The college of Engineering is committed to teaching excellence in every phase of teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.  The college recognizes that teaching can take on many form and includes classroom teaching, advising senior project groups, directing graduate theses, and other forms of teaching which all contribute to the enrichment of our students and faculty.  This document delineates guidelines and procedures directed at enhancing classroom teaching and teaching related to classroom teaching but conducted external to the classroom environment such as meeting with students during office hours, etc.  These guidelines and procedures are consistent with the vision statement of our college, which considers student education and learning as being paramount and central to its mission.  This document on guidelines and procedures is augmented with another document, which comprises suggested instruments for implementing these guidelines.  The instrument document also includes sample questionnaires for students, faculty, alumni, and employers.

There are three major components to teaching enhancement:

• Education and Training -this refers to the education and training of our faculty in the art of teaching.
• Teaching/Learning Evaluation -this refers to a mechanism for evaluating the teaching effectiveness of our faculty.
• Assessment of the Teaching Evaluation Process -this refers to a set of measurements that can be used to assess the progress of our College faculty in meeting our goal of continuous quality improvement in teaching.

I. Education and Training

There are two major components to education and training.

• Mentoring of Probationary Faculty -this refers to mentoring of probationary faculty by senior faculty.

• Continuing Education of All Faculty - this refers to faculty attending seminars/presentations, reviewing articles, etc., on teaching effectiveness and enhancement and deepening their understanding and remaining current in the subject matter they teach.

I.1 Mentoring of Probationary Faculty

Although it is primarily intended to help junior faculty members in matters pertaining to teaching enhancement, the mentoring program can be utilized to help junior faculty in other areas such as faculty governance, laboratory facilities, and so forth. Participation in the mentoring program is optional on the part of the junior faculty member, but it shall be made available to every junior faculty member by each Department.

Herein, we will refer to the faculty member being mentored as the faculty member.

I.l.1 Duties of the Mentor

The duties of a mentor may include, but are not limited to the following.

• Meeting with the faculty member on a regular basis.
• Reviewing class handout material, course goals, and plan for meeting course goals.
• Visiting classroom.
• Counseling the faculty member on ways to improve teaching scholarship.

The mentor's duties may not be limited to the area of teaching, but may include offering counsel on professional development and scholarship.

I.1.2 Selection of the Mentor

The mentor may be selected from either within or external to the Department of the faculty member in consultation with the faculty member. The following delineates the selection procedure.

• The Chair initially appoints a mentor who would normally (see next bullet) serve in that capacity until the time of the award of tenure.
• In the year subsequent to that of the initial appointment, the faculty member may request from the Chair a change of mentor who would continue to serve in this capacity until the time of the award of tenure.

I.2  Continuing Education or All Faculty

The College of Engineering will make available to its faculty a library of videotaped presentations and published articles on teaching effectiveness, evaluation, and enhancement.

Probationary faculty are required to attend at least one workshop/seminar/presentation, or review at least one article, on teaching per annum. This activity is to be documented by the probationary faculty member in his/her annual activities report, which is submitted to the department chair.

All faculty are strongly encouraged to be well educated on the subject of teaching by attending seminars/presentations, and/or reviewing articles on teaching.

II. Teaching Evaluation

Evaluation of faculty teaching includes the following components.

• Student Evaluation -this refers to evaluation of faculty teaching by their students.
• Self-Evaluation- this refers to a self-evaluation by the faculty member.
• Peer Evaluation of Probationary Faculty - this refers to faculty evaluation of probationary faculty.
• The evaluation criteria.

Each of the above elements encompasses a feedback process that can be used by the faculty member as a measure of his/her teaching effectiveness for the purpose of teaching enhancement. The suggested teaching evaluation criteria for all faculty is given in section II.3.2.

II.1           Student Evaluation

Formal student evaluation of faculty teaching will be conducted for each lecture and laboratory section of each course that is taught. Student evaluations must be conducted in the absence of the faculty member teaching the course. The evaluations will be conducted in class by a designate student or faculty/staff member. The students must be given sufficient time to perform a thorough evaluation. These evaluations will be forwarded by the designate to the chair via the department secretary and maintained in the faculty member's permanent file.

The evaluation instrument includes number of questions selected by the College from sources such as the CAFETERIA dictionary to provide some measure of consistency among the various departments. Each department may augment the instrument with additional items.

It is also recommended that informal student evaluations be conducted at various points in time during the semester so that the faculty member can obtain feedback that he/she can utilize during the rest of the semester.

(See the Implementation Procedure Attachment for specific details.)

II.2    Self Evaluation

At least once per annum, each faculty member is required to submit to his/her department chair a written assessment of his/her teaching. The assessment should include at least the following components:

• Goals of course.
• Assessment of faculty's effectiveness in helping students achieve the course goals.
• Identification of ways to improve his/her teaching.

II.3    Peer Review of Teaching for Probationary Faculty

In recognition of the importance of teaching to the mission of The William States Lee College of Engineering, a formal peer review process for assessing the teaching effectiveness of probationary faculty in the College is hereby adopted. The objectives of the peer review process are (1) to provide probationary faculty with regular feedback regarding their teaching effectiveness and (2) to provide input concerning the assessment of their teaching competency during tenure decisions.

II.3.1 Peer Review Procedures

Minimal procedures for carrying out the peer review process are listed below:

1. Each probationary faculty member (hereafter referred to as "instructor") will host at least one classroom visit per year, preferably to an undergraduate course, by at least one member of the tenured faculty (hereafter referred to as "observer"). This visit is for the purpose of evaluating the instructor's presentation and classroom skills and should take place in the fall semester to provide timely feedback in the event that a follow-up review is recommended for the spring semester. The choice of observer shall be made by the chair, in consultation with, and with the approval of, the instructor.

2. Prior to the visit, the instructor shall provide the observer with relevant classroom materials (e.g., text selection, syllabus, class notes for the day of the visit, homework and/or project assignments, and exams) to assess their appropriateness. If the observer does not have expertise in the area of the course subject, he or she can elect to have the material reviewed for this purpose by a tenured colleague with appropriate expertise.

3. After the classroom visit, the observer shall provide a timely written report of the results of the review prior to the end of the semester based on the assessment criteria listed below to the department chair and the instructor. This report shall be provided prior to the end of the semester. Upon review of the report, the instructor shall have the opportunity to meet with the observer and/or the chair for the purpose of discussing the results of the classroom visit. It is the right of the instructor to respond in writing if she or he feels that the observer's report is imbalanced, inaccurate, or unfair. If required by the chair or if requested by the instructor, a second review will take place during the spring semester.

II.3.2 Review Criteria

During the classroom visit, the observer must note the following:

1.  Is the instructor prepared and organized?

2. Does the instructor display enthusiasm for the subject?

3. Is the instructor's written and oral communication clear?

4. Does the instructor complement and supplement material in the text?

5. Is the instructor in control of his or her class?

6. Is student participation encouraged?

7. Is the physical classroom environment conducive to learning?

II.4 The Evaluation Criteria

The following evaluation criteria are applicable to all faculty teaching and are to be regarded as general guidelines.

There exists no single set of criteria that can effectively measure the teaching effectiveness of every faculty member for every course in every discipline of engineering, engineering technology, and computer science. Of distinct significance is the course pedagogy and goals appropriate for each individual course.

Nonetheless, any teaching evaluation criteria should include the following three principal components:

• Instructional style, delivery mechanics, and teaching integrity.

• Level and quantity of learning

• Quality of learning

Il.4.1 Instructional Style Delivery Mechanics and Teaching Integrity

This is concerned with: the style of communication, the tools and techniques of delivery, and with factors such as punctuality (arriving to class on time) of the faculty member under evaluation and his/her availability and willingness to help students external to the classroom environment.

II. 4.2 Level and quantity of learning

This criterion focuses on the receiving end rather than the delivery end of teaching. Here the central question is: to what degree have the students learned the course material in relation to the course goals? However, this should be tempered by the recognition that the intrinsic learning abilities of the students are legitimate variables that will influence the level of learning.

II.4.3 Quality of learning

This criterion focuses on the scope as well as the long-term and ancillary effects of the learning experience. It also includes course content. This includes issues such as: the faculty member's enthusiasm for teaching the subject matter, and the degree to which he/she motivates and inspires the students.

