M.D.G. Scholars Program

-Capstone Presentation-

“Shalom”

“Osiyo”Daniel I. Mull

-A Comparative Analysis-

Teacher Evaluation in

Higher Education

Evaluation for N.C. K-12

Professionals

-A Brief Synopsis-

Source: Columbus County Schools, http://www.columbus.k12.nc.us/teachereval2.htm

A Closer Look…

ILT 1

Evaluated annually

Must develop a PDP

Mid-Year PDP Review

Observed (5) times in the first year

Observed (2) twice annually after first year.

End-Year Summative Evaluation.

ILT 2

Evaluated annually

Must develop a PDP

Mid-Year PDP Review

Observed (2) twice a annually

Observed (5) times during certification year (every 5 years)

End-Year Summative Evaluation

Serve as a measurement of performance for

individual teachers.

Serve as a guide for teachers as they reflect upon and improve their

effectiveness.

Serve as the basis for instructional

improvement.

Focus the goals and objectives of schools and districts as they

support, monitor, and evaluate their teachers.

Guide professional development programs

for teachers.

Serve as a tool in developing coaching

and mentoring programs for teachers.

Enhance the implementation of the approved curriculum.

Inform higher education institutions as they develop the content and requirements for

teacher training programs.

Source: N.C. Teacher Evaluation Manual, State Board of Education/Dept. of Public Instruction

Common Ground for Professionals

Professional Teaching

Standards

I. Demonstrate Leadership

II. Establish a Respectful

Environment

III. Knowledge of Content

IV. Facilitate Student Learning

V. Reflect on Practice

VI. Contribute to Academic

Success (Data)

Source: N.C. Teacher Evaluation Manual, State Board of Education/Dept. of Public Instruction

Ratings

Distinguished

Accomplished

Proficient

Developing

Not Demonstrate

d

Distinguished: consistently and significantly exceeds basic competence

Accomplished: exceeds basic competence

Proficient: demonstrated basic competence

Developing: demonstrated adequate growth but not basic competence

Not Demonstrated: did not demonstrate adequate growth or basic competence

Source: N.C. Teacher Evaluation Manual, State Board of Education/Dept. of Public Instruction

Standard VI: Data

Exceeds Expected Growth

Meets Expected Growth

Does Not Meet

Expected Growth

Exceeds expected growth: Student growth value exceeds statewide growth model

Meets expected growth: Student growth value is what is expected per statewide growth model

Does not meet expected growth: student growth value is lower than statewide growth model

Source: N.C. Teacher Evaluation Manual, State Board of Education/Dept. of Public Instruction

StatusHighly Effective: receives a rating of at least “accomplished” on standards (1-5) and receives a rating of “exceeds expected growth” on standard (6)

Effective: receives a rating of at least “proficient” on standards (1-5) and a rating of “meets expected growth” on standard (6)

In Need of Improvement: fails to receive a rating of at least “proficient” on standards (1-5) and a rating of “does not meet expected growth” on standard (6)

Highly Effective

EffectiveIn Need of

Improvement

Source: N.C. Teacher Evaluation Manual, State Board of Education/Dept. of Public Instruction

-A Brief Synopsis-

Evaluation for Higher

Education Professionals

Pillars of Teaching Evaluatio

n

Institutional Values

and Policies

Expectations, Criteria & Procedures

Adequate Evaluatio

n Data

Assess Effectiveness

& Student Learning

Procedure

Guide Professional

Growth

Source: Statement of Teaching Evaluation, American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

Typical Career Progression

Hired as an Assistant Professor and given a renewable probationary term of (4) years.

Reviewed to determine if faculty member should be offered a second probationary term of (3) years.

Receives a tenure review (1) year before expiration of second probationary term to consider promotion to Associate Professor with tenure.

Receives Post-Tenure Review every (5) years.

After promotion to Associate Professor, may be promoted to Full Professor (usually within 5-10 years).Source: Dr. Ron Strauss, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Post-Tenure Review

Review is conducted at the departmental level (policies and procedures regarding faculty expectations are reviewed).

Faculty peers serve on a review committee.

Must be conducted every (5) years.

Review Committee provides faculty member and chair with summary of conclusions and recommendations for improvement (Development Plan).

Faculty member is given opportunity to address committee report or appeal its findings to dean.

Dismissal or disciplinary action for faculty member may be considered if substantial deficiencies are found.Source: Dr. Ron Strauss, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Factors for Promotion

I. Research

II. Publication

III. Student Evaluations

IV. Contributions

V. Pedagogical Practice and Effectiveness in Teaching

Student Evaluations

Publication

Research

Pedagogy

Contributions

1970's 1990's0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

ResearchNon-Research

Source: Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Endowmentfor the Advancement of Teaching.

Student Sub-Groups

For Evaluation

For Benefit For Retribution

I. Students who complete evaluations only for personal benefit (i.e. to receive final grades early).

II. Students who complete evaluations in order to get back at or slander a faculty member.

III. Students who complete evaluations for the sake of truly evaluating a faculty members performance.

Observations and ConclusionsI. Student-as-Consumer

Model

II. Effect on Faculty Performance and Pedagogical Practice

III. Timing of Evaluations

IV. Structure of Evaluations

-Diane Auer Jones-Vice President of External and Regulatory Affairs,

Career Education Corporation Source: Teacher Evaluations, The Chronicle of Higher Education

Substantive Evaluation

Results

Implementation

Planning

Source:Pratt, D.D. (1997), Reconceptualizing the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education

Source:Pratt, D.D. (1997), Reconceptualizing the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education

Ex. 1

Source:Pratt, D.D. (1997), Reconceptualizing the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education

Ex. 2

Source:Pratt, D.D. (1997), Reconceptualizing the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education

Ex. 3

Source:Pratt, D.D. (1997), Reconceptualizing the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education

Ex. 4

In Summary…

Be Strategic

Involve Key Individuals

Make Progress

Source:Pratt, D.D. (1997), Reconceptualizing the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education