Fort Lewis College defines effective teaching through the Dimensions of Effective Teaching, which were designed to:
Teaching goals are central to the evaluation process and guide who instructors collaborate with and how they structure their review. Goals should be based on student or peer feedback and align with the Dimensions of Effective Teaching to focus professional development. These goals also make feedback evidence-based and shape the kind of peer observation instructors seek.
Select a dimension to refine based on past feedback from students, colleagues, supervisors, or personal interest.
After choosing a dimension, review its criteria on the Dimensions of Effective Teaching page.
Attend CTL or campus workshops, read relevant literature, join webinars, or consult colleagues. Apply new evidence-based teaching techniques.
Gather evidence of teaching successes related to your goal. Analyze peer and student feedback. Reflect on what worked, why, and what to revise to improve your practice.
Teaching evaluation should always include the following three components. Each section outlines key considerations for assessing these components effectively, drawing from research and best practices at other institutions.
Given the complexity of teaching, multiple sources are needed to evaluate teaching quality and guide instructors' growth effectively. This multipronged approach aligns with current literature on best practices in student and peer evaluations, as well as teaching evaluation models used at other institutions.1
Being reflexive means questioning our own attitudes, thought processes, and assumptions toward the ultimate goal of understanding how we come across to others. The self-evaluation process is a crucial aspect of our professional development as faculty. This self-evaluation activity is designed to foster a culture of continuous improvement and responsiveness to the unique educational, cultural and historical perspectives on our campus.
Completing a thorough self-evaluation of teaching can offer an opportunity for colleagues to deepen insights into their instructional practices. In addition to reflecting on the course from the perspective of student experiences and peer feedback, a comprehensive self-evaluation of teaching includes reflection and reflexivity.
The purpose is to examine your thoughts and experiences to encourage creativity and innovation and to clarify and set new goals based on new understandings of yourself as an educator in the broader system of our campus. Self-evaluation and reflexive feedback should demonstrate continued evidence of growth toward one or more Dimensions of Effective Teaching.
➡️ See [draft] Guide for Self-Evaluation of Teaching for support in engaging in reflexive feedback.
Peer reviews of teaching can offer a powerful opportunity for colleagues to gain new insights into instructional practices and the experiences of learners while exploring a shared trade and engaging in constructive dialogue. Both the instructor and the observer can benefit and learn from one another to reflect on and improve their practice.
Discussion and reflection between the observer and the instructor, aligned with evidence-based strategies that are supported by FLC’s Dimensions of Effective Teaching, can foster opportunities for growth and renewed excitement for teaching.
️➡️ See [draft] Guide for Peer Feedback on Teaching for the purpose of peer feedback and different ways to engage in the peer feedback process.
The College’s course evaluation system collects student feedback about the course and instructor through 13 rating-scale questions and 2 open-ended questions, focusing on students’ learning experiences. The 2024 revised questions were informed by best practices, other institutional models, and the Dimensions of Effective Teaching.
Additionally, instructors are encouraged to solicit student feedback at multiple points in the learning process (e.g., throughout course and end-of-course). This feedback may be gathered through facilitated discussion, student interviews, anonymous surveys, etc. The goal is to gather feedback throughout the term from a variety of methods.
➡️ See Student End-of-Course Feedback Questions for the revised questions adopted by the College.
In 2023-24, a Senate-charged committee revised the existing teaching evaluation process, creating a new teaching evaluation framework consisting of two key elements:
The Teaching Evaluation Framework was recommended by the Women Faculty Committee, developed by the Ad-hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation, and endorsed by Faculty Senate in Spring 2024.
Berk, R. A. (2012). Start spreading the news: Use multiple sources of evidence to evaluate teaching. Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 73-81.
Bernstein, D., Burnett, A. N., Goodburn, A. M., & Savory, P. (2006). Making teaching and learning visible: Course portfolios and the peer review of teaching. Wiley.
Blackmore, J. A. (2005). A critical evaluation of peer review via teaching observation within higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(3), 218-232.
De Courcy, E. (2015). Defining and measuring teaching excellence in higher education in the 21st century. College Quarterly, 18(1), n1.
Fileborn, B., Wood, M., & Loughnan, C. (2020). Peer reviews of teaching as appreciative inquiry: Learning from "the best" of our colleagues. Higher Education, 1-15.
Finkelstein, N., Corbo, J. C., Reinholz, D. L., Gammon, M., & Keating, J. (2018). Evaluating teaching in a scholarly manner: A model and call for an evidence-based, departmentally-defined approach to enhance teaching evaluation for CU Boulder.
Fletcher, J. A. (2018). Peer observation of teaching: A practical tool in higher education. The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 51-64.
Harrison, R., Meyer, L., Rawstorne, P., Razee, H., Chitkara, U., Mears, S., & Balasooriya, C. (2022). Evaluating and enhancing quality in higher education teaching practice: A meta-review. Studies in Higher Education, 47(1), 80-96.
Kreitzer, R. J., & Sweet-Cushman, J. (2022). A review of measurement and equity bias in SETs and recommendations for ethical reform. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20, 73-84.
Medina, M. S., Smith, W. T., Kolluru, S., Sheaffer, E. A., & DiVall, M. (2019). A review of strategies for designing, administering, and using student ratings of instruction. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(5).
Williams, D. A. (2007). Examining the relation between race and student evaluations of faculty. Profession, 1, 168-173.
Wolfe, J. (2022, January 20). Let’s stop relying on biased teaching evaluations. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com
Indiana University Kokomo. (2017). Identifying pathways for teaching excellence. Retrieved from https://www.iuk.edu/academic-affairs/academic-resources/identifying-pathways-for-excellence-in-teaching.html