Spring 2007

• Campus-wide pilot in Fall 2007

• Currently, approximately 45% of faculty

voluntarily use the IDEA form each

semester; formative purposes only

• Implementation of Mid-Course Interviews

• Peer Observation workshops for chairs

Framework – Areas of Teaching

• Subject Matter Mastery

• Curriculum Development

• Course Design

• Delivery of Instruction

• Assessment of Instruction

• Availability to Students

• Administrative Requirements

Cashin (1989)

Framework – Five Skill Dimensions

• Content Expertise

• Instructional Design

• Instructional Delivery

• Course Management

• Instructional Assessment

Instructor skills are “inputs”Arreola (2007)

Framework – Student Learning

“Theoretically, the best criterion of effective teaching

is student learning”

Cashin (1995)

• Relationship to student ratings is complex

• Teacher-centered versus learner-centered

• Faculty not easily convinced of meaning of self-

reported learning gains

• Concerns about objectives in some disciplines

Framework - Teaching ExcellenceSeven Principles (Chickering & Gamson)• Encourages contact between students and faculty• Develops cooperation among students• Encourages active learning• Gives prompt feedback• Emphasizes time on task• Communicates high expectations• Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

e.g., Prince (2004); Cruce et al. (2006)

Familiar to faculty

Widely used (e.g., NSSE, CSEQ)

Designed into IDEA (Hoyt et al., 1998)

Formative and summative purposes

Framework – Sources of Evidence

• Self

• Files

• Students

• Peers

• Colleagues

• Chair/Dean

• Instructional Consultant

• OthersCashin (1989)

Sources and Criteria

Seven Principles–IDEA Matrix

Results

Junior Faculty

• Comfortable with framework

• Welcome formative feedback

• Voluntarily included with review file

Department Chairs

• Welcome guidelines for review process and

mentoring

Faculty Personnel Committee

• Encouraged by evidence-based approach to

evaluating teaching

Thank you….