National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix D: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

Index

A

AAAS. See American Association for the Advancement of Science

AAHE. See American Association for Higher Education

ABET. See Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology

Academic advising, 113

Academic freedom

protecting students’, 31

Accountability

calls for, 12-13

Accreditation agencies and boards

revising policies to emphasize quality undergraduate learning as a primary criterion for program accreditation, 7, 127

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) , 49, 109

Active learning strategies

promoting, 29

Ad hoc committees on teaching effectiveness, 93-95

Adjustments

in expected learning outcomes, 73

Administration of forms in class

standardizing procedures for, 143

AERA. See American Educational Research Association

Alumni

data for evaluating teaching quality and effectiveness from, 60

Alverno College, 52n

American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), 30, 48, 61, 65, 109, 119

Campus Program initiative, 123

Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards, 13n

Making Teaching Community Property: A Menu for Peer Collaboration and Peer Review,86

projects of, 86

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 110

American Chemical Society, 46, 109

American Educational Research Association (AERA), 55

American Geophysical Union

Shaping the Future of Undergraduate Earth Science Education,47

American Institute for Biological Sciences, 47

American Institute of Physics, 47

American Mathematical Society, 46

American Mathematics Association of Two Year Colleges, 46

American Physical Society, 47

American Psychological Association (APA), 49, 55

Analysis of particular strengths and weaknesses of the teaching, 93

Answering students’ questions, 28

APA. See American Psychological Association

Application of formative evidence about student learning

to departmental programs, 2

Applications of research, 18-19, 69-127

evaluation methodologies, 18, 71-99

evaluation of departmental undergraduate programs, 18-19, 108-114

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

evaluation of individual faculty, 18-19, 100-107

into human cognition and learning, 111

recommendations from, 4-8, 115-127

Appropriateness of assessment practices, 30, 103-104

assessing learning in ways consistent with the objectives of a course, 30

data sources and forms of evaluation for evaluating proficiency in, 104

determining students’ knowledge accurately and fairly, 30

knowing whether students are learning what is being taught, 30

for testing student learning of specified knowledge, 73

Assessment Forum: Nine Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning,32-35

Assessment of Student Achievement in Undergraduate Education, 48

Assessment of student learning, 112.

See also Appropriateness of assessment practices

consistent with the objectives of a course, 30

more than grades, 72

nature and quality of, 25

using results to provide formative feedback to individual students, 73

Assignments

appropriateness of, 93

Assistance

to students with academic difficulties, 29

B

Bias

in undergraduate student evaluations, 58-60

Boyer Commission on Educating

Undergraduates in the Research

University, 40-41, 110

Brigham Young University, 64n

C

Campus-wide centers for teaching and learning

providing opportunities for ongoing professional development, 5-6, 122-123

Career planning, 113

Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 86

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 47, 77, 86, 123, 145, 147-150

Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence

Teaching Improvement Form—Discussion Courses, 160-162

Teaching Improvement Form—Laboratory Courses, 157-159

Teaching Improvement Form—Lecture Courses, 153-156

Centers for Learning and Teaching program, 127n

Centers for teaching and learning

providing opportunities for ongoing professional development, 5-6, 122-123

Change, 12-15

in the appearance of higher education facilities, 25

calls for accountability from outside of academe, 12

calls for accountability from within academe, 12-13

challenges of, 14-15

in evaluation and documentation of teaching, 25

Classroom observation

data for evaluating teaching quality and effectiveness from, 63-64

Colleagues. See also Formative evaluation by faculty colleagues

data for evaluating teaching quality and effectiveness from, 61-63

evaluation questionnaires, 95-96

evidence about student learning from, 3

College Student Report 2001, The

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 147-150

Pew Forum on Undergraduate Education, 147-150

Cooperation

interdepartmental, in improving undergraduate STEM education, 114

Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, 47

Course characteristics

considering in interpretations, 142

Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program, 54n

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

Course materials

evaluation of, 63

Cultures of research and teaching, 18, 40-50

balancing preparation for careers in research and teaching, 43-46

developing and implementing improved means for evaluating effective teaching and learning, 50