III.  Assessment of the Teaching Evaluation Process

The College of Engineering has set up a mechanism for assessing the teaching progress of its faculty on a continuous basis.

A college-level committee on teaching enhancement is to be formed.  The committee will consist of five tenured members of the faculty.  There shall be a representative from each department.  In addition, the committee will include at least one student representative who will serve as a non-voting member of the committee.  The committee is to work with the departments and the college faculty to continuously assess the effectiveness of the teaching evaluation process and recommend improvements.

The assessment shall include the following components.

• Assessment of the education and training program.

• Assessment of the student evaluation process.

• Assessment of the self-evaluation process.

• Assessment of the peer evaluation process for probationary.

III.1 Assessment of the Education and Training program

This comprises an assessment of the education and training program for all faculty.  It includes assessment of the education and training opportunities as well as the mentoring program.

III.2 Assessment of the Student Evaluation Process

This can include the building and analysis of a database on faculty teaching evaluations for each course.  Such a database will show the degree to which faculty evaluations improve from year to year.  It can also include analysis of the performance of our students on standard examinations such as the EIT (Engineer In Training) and PE (professional Engineer) exams.  In addition, it is recommended that the departments conduct interviews with graduating seniors, alumni, and employers of their students.

III.3 Assessment of the Self-Evaluation Process

This can include assessment of dossiers that are developed by faculty for each course and how each faculty member perceives his/her teaching effectiveness and improvement from year to year.

III.4 Assessment of the Peer Evaluation Process for Probationary Faculty

This comprises an assessment of the peer evaluation procedures including the visitation team, the documentation, the pre-observation conference, and the feedback supplied to the faculty member.

(February 21,1995)

(Amended November 1996)

(Revised August 1998)

Attachment:  Implementation Procedure for End-of-the-Semester Teaching Evaluation

(November 1996)

The William States Lee College of Engineering

MEASURING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT USING

END-OF-SEMESTER TEACHING EVALUATIONS

Implementation Procedure Attachment to the

Guidelines and Procedures for Teaching Enhancement

(November 1996)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.  Introduction

II. End-of-Semester Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

III. Measuring the Learning Environment

I.  INTRODUCTION

The learning environment should be one that fosters personal and interpersonal growth and development.  A fertile learning environment produces a climate, which actively cultivates receptive minds with the goal of having individuals, groups and even organizations reach their full potential.

The curriculum revisions that have recently been approved and are currently being implemented in The William States Lee College of Engineering are the beginning of what is likely to result in profound change in the way we develop and deliver a competitive, comprehensive educational experience to our students.  Research done by National Training Laboratories (NTL) of Bethel, Maine, for example, indicates that students only retain an average of 5% of what is presented through lecture format.  If lectures are combined with reading, audio-visuals and demonstration of material, the average retention by students increases to 30%.  According to NTL, the remaining 70% of the material "missed" by the students represents a learning gap, which must be overcome using discussion groups, practice sessions and peer-to-peer teaching.  Thus, it is important that we monitor the impact these curriculum changes are having on the learning environment and what, if any, new pedagogical techniques are facilitating student learning.

II. END-OF-SEMESTER STUDENT EVALUATION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS

End-of-semester evaluations will be conducted for each lecture and laboratory section taught.  The evaluation will be done in the absence of the instructor at the beginning or end of class by a student or faculty/staff member.  A cafeteria-style survey will be used for all end-of-semester evaluations so that both qualitative and quantitative feedback may be obtained.  Results of the evaluation will be provided directly to the faculty member under review and his/her department chair to identify opportunities for improvement as well as used as input into all promotion, tenure and salary reviews.

II.1 Procedure for Conducting End-of-Semester Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

(1) The department chair notifies all faculty members that end-of-semester evaluations are due by a specified date.

(2) Two weeks prior to the deadline for conducting the evaluations, the chair delivers a package to / the faculty member which includes the cafeteria questionnaires, "bubble" (op scan) sheets and a suggested "script" which may be used as a communication tool/reference (see pages 4-5, respectively.)

(3) The faculty member reserves some time at the beginning or end of a class to conduct the evaluation.

