Auburn Academe

The Newsletter of the Auburn Chapter of the American Association of University Professors

Volume 12 Number 1 Fall 2000

Open Forum

Effective Teaching: What Is It? How Can We Assess It?

November 2, 2000

4:00 P.M.

206 Tichenor

President's Notes

by George Crandell

The use of student evaluations to assess teaching effectiveness is a subject that invites spirited debate. In a recent article in Academe, Paul Trout contends that the routine use of student evaluations poses a "powerful threat to academic standards." Writing in the ADE Bulletin, Susan Kress counters that "[c]ourse evaluations are a necessary and effective part of the assessment of good teaching."

The debate about the use of student evaluations raises another set of important questions: What do we mean by "teaching?" Is teaching, for example, limited to classroom or laboratory instruction? And what do we mean by "good" or "effective" teaching?

Trout contends that there is "no scholarly consensus . . . about what"good" or "effective" teaching is," so he asks: "How can any form gauge the "effectiveness" of classroom instruction, when we have no cogent definition of what is being measured?" Other writers contest Trout's claim, pointing to "over twenty years of research into what makes teaching effective." Candace W. Burns, for instance, highlights the work of Harry Murray and Herbert Marsh, whose studies indicate "that successful professors share certain characteristics" and that teachers "tend to fail and excel on the same characteristics from year to year."

Despite crucial differences of opinion, Trout and Kress agree that student evaluations alone are inadequate to assess teaching effectiveness. As alternative measures, Trout proposes that "[n]arrative evaluations, self-evaluations, peer visitation and review, and intensive focus-group interviews are more than adequate for monitoring classroom instruction." Citing some of the same methods, Kress "emphasize[s] that evaluation by peers and colleagues through class visits and review of teaching materials are essential to the total evaluation process."

Supposing that multiple measures of teaching effectiveness are put into place, will the result be improved teaching? According to Kathryn T. Flannery and John Centra, the answer is "Yes." Flannery (quoting Centra) writes that "a wider array of evaluation and improvement practices are likely to have a greater impact on the quality of teaching" than any mandatory student evaluation alone. Indeed, if the goal of assessment is improved teaching, then Trout has a plethora of suggestions: "have smaller classes, periodically solicit written comments from students, offer fewer lectures and more group discussions, create a professional development program (including seminars, a resource center, and mentoring), and develop a university system that rewards classroom rigor at each stage of an instructor's career (complete with cash awards, grants, and sabbaticals to study and improve pedagogy)."

For teaching to improve, "teachers [must also] value the information gathered and respect the sources used." Institutional support is also essential. As Flannery points out, "when teachers and administrators are in dialogue about teaching and when institutional support of teaching is recognizably present, motivation to improve teaching is more likely."

Aiming to initiate such a dialogue, the Auburn Chapter of the AAUP is sponsoring an open forum on the topic of "Effective Teaching: What Is It? and How Do We Assess It?" Please join us on Thursday, November 2, 2000 from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. in Tichenor 206. A panel of four teachers will make brief presentations, to be followed by an open forum discussion. The panel features Paula Backscheider, Philpott West Point Stevens Eminent Scholar in English; Jeffrey Fergus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Chair of the Teaching Effectiveness Committee; Philip Lewis, Professor of Psychology; and Philip Shevlin, Mosley Professor of Sciences and Chemistry.

The forum is free and open to the public.

Works Cited

Burns, Candace W. "Another Perspective: Are teaching portfolios a scam? They're time-consuming to put together, and we don't know if they improve teaching." Academe 86.1 (2000): 44-45.

Flannery, Kathryn T. "Contextualizing Course Evaluations: Using Students' Self-Evaluation." ADE Bulletin 126 (Fall 2000): 53-57.

Kress, Susan. "Course Evaluations: The Roles and Needs of Students, Faculty Members, and Administrators." ADE Bulletin 126 (Fall 2000): 48-52.

Trout, Paul. "Flunking the Test: The Dismal Record of Student Evaluations." Academe 86.4 (2000): 58-61.

The Short History and Meager Outcomes of Administrator Evaluations

By Barry Burkhart

The result of the first meaningful evaluation of an administrator at Auburn belies the title of this essay. This evaluation was the attempt by the University Senate to confirm what was known clearly in the halls; that the then President of Auburn, Hanley Funderburk, did not enjoy the confidence of the faculty and staff of the institution. In fact, the results were so unambiguous that the process led to a vote of no confidence in the administration followed by Funderburk's resignation from the office. The "evaluation" was not an attempt to assess the President's performance with the intention that his strengths and weaknesses would be provided as information which would allow him to become a more effective administrator. In all candor, it was the faculty's attempt to bring empirical recognition to their concerns, concerns which were being stonewalled by the Board of Trustees. As one of the members of the Committee to Evaluate the President, I can now recognize that this first evaluation was exceptional, and would not and should not become the precedent for the institution even as I acknowledge its validity for that time. However, looking back, I also see that some of the context for that process has been carried forward into our present evaluation process and, it is my contention, does not serve us well as we attempt to develop a useful and valid way to evaluate administrators.

Among the legacies of that exceptional evaluation is that the process of evaluation has an adversarial ring to it. Often, the unstated but felt belief is that the evaluation of administrators is a way to redress the imbalance of power between the faculty and administrators. It is a way to tell "them" how dissatisfied "we" are about how "they" are running the place. This legacy has several unintended and unfortunate outcomes. The first is that, when the faculty are not extremely distressed, they simply don't choose to participate in the evaluation process. Return rates for the last several evaluations have been embarrassingly poor. Moreover, those who participate are seen as having an ax to grind. Thus, not much trust is placed in the results by those administrators who are to use the data. Thus a corollary of the legacy from this exceptional beginning is that the possibility that an evaluation could be a constructive, even positive, event is not genuinely expected by any of the participants. Additionally, I think that this exceptional beginning has locked us in a methodological box which prevents the development of a modern, well-constructed evaluation procedure which would serve the purposes of providing feedback and guidance to administrators. The box we are in has to do with the idea that all faculty members should evaluate all administrators, a process which contributes to the low response rate for evaluations. Faculty wisely don't respond in the absence of personal information, and administrators distrust the data because of the poor response rate and their recognition that the data are unlikely to be representative or reliable. In fact, a senior member of the administration has confirmed that there is little faith in the current system and the administration would be open to any faculty initiative to develop a new system.

I would encourage the Senate to begin such an initiative. Evaluation and feedback are important and potentially useful to the management of the institution. At the invitation of the AAUP Executive Committee, I recently outlined a draft of what a new system might look like. This suggested proposal is only intended to be a starting point for the development of a more articulated plan by the Senate. However, it does seem to me to be an improvement over the most recent evaluations.

Proposal for administrator evaluations:

Every second or third year, each dean and department head will be evaluated by a panel of senior faculty members (3-5) selected from the school or departmental unit supervised by the administrator. The evaluators will be nominated and elected by their peers in the unit. Evaluators must hold tenure to be eligible to serve. The evaluation team would be charged to conduct a full evaluation of the administrator using data from multiple sources and collected via multiple methods (survey, focus groups, interviews with stakeholders in the unit, and document review) and prepare reports which would be provided to the administrator and to his or her respective supervisors. The report would be structured to respond to the duties outlined in the administrator's job description. It might be wise to develop a standard report protocol so as to insure some comparative uniformity across the different units.

SUPPORT AMENDMENT 5!

By George Crandell

On November 7th, Alabama voters will have an opportunity to shape the future of Auburn University in a positive way. The Auburn Chapter of the AAUP urges registered voters to approve Amendment 5, which will expand the size of the Auburn Board of Trustees and limit the terms of its members.

The Auburn Chapter has supported efforts to make Auburn's Board of Trustees more representative and more responsive. The most positive outcome of this effort so far has been the "Proposed Statewide Amendment Number 5." If the amendment passes on November 7th, and we certainly hope that it will, then "the Board of Trustees of Auburn University shall be composed of one member from each of the congressional districts in the state as constituted on January 1, 1961, one member from Lee County, the current State Superintendent of Education, who upon leaving office shall be replaced by an at-large member, two other at-large members, and the Governor." Amendment 5 will also serve "to specify the method of appointment and service duration; and to provide for limited seven-year terms of office."

After the election, we will continue our efforts to influence the choice of qualified board members. We are especially concerned that women and minorities be represented on the governing board. The absence of a woman from Auburn University's Board of Trustees, for instance, is a glaring omission. Despite more than one opportunity to do so, Governor Don Siegelman has, so far, neglected to appoint a qualified woman to Auburn's Board.

Faculty representation on the Board of Trustees is also a matter of serious concern to AAUP members at Auburn as it is at other institutions in the state. Since the Auburn Board already includes two non-voting students representatives (the Student Government Association presidents from Auburn University and Auburn University at Montgomery) a similar case might be made for a non-voting faculty representative. Indeed, both faculty members and representatives from AAUP have proposed this idea to Board members. To approve a seat for a non-voting faculty member would not be without precedent in Alabama. Recently, the Board of Trustees at Alabama A & M University approved a non-voting Board seat for the University's Senate President. We hope that Auburn's trustees will follow the lead of Alabama A & M and include a non-voting faculty member on the Board.

We strive at Auburn for a partnership among faculty, students, administrators, and Board members who believe that the education of our students is our highest priority. Securing representation for faculty, women, and minorities on governing boards where students are already represented will enable these groups to work more harmoniously together.

We appeal to you to support our efforts and to vote to approve Amendment 5 on November 7th.

Detailed information regarding payment of dues can be found at /academic/societies/aaup/dues.htm.