increasing support for effective teaching by professional organizations, 46-49

Curriculum design

becoming inseparable from teaching and learning, 25

the collective responsibility of faculty in all departments, 2, 15, 116

D

Data sources for evaluation, 54-67

of course materials, 63

faculty colleagues, 61-63

graduating seniors and alumni, 60

institutional data and records, 66-67

instructional contributions, 63

of knowledge and enthusiasm for subject matter, 102

of professional involvement and contributions, 107

of professionalism with students within and beyond the classroom, 106

of proficiency in assessment, 104

self-assessment by faculty, 64-66

of skill in and experience with appropriate pedagogies and technologies, 103

students in classroom observations, 63-64

teaching assistants, 60-61

undergraduate student evaluations, 54-60

Department heads

providing personnel recommendations containing separate ratings on teaching, research, and service, 7, 125

Departmental and institutional records, 53

number and levels of courses taught and number of students enrolled in each course or section taught by the instructor over time, 53

number of graduate students mentored in their preparation as teaching assistants or future faculty members and their effectiveness in teaching, 53

number of undergraduate students advised, mentored, or supervised by the faculty member, 53

number of undergraduate students guided in original or applied research by the faculty member, 53

Departmental undergraduate programs. See Evaluation of departmental undergraduate programs

Departments. See also Graduate school faculties contributing to campus-wide awareness of the premium placed on improved teaching, 6-7, 125

establishing panels on teaching effectiveness and expectations, 98

evidence about student learning from, 3

periodically reviewing their mission statement to include appropriate emphasis on teaching and student learning, 6, 124

practicing the scholarship of teaching, 88

providing funds to faculty to enhance teaching skills and knowledge, 7, 125-126

supporting faculty moving to greater emphasis on instruction or educational leadership, 7, 126

Disciplinary-focused centers for teaching and learning

providing opportunities for ongoing professional development, 5-6, 122-123

Discussion

encouraging, 29

Diversity

seen as asset-based, 25

E

Educational community

involving representatives from across, 34

Educational Resources Information Center, 54n

Educational Testing Service, 145, 151-152

Educational values

beginning with, 33

Effective undergraduate teaching, 18, 25-39.

See also Teaching effectiveness

challenges to, 32-39

characteristics of, 27-31

engaging students in original research, 38-39

ensuring availability for all students, 2, 15, 116

improving the assessment of learning outcomes, 32, 35-36

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

limitations on faculty knowledge of research about, 39

predictions about, 25

principles of good practice for assessing student learning, 33-35

providing engaging laboratory and field experiences, 37-38

teaching a broad range and large numbers of students, 36-37

End-of-Semester Course Evaluation Forms, 164-165, 178-182

Enhancement of teaching and learning, 111-113

applying research on human cognition and learning, 111

assessing student learning, 112

emphasizing improved teaching and learning in introductory and lower division courses, 112

employing effective pedagogy, 111

engaging student interest in the department’s curricular offerings, 111

incorporating advances in the discipline and related subject areas, 112-113

providing academic advising and career planning, 113

Enthusiasm for subject matter, 27-28, 101

conveying infectious, 28

data sources and forms of evaluation for evaluating, 102

genuine interest in what is being taught, 28

Ethical standards

upholding and modeling for students the best in, 31

Evaluation methodologies, 18, 71-99.

See also Implementation of evaluation methodologies;

Self-assessment

addressing the concerns of those critical of undergraduate teaching and learning, 17

advancing and rewarding teaching scholarship, 17

evaluating the scholarship of teaching, 87-89

formative evaluation by faculty colleagues, 83-86, 93-96

formative evaluation by graduate teaching assistants, 83, 92-93

formative evaluation by undergraduate students, 76-77, 91-92

improving teaching by examining student learning, 73-76

using several sets of results, 142

Evaluation of course materials

data for evaluating teaching quality and effectiveness from, 63

Evaluation of departmental undergraduate programs, 18-19, 108-114

ability to enhance teaching and learning in classrooms and other venues, 111-113

efforts to improve teaching laboratories and other undergraduate research experiences, 113-114

interdepartmental cooperation in improving undergraduate STEM education, 114

Evaluation of individual faculty, 18-19, 100-107

involvement with and contributing to one’s own profession in enhancing teaching and learning, 31, 106-107

knowledge of and enthusiasm for subject matter, 27-28, 101-102

professional interactions with students within and beyond the classroom, 30-31, 104-106

proficiency in assessment, 104

skill, experience, and creativity with a range of appropriate pedagogies and technologies, 28-30, 101-103

understanding of and skill in using appropriate assessment practices, 30, 103-104

