benchmarks for teaching effectiveness · why we are doing this benchmarks for teaching...
TRANSCRIPT
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 [email protected] [email protected] (785) 864-4193 (785) 864-7637
Kaila Colyott Project Manager [email protected] (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.
Icons adapted from Boca Tutor (https://www.shareicon.net/author/boca-tutor) through CC by 3.0.
Goa
ls, c
onte
nt, a
nd
alig
nmen
t W
hat a
re st
uden
ts e
xpec
ted
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
out
date
d or
un
suita
ble
for s
tude
nts i
n th
e co
urse
s •
Ran
ge o
f to
pics
is to
o na
rrow
or t
oo b
road
•
Con
tent
is n
ot c
lear
ly a
ligne
d w
ith c
urric
ulum
or
inst
itutio
nal e
xpec
tatio
ns
•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
•
•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
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
stud
ents
lear
n?
•Te
achi
ng p
ract
ices
are
not
suff
icie
ntly
pl
anne
d or
org
aniz
ed, o
r are
poo
rly
impl
emen
ted
•Pr
actic
es a
re n
ot w
ell e
xecu
ted;
littl
e de
velo
pmen
t in
met
hods
des
pite
evi
denc
e of
ne
ed
•St
uden
ts la
ck o
ppor
tuni
ties t
o pr
actic
e th
e sk
ills e
mbe
dded
in c
ours
e go
als
•St
uden
t eng
agem
ent i
s var
iabl
e
•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
isci
plin
e an
d in
stitu
tion
•St
uden
ts h
ave
som
e op
portu
nitie
s to
prac
tice
skill
s em
bedd
ed in
cou
rse
goal
s •
Stud
ents
con
sist
ently
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
ass
essm
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-
clas
s 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
erst
andi
ng?
•In
suff
icie
nt a
ttent
ion
to st
uden
t lea
rnin
g –
qual
ity o
f stu
dent
lear
ning
is n
ot d
escr
ibed
or
anal
yzed
with
cle
ar st
anda
rds
•Ev
iden
ce o
f poo
r stu
dent
lear
ning
; low
leve
l of
skill
/und
erst
andi
ng is
requ
ired
or a
chie
ved
with
out c
lear
atte
mpt
s to
impr
ove
•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 st
uden
t 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
•
Qua
lity
of le
arni
ng su
ppor
ts su
cces
s in
othe
r con
text
s (e.
g.,
subs
eque
nt c
ours
es o
r non
-cla
ssro
om v
enue
s), o
r is i
ncre
asin
g ov
er su
cces
sive
offe
rings
C
lass
room
clim
ate
and
stud
ent p
erce
ptio
ns
Wha
t are
the
stud
ents
’ vie
ws o
f the
ir
lear
ning
exp
erie
nce?
How
has
stud
ent
feed
back
info
rmed
the
facu
lty
mem
ber’
s tea
chin
g?
