TARGET
The Advisory Resource Group on Evaluating Teaching
Is teaching evaluable? – Margy MacMillan, Feb. 26, 2009
In reading the literature on evaluating teaching in post-secondary settings a few key themes emerge.
- No single form of assessment – self, student, peer or chair, is enough. Dressel quotes Ericksen and Kulik (352) “Each of these is useful but none is sufficient. Teaching is an omnibus profession, but each teacher is idiosyncratic and many yardsticks are needed to measure competence in this role.”
- Ratings – numbers are dangerous at an institutional level – Canon and Newble referring to McKeachie state, “only broad categories of final judgment should be made (such as ‘outstanding’, ‘adequate’, and ‘unacceptable’…)”
- There must be a balance between the ideal and the practical – Hounsell, in Fry et al, (211) “No university teacher can realistically subject every aspect of his or her day-to-day practice to constant review…Effective evaluation may be less a matter of technique than of the exercise of personal and professional judgment.”
- There is an interesting dichotomy between materials from the faculty point of view (often by associations) that emphasize the formative requirements for teaching evaluation – and those from the administrative point of view, seeking summative tools. The former focus on ways of demonstrating personal growth and the latter on scores and quantifiable information. Neither side seems satisfied with the systems in place, that mostly try to serve both needs.( sort of like a hide-a-bed – can’t be a good couch and a good bed at the same time, winds up being neither.)
- There is no one set of agreed-on actions or attributes that describes good teaching, still less a useful set of differentiators to divide the ‘excellent’ from the ‘very good.’ Given Theall’s assertion of the importance of context this is perhaps not surprising.
- However, in the literature there are lists of attributes that might serve as a basis for developing guides to good teaching at Mount Royal – Dressel’s ‘obligations’, Chickering and Gamson’s 7 best practices, Glassick et. al.'s 6 qualitative standards and Making judgments on teaching, learning and assessment in lessons found on a UK site for private schools.
The ADC Faculty Development Team has also developed criteria for teaching:
The Academic Development Centre is committed to the development of teaching excellence.
The ADC educational development team believes
that effective teaching is informed by scholarship and characterized by:
Relationship and Rapport:
Attention to, care and concern for each student
Subject Specialization:
Depth of knowledge and passion for subject matter
Currency in Teaching & Learning Pedagogies:
Knowledge of and thoughtful application of teaching/learning pedagogies relating to curriculum, instructional design and
delivery appropriate to particular disciplines
Commitment to Professional Growth:
On-going reflection and development - a desire to
continually improve
Teacher Identity & Presence:
Development of personal teaching style
The aim of the TARGET group is to seek out, evaluate, and make available to the Mount Royal Community materials which may inform the evaluation of teaching for the purposes of professional development, summative assessment, and/or formal evaluation.
Updated
November 25, 2009