Evaluation of teaching in STEM disciplines, 18-19, 51-67, 69-127

the collective responsibility of faculty in all departments, 2, 15, 116

of departmental undergraduate programs, 18-19, 108-114

developing and implementing improved means for, 50

general principles and overall findings, 51-54

input from students and peers, 52-53

methodologies, 18, 71-99

recommendations, 4-8, 115-127

review of departmental and institutional records, 53

review of the faculty member’s teaching portfolio and other documentation, 54

specific sources of data for, 54-67

Evaluation of the scholarship on teaching, 87-89

adequate preparation, 87

appropriate methods, 87

clear goals, 87

departments that practice the scholarship of teaching, 88

dimensions of the scholarship of teaching, 88 effective presentation, 87

institutions that practice the scholarship of teaching, 89

reflective critique, 87

significant results, 87

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

Evidence of faculty member’s effectiveness

adaptation of instructional techniques to improve student learning, 54

participation in efforts to strengthen departmental or institutional curricula, 54

Evidence of student learning, 1-4

from combined sources of evidence, 3

from departments and other colleagues, 3

from faculty members being evaluated, 3

from graduate students, 3

from institutional data and records, 3-4

from the instructor’s willingness to seek external support to improve teaching and learning, 3

from student portfolios, 52

from undergraduates and graduate teaching assistants, 3

Expectations

of student learning outcomes for an individual course of study, 73

of teaching assistants, appropriateness of, 93

for those being evaluated to respond to evaluation results, 143-144

F

Facilitation of learning

through metacognitive strategies that identify, monitor, and regulate cognitive practices, 21

through socially supported interactions, 22

when new and existing knowledge is structured around major concepts and principles of the discipline, 20

Faculty. See also Colleagues;

Evaluation of individual faculty;

Graduate school faculties;

Self-assessment

encouraging to develop curricula that transcend disciplinary boundaries through a combination of incentives, 6, 124

evidence about student learning from, 3

expecting to contribute to a balanced program of undergraduate teaching, 6, 124-125

guiding information searches, 28

having a genuine interest in what is being taught, 28

involvement in a larger set of conditions that promote change, 34-35

involvement in enhancing teaching and learning, 31, 106-107

making clear how results of student evaluations will be used, 141

meeting all classes and labs, posting and keeping regular office hours, and holding exams as scheduled, 31

meeting responsibilities to students and to the public, 35

participation in seeking external support for activities that further the teaching mission, 54

publicly recognizing and rewarding those who have excelled in teaching, 6, 123-124

rewarding for consistent improving of learning by both major and nonmajor students, 5, 120-121

supporting and mentoring those working with undergraduates throughout their careers, 2

supporting in their obligation to improve their teaching skills through departmental and institutional reinforcement, 5, 121

using outcomes of effective formative and summative assessments of student learning to improve their teaching, 17

willingness to seek external support to improve teaching and learning, 3

Faculty Code of Conduct Manual,31n

Faculty Information Form for Student Evaluations, 168-169

Faculty teaching portfolios, 54

evidence of adaptation of instructional techniques to improve student learning, 54

evidence of participation in efforts to strengthen departmental or institutional curricula, 54

including in valid summative assessments of teaching, 4-5, 119-120

sharing of, 97-98

showing participation in seeking external support for activities that further the teaching mission, 54