•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
sist
ently
neg
ativ
e st
uden
t rep
orts
of
teac
her a
cces
sibi
lity,
inte
ract
ion
skill
s •
Poor
sens
e of
lear
ning
am
ong
stud
ents
•
Littl
e at
tem
pt to
add
ress
con
cern
s voi
ced
by
stud
ents
•C
lass
room
clim
ate
prom
otes
civ
ility
•
No
cons
iste
ntly
neg
ativ
e st
uden
t rat
ings
of
teac
her a
cces
sibi
lity,
inte
ract
ion
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 st
uden
t fee
dbac
k
•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
sibi
lity,
inte
ract
ion
skill
s is
gene
rally
pos
itive
•
Stud
ents
per
ceiv
e 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
ossi
bly
with
m
inor
refle
ctio
n ba
sed
on in
put f
rom
pee
rs
and/
or st
uden
ts
•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
stm
ents
•
Rep
orts
impr
oved
stud
ent a
chie
vem
ent o
f lea
rnin
g go
als b
ased
on
pas
t cou
rse
mod
ifica
tions
Men
tori
ng &
adv
ising
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
ffec
tive
men
torin
g or
ad
visi
ng st
uden
ts (b
ut e
xpec
ted
in
depa
rtmen
t)
•So
me
evid
ence
of e
ffec
tive
advi
sing
and
m
ento
ring
(def
ine
as a
ppro
pria
te fo
r di
scip
line)
•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-r
elat
ed c
omm
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-r
elat
ed
com
mitt
ees,
or e
ngag
emen
t with
pee
rs o
n te
achi
ng (e
.g.,
teac
hing
-rel
ated
pre
sent
atio
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
-rel
ated
com
mitt
ees,
enga
gem
ent w
ith p
eers
on
teac
hing
(e.g
., te
achi
ng-r
elat
ed
pres
enta
tions
or w
orks
hops
) •
Occ
asio
nal (
or m
ore)
loca
l or e
xter
nal p
rese
ntat
ions
or
publ
icat
ions
to sh
are
prac
tices
or r
esul
ts o
f tea
chin
g •
Con
tribu
tes t
o de
partm
ent o
r uni
vers
ity c
urric
ular
pla
nnin
g or
as
sess
men
t
•A
dvan
ced—
Scho
larly
pub
licat
ions
or g
rant
app
licat
ions
re
late
d to
teac
hing
•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
out
date
d or
un
suita
ble
for s
tude
nts i
n th
e co
urse
s •
Ran
ge o
f to
pics
is to
o na
rrow
or t
oo b
road
•
Con
tent
is n
ot c
lear
ly a
ligne
d w
ith c
urric
ulum
Rub
ric F
or F
acul
ty T
each
ing
Effe
ctiv
enes
s (d
epar
tmen
t sho
uld
mod
ify a
s ne
eded
)
Goa
ls, c
onte
nt, a
nd
alig
nmen
t W
hat a
re st
uden
ts e
xpec
ted
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 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
•
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
erst
andi
ng?
•In
suff
icie
nt a
ttent
ion
to st
uden
t lea
rnin
g –
qual
ity o
f stu
dent
lear
ning
is n
ot d
escr
ibed
or
anal
yzed
with
cle
ar st
anda
rds
•Ev
iden
ce o
f poo
r stu
dent
lear
ning
; low
leve
l of
skill
/und
erst
andi
ng is
requ
ired
or a
chie
ved
with
out c
lear
atte
mpt
s to
impr
ove
•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 st
uden
t 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
•
Qua
lity
of le
arni
ng su
ppor
ts su
cces
s in
othe
r con
text
s (e.
g.,
subs
eque
nt c
ours
es o
r non
-cla
ssro
om v
enue
s), o
r is i
ncre
asin
g
Ref
lect
ion
and
itera
tive
grow
th
H
ow h
as th
e fa
culty
mem
ber’
s te
achi
ng c
hang
ed o
ver t
ime?
How
has
th
is b
een
info
rmed
by
evid
ence
of
•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
ossi
bly
with
m
inor
refle
ctio
n ba
sed
on in
put f
rom
pee
rs
and/
or st
uden
ts
•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
stm
ents
•
Rep
orts
impr
oved
stud
ent a
chie
vem
ent o
f lea
rnin
g go
als b
ased
on
pas
t cou
rse
mod
ifica
tions
In
volvem
en
t in
teach
in
g
service, sch
olarsh
ip
, or
com
mu
nity
In
w
ha
t w
ays h
as th
e in
stru
cto
r
co
ntrib
uted
to
th
e b
roa
der tea
ch
in
g
co
mm
un
ity, b
oth
o
n an
d o
ff ca
mp
us?
*Dep
artm
ents
sho
uld
alig
n ca
tego
ries
with
thei
r ow
n ex
pect
atio
ns fo
rsu
mm
ativ
e ev
alua
tion.
Dev
elop
ing
Pro�
cien
tEx
pert