|
In a report that has not yet been published in print, the National Research
Council (NRC) suggests that a more objective and comprehensive approach to evaluation
of teaching could improve both the rewards for good teaching and the level of
respect accorded those who achieve excellence in teaching (1).
The report argues persuasively that at present the most commonly used methods
for evaluating teaching represent only a small fraction of a broad range of possibilities
and do not begin to address all of the criteria that should be met by high quality
teaching. As a consequence, within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) disciplines, evaluation of teaching is perceived as less rigorous, less
objective, and therefore less valuable and persuasive than is evaluation of research
in chemistry and other sciences.
The NRC report was prepared by a committee that explored pedagogical research
on teaching evaluations. The report identifies a broad range of fair, objective
methods for evaluating teaching and learning, but concludes that most such methods
are not widely applied. It suggests that summative evaluations, such as those
on which personnel decisions are based, need to be improved, because they seldom
require evidence of improved student learning. The report recommends using formative
evaluations to provide continual, informal feedback that can be linked to opportunities
for professional development and to the evaluation of curricula and programs as
well as individuals.
The NRC report recognizes that any system of evaluation that requires significant
additional time, funding, or energy is unlikely to be successful. It “points
out ways in which the fair evaluation of teaching and learning in STEM disciplines
can be institutionalized as the basis for allocating rewards and promotions, at
a level of effort consistent with a department’s or college’s educational
mission.”
The NRC report makes five general recommendations that it expects diverse institutions
of higher learning can adapt to their individual circumstances:
- Teaching effectiveness should be judged by the quality and extent of student
learning.
- Scholarly activities that focus on improving teaching and learning should
be recognized and rewarded as a bona fide scholarly endeavor.
- Valid summative assessments of teaching should not rely only on student evaluations.
- Individual faculty…and their departments should be rewarded for consistent
improvement of learning by both major and nonmajor students.
- Faculty should accept the obligation to improve their teaching skills as part
of their personal commitment to professional excellence.
Evaluation is more effective when it is based on more than one type of evidence.
Faculty colleagues can observe classes and labs, analyze course content and teaching
materials, and evaluate information about service and course-development activities.
Both undergraduate and graduate students can comment on effectiveness in advising,
mentoring, and supervising research. A faculty member can provide self-assessment
and critical information about pedagogical challenges and successes for comparison
with other evidence. A record of creative applications for support to improve
teaching and learning argues for strong commitment to pedagogy. Institutional
data and records can be mined for data about retention of students within a faculty
member’s courses, changes in course enrollments, whether students enroll
in other courses within the same or a related discipline, and students’
level of success in subsequent courses. The report cautions that criteria such
as those just mentioned are subject to misinterpretation and must be used intelligently
and carefully.
The NRC report encourages faculty to “set clear goals for their students
and ascertain whether students are meeting those goals throughout the course.”
Chapter Five is devoted to formal and informal assessment methods that have been
tested and reported in the science-education literature. It nicely summarizes
how faculty can obtain high-quality information that will help determine whether
instruction has improved student knowledge and capabilities. Both formative and
summative evaluation methods are described in detail. The report notes the importance
of determining whether students understand concepts. Methods are described that
enable a teacher to identify which concepts have not been understood and then
tailor instruction accordingly.
This report is representative of the NRC’s strong efforts during the
past few years to improve STEM education. I am encouraged that a research-oriented
group is devoting such attention to the kinds of problems we teachers face every
day. The NRC’s stance indicates that those problems are crucial to the enterprise
of science in this country and the world. Reading this report, and implementing
some of its recommendations, is a positive step you can take to improve both your
individual effectiveness and that of your department and institution.
Literature Cited
- National Research Council. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate
Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; Committee
on Recognizing, Evaluating, Rewarding, and Developing Excellence in Teaching of
Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Marye Anne Fox
and Norman Hackerman, Editors, 2003. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
(Available online.)
|
For journals in other fields of chemistry visit ACS Publications.
Citation
Always in the