Feedback

for both instructors and students, 72

from graduating seniors and alumni, 98

Formative evaluation by faculty colleagues, 83-86, 93-96

ad hoc committees on teaching effectiveness, 93-95

colleagues’ evaluation questionnaires, 95-96

discussions between the department chair and individual faculty members, 97

observation, 84-85

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

from other institutions, 85-86

role in “formal” formative evaluation, 85-86

Formative evaluation by graduate teaching assistants, 83, 92-93

analysis of particular strengths and weaknesses of the teaching, 93

appropriateness of the instructor’s assignments and expectations of the teaching assistants, 93

asking teaching assistants to review examinations and quizzes before they are given to students, 83

encouraging teaching assistants to provide information throughout the term about difficulties students may be having, 83

extent to which working with the instructor contributed to the teaching assistant’s own professional development, 93

overall judgment of the faculty member’s teaching effectiveness, 93

soliciting constructive suggestions from teaching assistants, 83

Formative evaluation by undergraduate students, 76-77, 91-92

chain notes, 80

direct questioning of students, 78-79

index cards, 81

informal conversations, 80

minute papers and just-in-time teaching, 79

outside evaluators, 81

repeated measurements of student learning and teaching effectiveness, 77-78

response to students’ concerns, 82

Small Group Instruction Diagnosis,81-82

student study groups, 80

student teams, 79-80

students’ course notes, 80

Formative evaluations, 1-2

Formative evidence about student learning, 1-2

applying to departmental programs, 2

benefits of, 16-17

coupling with opportunities for ongoing professional development, 1

effectiveness for summative evaluation, 17

supporting faculty wishing to explore the scholarship of teaching and learning, 1-2

using for summative evaluation, 17

Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards, 13n

Funding agencies

supporting programs to enable an integrated network of national and campus-based centers for teaching and learning, 7-8, 126-127

G

Global evaluations and estimates of learning for personnel decisions, 142-143

Grade distributions, 66-67

Graduate school faculties

effectively mentoring their teaching assistants and advising them about their duties to undergraduate students, 6, 124

Graduate teaching assistants. See also Formative evaluation by graduate teaching assistants

asked to review examinations and quizzes before they are given to students, 83

data for evaluating teaching quality and effectiveness from, 60-61

evidence about student learning from, 3

providing information throughout the term about difficulties students may be having, 83

Graduating seniors

data for evaluating teaching quality and effectiveness from, 60

Guidelines for the use of student evaluations, 141-144

considering some course characteristics in interpretations, 142

emphasizing global evaluations and estimates of learning for personnel decisions, 142-143

expecting those being evaluated to respond to evaluation results, 143-144

having a sufficient number of students evaluate each course, 142

limiting the use of rating forms, 144

making clear to faculty and students how results of student evaluations will be used, 141

not overestimating small differences, 142

using comparative data, 142

using several sets of evaluation results, 142

using standardized procedures for administering forms in class, 143

using student evaluation as only one piece of relevant information from several sources, 141-142

H

Hampshire College, 178-184

End-of-Semester Course Evaluation Forms, 178-182

Instructor Objectives Report, 183-184

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

Harvard University Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, 163-165

End-of-Semester Course Evaluation Form, 164-165

Mid-Course Evaluation Form, 163

How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School,14

Howard Hughes Medical Institution, 48

I

Implementation of evaluation methodologies, 96-99

departmental panels on teaching effectiveness and expectations, 98

feedback from graduating seniors and alumni, 98

formative discussions between the department chair and individual faculty members, 97

helpful policies and procedures, 96-97

legal considerations, 98-99

oversight committee to monitor departmental curriculum and instruction, 98

regular meetings between new faculty members and the department chair, 97

sharing faculty-generated teaching portfolios, 97-98

Independent research

encouraging students to engage in, 113-114

Informal conversations, 80

Input from students and peers, 52-53

evidence of learning from student portfolios, 52

faculty from “user” departments for service courses and from related disciplines for interdisciplinary courses, 52-53

informed opinions of other members of the faculty member’s department, 52

summary of professional attainments of undergraduate students engaging in research under the faculty member being evaluated, 53

undergraduate and graduate students, 53

undergraduate and graduate teaching assistants, 53

Institutional data and records, 66-67

data for evaluating teaching quality and effectiveness from, 66-67

evidence about student learning from, 3-4

grade distributions, course retention, and subsequent enrollment figures, 66-67

quality and performance of undergraduate research students, 67

Instructional contributions

data for evaluating teaching quality and effectiveness from, 63

Instructor Objectives Report, 183-184

Integrated learning, 33

Intellectual development of individual students contributions to ongoing, 31

Interdepartmental cooperation

in improving undergraduate STEM education, 114

International Technology Education Association (ITEA), 110

ITEA. See International Technology Education Association

J

Just-in-time teaching, 79

K

Kansas State University IDEA Center, 166-177

Faculty Information Form for Student Evaluations, 168-169

Sample Results of Student Evaluations, 170-177

Student Reactions to Instruction and Courses, 166-167

Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment,15

Knowledge of subject matter, 27-28, 101

answering students’ questions and guiding information searches, 28

data sources and forms of evaluation for evaluating, 102

helping students learn and understand the general principles of their discipline, 28

providing students with an overview of the whole domain of the discipline, 28

staying current through an active research program or through scholarly reading, 28

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

L

Learners

bringing different strategies, approaches, patterns of abilities, and learning styles, 21

motivation to learn and sense of self affecting what and how much is learned and how much effort is put into learning, 21-22

using what they already know to construct new understandings, 20

Learning process. See also Facilitation of learning;

Principles of learning

as multidimensional, integrated, and revealed in performance over time, 33

promoting active, 29

viewing as a joint venture with the students, 29

Legal considerations, 98-99

Limitations

on faculty knowledge of research on effective teaching, 39

on the use of rating forms, 144

M

Making Teaching Community Property: A Menu for Peer Collaboration and Peer Review,86

Master Faculty Program, 85

Mathematical Association of America, 46, 109

Mentoring

of faculty by other faculty, 85

Mid-Course Evaluation Form, 163

Minute papers, 79

Miracosta Community College, 81n

Multidimensional learning, 33

N

National Center for Education Statistics, 35

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 12

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 46, 110

National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), 55

National Institute for Science Education, 30, 72, 76

National Research Council (NRC), 1, 11, 15, 26, 35

National Science Board, 11

National Science Education Standards,35, 37n

National Science Foundation (NSF), 11, 29n

Assessment of Student Achievement in Undergraduate Education, 48

Centers for Learning and Teaching program, 127n

Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program, 54n

Shaping the Future,108

National Survey of Student Engagement: The College Student Report,77

National Teaching and Learning Forum, 81n

NCME. See National Council on Measurement in Education

NCTM. See National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

New faculty members

regular meetings with the department chair, 97

New scholarship on teaching, 25

NRC. See National Research Council

NSF. See National Science Foundation

O

Observation, 84-85

Outcomes assessment, 73-76

adjusting expected learning outcomes as appropriate, 73

benefits of, 75-76

determining when in a student’s education specific knowledge and skills should be developed, 73

developing expected student learning outcomes for an individual course of study, 73

incorporating specified learning outcomes in statements of objectives for courses , 73

scoring, 74-75

selecting appropriate assessment strategies to test student learning of specified knowledge, 73

using to provide formative feedback to individual students, 73

Outside evaluators, 81

Oversight committee

to monitor departmental curriculum and instruction, 98

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

P

Pedagogical content knowledge, 16n

Pedagogies and technologies

ability to recognize students not achieving to their fullest potential and assisting them in their academic difficulties, 29

contextually appropriate, 29n

data sources and forms of evaluation for evaluating skill in and experience with, 103

enabling teaching, 25

encouraging discussion and promoting active learning strategies, 29

organized and clear communication to students of expectations for learning and academic achievement, 29

persistently monitoring students’ progress toward achieving learning goals, 29

skill, experience, and creativity with a range of appropriate, 28-30, 101-103

viewing the learning process as a joint venture with the students, 29

Peer reviews of teaching

including in valid summative assessments of teaching, 4-5, 119-120

providing both objective and subjective assessment of a faculty member’s commitment to quality teaching , 7, 125

Pew Charitable Trust, 48

Pew Forum on Undergraduate Education, 147-150

Pew Forum on Undergraduate Learning, 77, 145

Portfolio Clearinghouse, The, 65

Portfolios. See Faculty teaching portfolios

Predictions about undergraduate teaching, 25

changes in evaluation and documentation of teaching, 25

changing appearance of higher education facilities, 25

curriculum and program design becoming inseparable from teaching and learning, 25

diversity seen as asset-based, 25

focus of teaching shifting away from content transmission, 25

nature and quality of assessment, 25

a new scholarship of teaching, 25

pedagogies students experienced prior to college changing their expectations about good teaching, 25

teaching becoming more public than ever before, 25

technology enabling teaching, 25

Preparation

adequacy of, 87

of future teachers, 32

Preparing for Peer Evaluation,95

Primary trait analysis

in scoring outcome assessments, 74-75

Principles of good practice for assessing student learning , 33-35

educational values, 33

illuminating questions people really care about, 34

involving a larger set of conditions that promote change, 34-35

involving representatives from across the educational community, 34

meeting responsibilities to students and to the public, 35

ongoing, not episodic, 34

paying attention to outcomes and equally to the experiences leading to them, 33

programs with clear, explicitly stated purposes, 33

understanding learning as multidimensional, integrated, and revealed in performance over time, 33

Principles of learning, 20-22

effect of learners’ motivation to learn and sense of self on what and how much is learned and how much effort is put into learning, 21-22

effect of the practices and activities engaged in while learning on what is learned, 22

enhancement of learning through socially supported interactions, 22

facilitation of learning through metacognitive strategies that identify, monitor, and regulate cognitive practices, 21

facilitation of learning with understanding when new and existing knowledge is structured around major concepts and principles of the discipline, 20

learners’ different strategies, approaches, patterns of abilities, and learning styles coming from their heredity and prior experiences, 21

learners’ use of what they already know to construct new understandings, 20

Professional interactions with students, 30-31, 104-106

advising students experiencing problems with course material , 31

contributing to the ongoing intellectual development of individual students, 31

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

data sources and forms of evaluation for evaluating professionalism with students within and beyond the classroom, 106

demonstrating respect for students as individuals and respecting their privacy, 31

encouraging the free pursuit of learning and protecting students’ academic freedom, 31

meeting all classes and labs, posting and keeping regular office hours, and holding exams as scheduled, 31

upholding and modeling for students the best in scholarly and ethical standards, 31

Professional organizations

encouraging publication of peer-reviewed articles on evolving educational issues in STEM, 7, 127

increasing support for effective teaching, 46-49

offering opportunities to discuss undergraduate education issues during annual and regional meetings, 7, 127

Program design

becoming inseparable from teaching and learning, 25

Programs That Work,47

Project Kaleidoscope, 56

Q

Quality and performance

of undergraduate research students, 67

Quality of teaching and effective learning

ranking more highly in institutional priorities, 5, 122

Questionnaires used to evaluate undergraduate student learning, 19, 145-184

Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence, 153-162

The College Student Report 2001, 147-150

Hampshire College, 178-184

Harvard University Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, 163-165

Kansas State University IDEA Center, 166-177

Student Instructional Report II, 151-152

Questions for conducting peer evaluations of teaching, 19, 185-195

Suggested Form for Peer Review of Undergraduate Teaching Based on Dossier Materials, 186-187

Syracuse University’s Classroom Observation Worksheet, 188-192

University of Texas at Austin’s Checklist of Teaching Skills, 193-195

Questions people really care about beginning with, 34

R

Recommendations for evaluating teaching effectiveness, 4-8, 115-127

accreditation agencies and boards should revise policies to emphasize quality undergraduate learning as a primary criterion for program accreditation, 7, 127

campus-wide and disciplinary-focused centers for teaching and learning should be tasked with providing faculty with opportunities for ongoing professional development, 5-6, 122-123

for deans, department chairs, and peer evaluators, 6-7, 124-126

department heads should provide personnel recommendations containing separate ratings on teaching, research, and service, 7, 125

departments should contribute to campus-wide awareness of the premium placed on improved teaching, 6-7, 125

departments should periodically review a departmental mission statement that includes appropriate emphasis on teaching and student learning, 6, 124

departments should provide funds to faculty to enhance teaching skills and knowledge, 7, 125-126

departments should support faculty moving to greater emphasis on instruction or educational leadership, 7, 126

effective peer reviews of teaching should provide both objective and subjective assessment of a faculty member’s commitment to quality teaching, 7, 125

faculty should be encouraged to develop curricula that transcend disciplinary boundaries through a combination of incentives, 6, 124

faculty should be supported in their obligation to improve their teaching skills through

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

departmental and institutional reinforcement, 5, 121

faculty who have excelled in teaching should be publicly recognized and rewarded, 6, 123-124

funding agencies and research sponsors should undertake a self-examination by convening expert panels to examine agency policy regarding quality undergraduate teaching, 7, 127

funding agencies should support programs to enable an integrated network of national and campus-based centers for teaching and learning, 7-8, 126-127

graduate school faculties should be required to show evidence they are effectively mentoring their teaching assistants and advising them about their duties to undergraduate students, 6, 124

for granting and accrediting agencies, research sponsors, and professional societies , 7-8, 126-127

individual faculty members should be expected to contribute to a balanced program of undergraduate teaching, 6, 124-125

individual faculty should be rewarded for consistent improving of learning by both major and nonmajor students, 5, 120-121

normal departmental professional developmental activity should include informing faculty about research findings that can improve student learning, 7, 125

one or more senior university-level administrators should be assigned responsibility for encouraging faculty to adopt effective means to improve instruction, 6, 123

only deans and department chairs willing to emphasize student learning and to make allocations of departmental resources in support of teaching should be appointed, 6, 124

overall, 4-5, 118-121

peer reviews and teaching portfolios should be included in valid summative assessments of teaching, in addition to student evaluations, 4-5, 119-120

for presidents, overseeing boards, and academic officers, 5-6, 122-124

professional societies should encourage publication of peer-reviewed articles on evolving educational issues in STEM, 7, 127

professional societies should offer opportunities to discuss undergraduate education issues during annual and regional meetings, 7, 127

quality teaching and effective learning should be ranked highly in institutional priorities, 5, 122

scholarly activities focusing on improving teaching and learning should be recognized and rewarded , 4, 118-119

teaching effectiveness should be judged by the quality and extent of student learning, 4, 118

Reflective critiques, 87

Reliability

of undergraduate student evaluations, 55-56

Research. See also Applications of research;

Cultures of research and teaching

education through, 38

Respect

for students as individuals and for their privacy, 31

Responsiveness

to students’ concerns, 82

Role of colleagues in “formal” formative evaluation, 85-86

faculty mentoring faculty, 85

formative evaluation by faculty colleagues from other institutions, 85-86

projects of the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), 86

S

Sample Results of Student Evaluations form, 170-177

Scholarly activities

focusing on improving teaching and learning, 4, 118-119

Scholarly standards

upholding and modeling for students the best in, 31

Scholarship on teaching, 9-67.

See also Evaluation of the scholarship on teaching

according the same administrative and collegial support as for other research and service endeavors, 2, 15-16, 116

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

aligning the cultures of research and teaching in higher education, 18, 40-50

application of, 18-19, 69-127

characterizing and mobilizing effective undergraduate teaching, 18, 25-39

dimensions of, 88

evaluating of teaching in the STEM disciplines, 18, 51-67

recent perspectives on undergraduate teaching and learning, 11-24

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM disciplines)

interdepartmental cooperation for improving undergraduate education in, 114

professional societies encouraging publication of peer-reviewed articles on evolving educational issues in, 7, 127

Scoring of outcome assessments using primary trait analysis, 74-75

Self-assessment, 54, 64-66, 86-87, 90-91

before-and-after, 90-91

data for evaluating teaching quality and effectiveness from, 64-66

by reports on teaching activities and teaching portfolios, 64-65

teaching portfolios, 86-87, 90

videotaping, 90

Shaping the Future,108

Shaping the Future of Undergraduate Earth

Science Education,47

SID. See Small Group Instruction Diagnosis

Sigma Xi, 47

Skills

determining when in a student’s education these should be developed, 73

Small Group Instruction Diagnosis (SGID), 81-82

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 46

Standardized procedures

for administering forms in class, 143

STEM disciplines. See Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

Student advising, 31

Student evaluation instruments, 19, 139-144

current students, 139-141

end-of-course questionnaires, 139-140

guidelines for the use of student evaluations, 141-144

interviews, 140

measures of learning, 140-141

types of, 139-141

Student evaluations, 54-60

bias in, 58-60

data for evaluating teaching quality and effectiveness from, 54-60

only one piece of relevant information from several sources, 141-142

reliability of, 55-56

validity of, 56-58

Student Instructional Report II,151-152

Student Reactions to Instruction and Courses form, 166-167

Student study groups, 80

Students.

See also Evidence of student learning;

Formative evaluation by undergraduate students

for classroom observation, 63-64

direct questioning of, 78-79

engaging in original research, 38-39

engaging their interest in departmental curricular offerings, 111

identifying those not achieving to their fullest potential, 29

making clear how results of student evaluations will be used, 141

using course notes of, 80

using teams of, 79-80

Suggested Form for Peer Review of Undergraduate Teaching Based on Dossier Materials, 186-187

Summative evaluations, 1

Support

for faculty wishing to explore the scholarship of teaching and learning, 1-2

Syracuse University, 95

Classroom Observation Worksheet, 188-192

T

Teaching. See also Cultures of research and teaching;

Evaluation of teaching in STEM disciplines

becoming more public than ever before, 25

focus shifting away from content transmission, 25

Teaching assistants. See Graduate teaching assistants;

Undergraduate teaching assistants

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

Teaching effectiveness, 27-31, 111

involvement with and contributing to one’s own profession in enhancing teaching and learning, 31, 106-107

judging by the quality and extent of student learning, 4, 118

knowledge of subject matter, 27-28, 101

professional interactions with students within and beyond the classroom, 30-31, 104-106

skill, experience, and creativity with a range of appropriate pedagogies and technologies, 28-30, 101-103

understanding of and skill in using appropriate assessment practices, 30, 103-104

Teaching Improvement Forms

Discussion Courses, 160-162

Laboratory Courses, 157-159

Lecture Courses, 153-156

Teaching laboratories, 113-114

emphasizing the role and importance of, 113

encouraging students to engage in independent research, 113-114

Teaching portfolios. See Faculty teaching portfolios

Technologies. See Pedagogies and technologies

U

Undergraduate teaching and learning, 11-24.

See also Effective undergraduate teaching

impetus for and challenges to change, 12-15

overview of research on effective assessment of student learning , 23-24

seven principles of learning, 20-22

statement of task and guiding principles, 15-18

Undergraduate teaching assistants

evidence about student learning from, 3

University of California System

Faculty Code of Conduct Manual,31

University of Texas at Austin, 95

Checklist of Teaching Skills, 193-195

Preparing for Peer Evaluation,95

University of Washington, 82, 92

U.S. Department of Education

Educational Resources Information Center, 54n

V

Validity

of undergraduate student evaluations, 56-58

Videotaping, 90

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 75

W

Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 64n

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×

There was a problem loading page 216.

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page203
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page204
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page205
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page206
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page207
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page208
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page209
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page210
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page211
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page212
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page213
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page214
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page215
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 2003. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10024.
×
Page216
Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $54.00 Buy Ebook | $43.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Economic, academic, and social forces are causing undergraduate schools to start a fresh examination of teaching effectiveness. Administrators face the complex task of developing equitable, predictable ways to evaluate, encourage, and reward good teaching in science, math, engineering, and technology.

Evaluating, and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics offers a vision for systematic evaluation of teaching practices and academic programs, with recommendations to the various stakeholders in higher education about how to achieve change.

What is good undergraduate teaching? This book discusses how to evaluate undergraduate teaching of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology and what characterizes effective teaching in these fields.

Why has it been difficult for colleges and universities to address the question of teaching effectiveness? The committee explores the implications of differences between the research and teaching cultures-and how practices in rewarding researchers could be transferred to the teaching enterprise.

How should administrators approach the evaluation of individual faculty members? And how should evaluation results be used? The committee discusses methodologies, offers practical guidelines, and points out pitfalls.

Evaluating, and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics provides a blueprint for institutions ready to build effective evaluation programs for teaching in science fields.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!