should be accorded the same administrative and collegial support that is available for other research and service endeavors. Faculty who wish to pursue scholarly work by improving teaching or engaging in educational research should be expected to conform to standards of quality similar to those for other types of scholarship (see Box 5-1 in Chapter 5). They also should be rewarded in ways that are comparable to those associated with other forms of scholarship during personnel decisions on such matters as tenure, promotion, and merit increases in salary.

(1.3) Valid summative assessments of teaching should not rely only on student evaluations, but should include peer reviews and teaching portfolios used for promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review.1Such assessments should be designed to provide fair and objective information to aid faculty in the improvement of their teaching. Building consensus among faculty, providing necessary resources, and relying on the best available research on teaching, learning, and measurement are critical for this approach to evaluation.

As discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, teaching portfolios, including a careful self-evaluation by the person being evaluated, can be an important tool for documenting a faculty member’s accomplishments in facilitating student learning and academic achievement. Such portfolios can be used for performing summative evaluation, but equally important, for maintaining a record of personal accomplishments and teaching issues that can serve as the basis for ongoing professional development.

Regardless of whether formalized teaching portfolios are required for evaluation of teaching, faculty should collect a broad array of evidence of teaching effectiveness that can be used for both formative and summative evaluations. This evidence could include, but not be limited to, the following:

  • Covering content at a level appropriate to course goals (particularly for a course in a vertical sequence).

1  

Other organizations, such as the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), are currently engaged in efforts to explore issues associated with post-tenure review of faculty, including the effectiveness of their teaching. Therefore, the committee did not consider this issue in detail and offers no specific recommendations about policies for post-tenure review of faculty. Additional information about the program at AAHE and its recent publications on this issue (e.g., Licata and Morreale, 1997, 2002) is available at <http://www.aahe.org/Bulletin/aprilf1.htm>. Links to numerous other resources and policy statements on post-tenure review at individual colleges and universities are available at <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=post-tenure+review>.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement