Skip to Content

About

Also see TEval Leadership or TEval News

TEval Goals

The overarching goal of this project is to advance educational practices by creating, aligning and sustaining effective evaluation strategies that promote the use of evidence-based instructional strategies. We simultaneously seek to advance understanding of the institutional change process by studying the adoption and integration of new approaches to evaluating teaching.

TEval Background / Approach

Much of the recent work of STEM education researchers and change agents has focused on promoting the widespread use of evidence-based educational practices (NASEM 2012, and 2018). This includes major initiatives from agencies such as the National Science Foundation (National Science Foundation, 2013) and the Association of American Universities. Increasing the use of evidence-based educational practices (EBEPs) in STEM undergraduate education requires explicit support and reward for faculty who embrace these practices. Indeed, the absence of such a reward system is a commonly-cited barrier to faculty adoption of EBEPs (Fairweather, 2008). In turn, recognizing and supporting faculty requires valid and reliable ways to evaluate teaching practices, a process that few universities employ.


Figure 1: Change theory showing the link between evaluation of teaching and the widespread use of evidence-based educational practices (EBEPs). This project is operating at the intervention stage.

Evaluation of teaching has long relied primarily on student surveys about their experiences; a process commonly known as student evaluation of teaching (Seldin, 1998). Promotion, tenure, and merit processes have been structured around this single method of evaluating teaching while faculty research is evaluated through much broader and more thorough means (e.g., research portfolios, external peer review). These evaluation and reward practices are part of an interconnected cultural web that defines norms, sets standards, and guides practices within universities (Ann E Austin, 2011). Therefore, achieving widespread change -- in this case, in the way teaching is evaluated -- requires efforts to transform university culture at the department, college and campus levels.

Figure 2: TEval supports quality educational practices through faculty development resources and reward structures, community conversations and aligning with campus policies.

In this project, three of the PIs (Finkelstein, Greenhoot, Weaver) actively lead this cultural change on their own university campuses, working toward the development, adoption and sustainable use of new approaches to evaluating teaching. A fourth PI (Austin) studies the process of transformation within and across the three campuses, creating case studies examining what approaches work most effectively under what circumstances. An external evaluator (Graham) serves to provide formative and summative feedback on the project development.

The cluster of three universities collaborating in this project constitute a Networked Improvement Community (NIC) (Bryk et al., 2015), engaged together in an action research paradigm. Organizations that collaborate in taking an NIC approach share a clearly defined goal, develop a common understanding of the problem, test innovative approaches to handling the problem across diverse contexts, engage in rapid iteration, adaptation, and adjustment within each context, compare experiences and results, and learn from consideration of overall patterns and findings.


Figure 3: TEVal follows a Networked Improvement Community Approach (Bryk et al 2011).

Informed by principles of the NIC model, the three universities involved in the TEval project share a commitment to developing more holistic approaches to teaching evaluation that align with evidence-based teaching practices. They are each implementing a common rubric, while adapting the form and use of a shared rubric to their local institutional contexts, and tracking and comparing results to produce new insights and discoveries.

involving peers, students, and own reflection as part of multidimensional approach to scholarly teaching
Figure 4: A common approach to teaching evaluation used in TEval: i) a scholarly framework denoting seven dimensions of quality teaching to be evaluated, and ii) three sources of evidence to provide data for evaluating teaching practice. Each campus has a support unit facilitating work across three layers of the institution: departmental, campus-wide stakeholders, and administration.
Figure 5: At the departmental level the TEval teams support departmental adaptation, contextualization, and implementation of the common framework for teaching evaluation.

Leaders and faculty participants from each campus regularly share experiences and results with colleagues from the other campuses at cross-campus knowledge exchanges. A cross-institutional case study is examining the process of transformation within and across the three campuses, focusing on what approaches work most effectively under what circumstances. Our on-going cross-institutional research and periodic Knowledge Exchanges that bring together leaders from across the institutions are enabling us to compare processes and begin to identify emerging lessons.

Reach

Figure 6: institutional representation of participation in summit on transforming teaching evaluation, held Jun 2023.