(4) The faculty member explains the purpose of the evaluation and how it will be conducted. (Reference the suggested script.)

(5) The faculty member asks for a volunteer {or selects a student) to collect the results. During normal office hours (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.) the student delivers the completed bubble sheets and written comments in a sealed envelope to the department secretary.  If the evaluations are completed after 5:00 p.m., the student delivers them in a sealed envelope to the Central Office (open until 7:00 p.m.) or to a lock box if available.

(6) The department forwards the bubble sheets to Academic Assessment to be scanned and summarized.

(7) All written comments are typed by the department secretary in order to maintain confidentiality.

(8) The results of the evaluation are provided to the faculty member under review and his/her chair and a record is kept in the department office.

(9) After reviewing the results, the faculty member and/or the department chair may use the feedback to develop a personal plan for improvement.

End-of-semester evaluations must be conducted in the absence of the faculty member under review. Results are used as input into promotion, tenure and salary reviews.

The William States Lee College of Engineering Survey of Teaching Effectiveness includes:

15    questions (#1 - #15) chosen by the College's task force on teaching enhancement (CAFETERIA catalog)

10    optional questions (#16 - #25) selected by the department

4     standard questions (#26 - #29) required by the University

-------

29    total questions

III. MEASURING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT THROUGH END-OF-SEMESTER TEACHING EVALUATIONS  

SPART recommends that question #10 on the Study Survey of Teaching Effectiveness, i.e. "The climate of this classroom is conducive to learning", be used as an indicator to assess the learning environment in the College of Engineering. In addition, in an effort to more fully understand what other factors influence and facilitate learning as well as create a positive learning environment, SPART will also track the following:

• class size
• time of day the class is taught
• day of week the class is taught
• format of the class (i.e., lecture, lab, etc.) required vs. elective course
• classroom (location, facilities, etc.)

As SPART uncovers the factors that most influence student learning this information will be shared with the college faculty for the purpose of discussion, feedback and improvement.

The process for conducting end-of-semester course evaluations as outlined by the University requires that all bubble sheets be forwarded to Academic Assessment so that department-specific, college- specific and university-wide results may be collected and analyzed.

THE WILLIAM STATES LEE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

"SUGGESTED SCRIPT"

for

Cafeteria-Style Survey for End-of-Semester Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

Instructor to Students:

"Please take some time today/tonight to evaluate this course and my performance as an instructor.  I have a questionnaire and bubble sheets for you to respond on.  If you have any additional comments you would like to make, feel free to write them on the questionnaire or your own paper and be sure to turn them in with the completed survey.  If you need a #2 pencil have some here that I can let you use.  All feedback from the questionnaire will be confidential -that is, I won't know who filled out the op scan sheet because I will leave the room while you complete it.  Your comments will be typed by a secretary so that I will never see the original written comments.  Can I have a volunteer to collect the surveys and comments and deliver them in a sealed envelope to the department?  After I have turned in the final grades for this particular course, the department chair and I will review the results of the questionnaire.  I'll use your feedback to make appropriate improvements for the next time I teach this course.  Thank you for your help."

THE WILLIAM STATES LEE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Student Survey of Teaching Effectiveness

(Revised June 2001)

Please rate your responses to the following using the following scale:

1 2                             3                          4                               5

strongly agree                            somewhat agree                              strongly disagree

1. My instructor displays a clear understanding of course topics.

2. My instructor has an effective style of presentation.

3. My instructor seems well prepared for class.

4. My instructor displays enthusiasm when teaching.

5. This course has effectively challenged me to think.

6. My instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.

7. My instructor is readily available for consultation.

8. My instructor returns papers quickly enough to benefit me.

9. I feel free to ask questions in this class.

10. The climate of this class is conducive to learning.

11. Lecture information is highly relevant to course objectives.

12. There is sufficient time in class for questions and discussion.

13. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.

14. I am generally pleased with the text(s) required for this course.

15. Course topics are dealt with in sufficient depth.

(Optional: Insert 10 questions selected by the department.)

26. Overall, this course is among the best I have ever taken.

27. Overall, this instructor is among the best teachers I have known.

28.  Overall, this instructor was effective

29. Overall, I learned a lot in this course.

Additional Comments: