The Benchmarks Approach to Evaluating Teaching

The measurement of any human activity is never perfect, whether it is teaching or research. According to KU policy (FSRR, Article VI, section 2) the evaluation of teaching at KU should draw on multiple sources of information and evidence about the intellectual aspects of teaching and student learning, including a candidate's own statement and course materials, peer evaluations, student evaluations, and other accepted methods of evaluation (e.g., external evaluations). The following guidelines offer a framework to help scaffold the measurement of teaching, with mutiple ways for teachers to show their work and demonstrate what they are learning from its results.

To evaluate teaching, we have to be able to articulate what constitutes teacher effectiveness and excellence. To help faculty, departments, and other stakeholders do that, we have created a rubric-based framework called Benchmarks for Teaching Effectiveness, which identifies seven dimensions of teaching activities, including teaching courses as well as mentoring and advising and contributions to the broader curriculum and teaching community. You will find a copy of the framework here, and a full version of the rubric here. The framework is based on research on scholarly teaching and its review (e.g., Bernstein & Huber, 2006; Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997; Hutchings, 1996), to provide a comprehensive and robust view of teaching effectiveness.  Not all instructors will have the opportunity to engage in all of the activities listed below, but they should be recognized as part of teaching when they occur across the full duration of a teaching career.  You can find many tools related to the Benchmarks Framework and more information about how KU departments are using it as part of an NSF-funded, multi-institutional project called TEval on the Benchmarks for Teaching Effectiveness project page. 

Dimensions of Teaching Activity

1. Goals, Content, and Alignment of Courses

Evaluation in this area should focus on what the instructor expects students to learn and why:

  • Are course goals well-articulated, relevant to students and clearly connected to program or curricular goals?
  • Is course content appropriately challenging or innovative and related to current issues in the field?
  • Are course topics well-integrated and of appropriate range and depth?
  • Are course materials of high quality and aligned with course goals?
  • Does course reflect diverse perspectives? Promote critical reflection on diverse perspectives?

A faculty member could provide various forms of evidence to indicate success in achieving these aims, such as:

  • List of courses taught and explanation of their importance and their role in the curriculum
  • Explanation of special service in particular courses, such as large lecture courses.
  • Annotated syllabus or course website (LMS), course goals from syllabus
  • Selection of course materials (readings and other resources).
  • Student feedback on the usefulness and relevance of course materials.

Faculty colleagues and or the department chair would evaluate the evidence provided by the faculty member to judge the degree to which they are attaining the aims cited above. 

2. Teaching Practices

Evaluation in this area should focus on the instructor's use of in- and out-of-class time: 

  • Are courses well-planned and integrated, reflecting commitment to providing meaningful assignments and assessments?
  • Does the instructor use inclusive and effective or innovative methods to support learning in all students?
  • Do in- and out-of-class activities provide opportunities for practice and feedback on important skills and concepts?
  • Do students show high levels of engagement?
  • Are assessments and assignments varied, allowing students to demonstrate knowledge through multiple approaches?

A faculty member could provide various forms of evidence to indicate success in achieving these aims, such as:

  • Syllabus or course schedule
  • Sample of course materials: example learning activities, assignments, etc. for new or existing courses.
  • Modules in LMS
  • Examples of feedback on student work
  • Examples of innovation in teaching including teaching practices, technology, etc.
  • Ratings and/or written comments from students.
  • Peer evaluation of classroom performance, interaction with students, and/or course materials.
  • Other materials that the faculty member believes indicate excellence in teaching.

Faculty colleagues and or the department chair would evaluate the evidence provided by the faculty member to judge the degree to which he or she was attaining the aims cited above.

3. Class climate

Evaluation in this area should focus on the sort of climate for learning the instructor creates:

  • Is the climate respectful, open and inclusive? Does it promote student-student and student-teacher dialogue? Does it foster motivation, self-efficacy and ownership of learning?
  • Does the instructor model inclusive language and behavior?
  • What are students’ views of their learning experience and their instructor’s accessibility?
  • How has the instructor sought student feedback and how has feedback informed teaching?

A faculty member could provide various forms of evidence to indicate success in achieving these aims, such as:

  • Syllabus and/or LMS site (e.g., diversity, accessibility, or climate statements, information about student support structures)
  • Accessibility of LMS site and other materials 
  • Lesson plans or sample activities
  • Ratings and/or written comments from students.
  • Instructor-gathered feedback from students and reflections on it
  • Peer evaluation of classroom performance, interaction with students, and/or course materials.
  • Other materials that the faculty member believes indicate excellence in teaching.

Faculty colleagues and/or the department chair would evaluate the evidence provided by the faculty member to judge the degree to which he/she was attaining the aims cited above.

4. Achievement of learning outcomes

Evaluation in this area should focus on the impact of the instructor's courses on learners

  • Are standards for evaluating learning clear and connected to program, curriculum or professional expectations?
  • What is the evidence of student learning? Does the instructor use it to inform teaching? Does the quality of learning support success in other contexts? 
  • Is the instructor aware of whether achievement is equitable? Are there efforts to make achievement equitable?

A faculty member could provide various forms of evidence to indicate success in achieving these aims, such as:

  • Rubrics and samples of student work demonstrating student learning.
  • Summaries/analysis of performance on rubrics or other indicators of student achievement
  • "Item analysis" of exam questions that are connected to learning goals (i.e., on which items did students generally excel? On which items was performance more variable or weak?)
  • Student perceptions of their own learning

Faculty colleagues and/or the department chair would evaluate the evidence provided by the faculty member to judge the degree to which he/she was attaining the aims cited above.

5. Reflection and Iterative Growth

Evaluation in this area should focus on how the instructor's teaching has changed over time

  • How and why have the instructor’s teaching, and the student learning experience, changed over time? 
  • How have adjustments been informed by reflection on student learning evidence, within or across semesters? By feedback from students and/or peers? By other factors (e.g., contextual) prompting adaptation?
  • Are student achievement or other outcomes improving over time?

A faculty member could provide various forms of evidence to indicate success in achieving these aims, such as:

  • Syllabi highlighting changes over time
  • Sample assignments or examples of student work that highlght changes in the course
  • Trend data showing changes student achievement on measures of learning (e.g., assignment or exam performance, improvements in a rubric dimension)
  • Changes in student and/or peer feedback over time
  • Student comments indicating changes in teaching, faculty observation supporting innovation based on workshops.

Faculty colleagues and/or the department chair would evaluate the evidence provided by the faculty member to judge the degree to which he/she was attaining the aims cited above.

6. Mentoring and Advising

Focus on how effectively the instructor has worked individually with undergraduate or graduate students (define as appropriate for department and role), such as:

  • Academic or career advising of undergraduate or graduate students
  • Mentoring students or directing research projects
  • Mentoring or supervising students in clinical settings or internships.
  • Serving on graduate committees
  • Working with student groups.
  • Mentoring and supervising GTAs/GRAs.

A faculty member could provide various forms of evidence to indicate success in achieving these aims, such as:

  • Lists of those mentored and supervised in various roles (undergraduate, graduate, post-docs; research, teaching, clinical work).
  • Unit records of GTAs/GRAs’ performance, comments from other students learning from graduate students, comments from community partners or clients.
  • Examples of student work completed under teacher’s supervision, along with descriptions of venues for presentation and any recognition.
  • Letters from students, reflecting on mentoring activities and effectiveness and indicating how the mentoring has influenced student work and success.
  • Faculty colleagues’ comments on mentoring activities; e.g., service on MA or MS/PhD committees.
  • Examples of any regional or national critical review or recognition of student work.
  • Time to degree, success in obtaining employment or other placement.
  • Lists of student groups supported, identifying unit or university level, along with student comments, awards or achievement by the group.

Faculty colleagues and/or the department chair would evaluate the evidence provided by the faculty member to judge the degree to which he/she was attaining the aims cited above.

7. Involvement of Teaching Service, Scholarship, or Community

Evaluation in this area should focus on the instructor's contributions to the broader teaching community, both on and off campus:

  • Teaching related presentations at KU or elsewhere.
  • Attending or organizing teaching institutes.
  • Serving as a guest teacher at other institutions, for outside associations, or in the community.
  • Developing course materials, such as textbooks or websites.
  • Applying for and receiving grants in support of teaching or publishing articles related to teaching.
  • Participating in outreach to local schools (K–12) or other forums.
  • Mentoring new faculty members in their role as a teacher.
  • Coordinating courses within a program, or developing a new course.
  • Supporting teaching at the unit level by developing new materials for general use; creating infrastructure for labs, studios, or field work; seeking grant support for teaching; recruiting students.

A faculty member could provide various forms of evidence to indicate success in achieving these aims, such as:

  • List of seminars attended or conducted on teaching; include description of new approaches learned from workshops or description of how ideas have been incorporated into teaching (annotated syllabus or other notes).
  • Examples of collaboration with faculty at KU or elsewhere or with other KU offices (KU Libraries, Writing Center, