WHY WE ARE DOING THIS

BENCHMARKS FOR TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS

Advice

CLASSROOM CLIMATE & STUDENT

PERCEPTIONS

REFLECTION & ITERATIVE

GROWTH

MENTORING & ADVISING

INVOLVEMENT IN TEACHING SERVICE,

SCHOLARSHIP OR COMMUNITY

ACHIEVEMENT OF LEARNING

OUTCOMES

TEACHING PRACTICES

The Center for Teaching Excellence has developed a framework called Bench-marks for Teaching E�ectiveness to support better methods of reviewing, documenting, and evaluating teaching. The framework is organized around a multidimensional rubric for reviewing faculty teaching. Seven rubric dimensions (below) have been designed to capture teaching in its totality. The rubric includes guiding questions and de�ned expectations for each dimension (see reverse). Departments are encouraged to adapt the rubric to �t disciplinary expectations and to weight areas most meaningful to the discipline.

Most evaluations focus on a narrow range of teaching practice and prioritize a limited source of evidence. Often, teaching is measured either through student evaluations, which contain inherent biases, or peer observations of a single class period. The Benchmarks framework provides a comprehensive, balanced view of faculty teaching contributions by broadening the types of activities that are reviewed and the sources of information on those activities. Thus, the Benchmarks aligns with KU policy, which requires multiple sources in teaching evaluation and speci�es students, peers, and the faculty member as required sources in promotion and tenure and progress-toward-tenure processes.

Benchmarks Goals and Objectives

1. Broaden faculty perspectives on and build consensus on e�ective teaching

2. Encourage the use of multiple sources of information to evaluate teaching (instructor, peers, and students)

3. Improve synthesis and representation of this information at the department or school level.

Center for Teaching Excellence

Benchmarks Contact Information

If you have any questions or if you would like more information, please

contact:

Andrea Greenhoot Doug Ward CTE Director CTE Associate Director agreenhoot@ku.edu dbward@ku.edu (785) 864-4193 (785) 864-7637

Kaila Colyott Project Manager kcolyott@ku.edu (785) 864-7637

CTE has received funding from the National Science Foundation for a 5-year-project that supports department-level adaptation and use of the Benchmarks framework. With assistance from CTE, participating departments are having conversations about what e�ective teaching is and how it should be evaluated. As they do this, they are adapting the rubric and identifying materials that that could provide information for each category. They are sharing their e�orts with colleagues in other departments and with colleagues at the University of Colorado, Boulder and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which have created similar programs. The goal is to develop models that can be applied in other departments and other institutions.

GOALS, CONTENT, & ALIGNMENT

EXPLORING APPLICATIONS OF THE FRAMEWORK

*See reverse for complete rubric

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DUE-1726087. Any opinions, �ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily re�ect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Ru

bric

for F

acul

ty T

each

ing

Effe

ctiv

enes

s (de

part

men

t sho

uld

mod

ify a

s nee

ded)

F

air u

se o

f KU

’s B

ench

mar

ks fr

amew

ork

is pe

rmitt

ed th

roug

h th

e Cr

eativ

e Co

mm

ons A

ttrib

utio

n-N

on-c

omm

erci

al 4

.0 In

tern

atio

nal L

icen

se. I

t may

be

reus

ed, a

dapt

ed a

nd d

istrib

uted

as l

ong

as

you

prov

ide

appr

opria

te c

redi

t, bu

t it m

ay n

ot b

e us

ed fo

r com

mer

cial

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e ci

te a

s Fol

lmer

Gre

enho

ot, A

., W

ard,

D.,

& B

erns

tein

, D. (

2017

). Be

nchm

arks

for T

each

ing

Effe

ctiv

enes

s.

*A

ligne

d wi

th K

U P

rogr

ess-

tow

ard-

Tenu

re a

nd P

rom

otio

n &

Ten

ure

ratin

g sc

ales

.

*Bel

ow E

xpec

tatio

ns: 1

- 2

Poor

(1):

Cons

iste

ntly

at t

his l

evel

M

argi

nal (

2): S

ome

teac

hing

at t

his l

evel

Mee

ts E

xpec

tatio

ns: 3

C

ompe

tent

E

xcee

ds E

xpec

tatio

ns: 4

- 5

Prof

essio

nal (

4): S

ome

teac

hing

at t

his l

evel

Ad

vanc

ed (5

): Co

nsist

ently

at t

his l

evel

G

oals

, con

tent

, and

al

ignm

ent

Wha

t are

stud

ents

expe

cted

to le

arn

from

the

cour

ses t

augh

t? A

re c

ours

e go

als a

ppro

pria

tely

cha

lleng

ing?

Is

cont

ent a

ligne

d w

ith th

e cu

rric

ulum

?

• C

ours

e go

als a

re u

ncle

ar, i

napp

ropr

iate

, or

mar

gina

lly re

late

d to

cur

ricul

um

• C

onte

nt a

nd m

ater

ials

are

outd

ated

or

unsu

itabl

e fo

r stu

dent

s in

the

cour

ses

• R

ange

of

topi

cs is

too

narro

w o

r too

bro

ad

• C

onte

nt is

not

cle

arly

alig

ned

with

cur

ricul

um

or in

stitu

tiona

l exp

ecta

tions

• C

ours

e go

als a

re a

rticu

late

d an

d ap

prop

riate

fo

r cur

ricul

um

• C

onte

nt is

cur

rent

and

app

ropr

iate

for t

opic

, st

uden

ts, a

nd c

urric

ulum

•

Cou

rse

topi

cs in

clud

e an

app

ropr

iate

rang

e •

Stan

dard

, int

elle

ctua

lly so

und

mat

eria

ls

• C

ours

e go

als a

re w

ell-a

rticu

late

d, h

igh

qual

ity, a

nd c

lear

ly

conn

ecte

d to

pro

gram

or c

urric

ular

goa

ls •

Con

tent

is c

halle

ngin

g an

d in

nova

tive

or re

late

d to

cur

rent

is

sues

and

dev

elop

men

ts in

fiel

d •

Topi

cs a

re o

f app

ropr

iate

rang

e an

d de

pth,

with

inte

grat

ion

acro

ss to

pics

•

Hig

h qu

ality

mat

eria

ls, w

ell-a

ligne

d w

ith c

ours

e go

als

Tea

chin

g pr

actic

es

How

is in

-cla

ss a

nd o

ut-o

f-cla

ss ti

me

used

? W

hat a

ssig

nmen

ts, a

sses

smen

ts,

and

lear

ning

act

iviti

es a

re

impl

emen

ted

to h

elp

stude

nts l

earn

?

• Te

achi

ng p

ract

ices

are

not

suffi

cien

tly

plan

ned

or o

rgan

ized

, or a

re p

oorly

im

plem

ente

d •

Prac

tices

are

not

wel

l exe

cute

d; li

ttle

deve

lopm

ent i

n m

etho

ds d

espi

te e

vide

nce

of

need

•

Stud

ents

lack

opp

ortu

nitie

s to

prac

tice

the

skill

s em

bedd

ed in

cou

rse

goal

s •

Stud

ent e

ngag

emen

t is v

aria

ble

• Te

achi

ng p

ract

ices

are

wel

l pla

nned

and

or

gani

zed

• St

anda

rd c

ours

e pr

actic

es c

arrie

d ou

t; fo

llow

s co

nven

tions

with

in d

iscip

line

and

insti

tutio

n •

Stud

ents

have

som

e op

portu

nitie

s to

prac

tice

skill

s em

bedd

ed in

cou

rse

goal

s •

Stud

ents

cons

iste

ntly

eng

aged

• A

ctiv

ities

are

wel

l pla

nned

, int

egra

ted,

and

refle

ct c

omm

itmen

t to

pro

vidi

ng m

eani

ngfu

l ass

ignm

ents

and

asse

ssm

ents

• U

ses e

ffec

tive,

hig

h-im

pact

or i

nnov

ativ

e m

etho

ds to

impr

ove

unde

rsta

ndin

g

• In

- and

out

-of-c

lass

act

iviti

es p

rovi

de o

ppor

tuni

ties f

or p

ract

ice

and

feed

back

on

impo

rtant

skill

s and

con

cept

s •

Stud

ents

show

hig

h le

vels

of e

ngag

emen

t

Ach

ieve

men

t of l

earn

ing

outc

omes

W

hat i

mpa

ct d

o th

ese

cour

ses h

ave

on

lear

ners

? W

hat e

vide

nce

show

s the

le

vel o

f stu

dent

und

ersta

ndin

g?

• In

suffi

cien

t atte

ntio

n to

stud

ent l

earn

ing

– qu

ality

of s

tude

nt le

arni

ng is

not

des

crib

ed o

r an

alyz

ed w

ith c

lear

stan

dard

s •

Evid

ence

of p

oor s

tude

nt le

arni

ng; l

ow le

vel

of sk

ill/u

nder

stand

ing

is re

quire

d or

ach

ieve

d w

ithou

t cle

ar a

ttem

pts t

o im

prov

e

• C

lear

stan

dard

s for

eva

luat

ing

the

qual

ity o

f st

uden

t und

erst

andi

ng

• Ty

pica

l stu

dent

ach

ieve

men

t for

cou

rses

at

thes

e le

vels

• St

anda

rds f

or e

valu

atin

g stu

dent

und

erst

andi

ng a

re c

onne

cted

to

prog

ram

or c

urric

ulum

exp

ecta

tions

, or u

se a

uthe

ntic

as

sess

men

ts

• Ef

forts

to su

ppor

t lea

rnin

g in

all

stud

ents

• Q

ualit

y of

lear

ning

supp

orts

succ

ess i

n ot

her c

onte

xts (

e.g.

, su

bseq

uent

cou

rses

or n

on-c

lass

room

ven

ues)

, or i

s inc

reas

ing

over

succ

essi

ve o

ffer

ings

C

lass

room

clim

ate

and

stud

ent p

erce

ptio

ns

Wha

t are

the

stude

nts’

vie

ws o

f the

ir le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e? H

ow h

as st

uden

t fe

edba

ck in

form

ed th

e fa

culty

m

embe

r’s t

each

ing?

• C

lass

room

clim

ate

does

not

pro

mot

e ci

vilit

y or

dis

cour

ages

stud

ent m

otiv

atio

n an

d en

gage

men

t •

Con

siste

ntly

neg

ativ

e stu

dent

repo

rts o

f te

ache

r acc

essib

ility

, int

erac

tion

skill

s •

Poor

sens

e of

lear

ning

am

ong

stude

nts

• Li

ttle

atte

mpt

to a

ddre

ss c

once

rns v

oice

d by

st

uden

ts

• C

lass

room

clim

ate

prom

otes

civ

ility

•

No

cons

isten

tly n

egat

ive

stud

ent r

atin

gs o

f te

ache

r acc

essib

ility

, int

erac

tion

skill

s •

Mos

t stu

dent

s ind

icat

e pr

ogre

ss w

ith th

eir

lear

ning

•

Inst

ruct

or a

rticu

late

s som

e le

sson

s lea

rned

th

roug

h stu

dent

feed

back

• Ev

iden

ce th

at c

lass

room

clim

ate

is re

spec

tful,

coop

erat

ive,

and

en

cour

ages

mot

ivat

ion

and

enga

gem

ent

• St

uden

t fee

dbac

k on

teac

her a

cces

sibili

ty, i

nter

actio

n sk

ills i

s ge

nera

lly p

ositi

ve

• St

uden

ts pe

rcei

ve th

at th

ey a

re le

arni

ng im

porta

nt sk

ills o

r kn

owle

dge

• In

stru

ctor

is re

spon

sive

to st

uden

t fee

dbac

k in

shor

t- an

d lo

ng-

term

R

efle

ctio

n an

d ite

rativ

e gr

owth

How

has

the

facu

lty m

embe

r’s

teac

hing

cha

nged

ove

r tim

e? H

ow h

as

this

bee

n in

form

ed b

y ev

iden

ce o

f st

uden

t lea

rnin

g?

• N

o in

dica

tion

of h

avin

g re

flect

ed u

pon

or

lear

ned

from

prio

r tea

chin

g or

feed

back

• C

ontin

ued

com

pete

nt te

achi

ng, p

ossib

ly w

ith

min

or re

flect

ion

base

d on

inpu

t fro

m p

eers

an

d/or

stud

ents

• A

rticu

late

s som

e le

sson

s lea

rned

from

prio

r te

achi

ng a

nd fe

edba

ck

• R

egul

arly

mak

es a

djus

tmen

ts to

teac

hing

bas

ed o

n re

flect

ions

on

stud

ent l

earn

ing,

with

in o

r acr

oss s

emes

ters

•

Exam

ines

stud

ent p

erfo

rman

ce fo

llow

ing

adju

stmen

ts

• R

epor

ts im

prov

ed st

uden

t ach

ieve

men

t of l

earn

ing

goal

s bas

ed

on p

ast c

ours

e m

odifi

catio

ns

Men

tori

ng &

adv

isin

g H

ow e

ffect

ivel

y ha

s the

facu

lty

mem

ber w

orke

d in

divi

dual

ly w

ith U

G

or g

radu

ate

stude

nts?

• N

o in

dica

tion

of e

ffect

ive

men

torin

g or

ad

visin

g stu

dent

s (bu

t exp

ecte

d in

de

partm

ent)

• So

me

evid

ence

of e

ffec

tive

advi

sing

and

men

torin

g (d

efin

e as

app

ropr

iate

for

disc

iplin

e)

• Ev

iden

ce o

f exc

eptio

nal q

ualit

y an

d tim

e co

mm

itmen

t to

advi

sing

and

men

torin

g (d

efin

e as

app

ropr

iate

for d

iscip

line)

Invo

lvem

ent i

n te

achi

ng

serv

ice,

scho

lars

hip,

or

com

mun

ity

In w

hat w

ays h

as th

e in

struc

tor

cont

ribut

ed to

the

broa

der t

each

ing

com

mun

ity, b

oth

on a

nd o

ff ca

mpu

s?

• N

o in

tera

ctio

n w

ith b

road

er c

omm

unity

abo

ut

teac

hing

, inc

ludi

ng in

volv

emen

t with

te

achi

ng-re

late

d co

mm

ittee

s •

No

evid

ence

of k

eepi

ng u

p w

ith re

ports

on

effe

ctiv

e te

achi

ng

• Pr

actic

es a

nd re

sults

of t

each

ing

are

not

shar

ed w

ith o

ther

s •

Act

ions

hav

e ne

gativ

e im

pact

on

teac

hing

cu

lture

in d

epar

tmen

t or i

nstit

utio

n

• So

me

invo

lvem

ent i

n te

achi

ng-re

late

d co

mm

ittee

s, or

eng

agem

ent w

ith p

eers

on

teac

hing

(e.g

., te

achi

ng-re

late

d pr

esen

tatio

ns

or w

orks

hops

) •

Parti

cipa

tes i

n de

partm

ent-l

evel

cur

ricul

um

deci

sion

s

• R

egul

ar in

volv

emen

t in

teac

hing

-rela

ted

com

mitt

ees,

enga

gem

ent w

ith p

eers

on

teac

hing

(e.g

., te

achi

ng-re

late

d pr

esen

tatio

ns o

r wor

ksho

ps)

• O

ccas

iona

l (or

mor

e) lo

cal o

r ext

erna

l pre

sent

atio

ns o

r pu

blic

atio

ns to

shar

e pr

actic

es o

r res

ults

of t

each

ing

• C

ontri

bute

s to

depa

rtmen

t or u

nive

rsity

cur

ricul

ar p

lann

ing

or

asse

ssm

ent

•

Adv

ance

d—Sc

hola

rly p

ublic

atio

ns o

r gra

nt a

pplic

atio

ns

rela

ted

to te

achi

ng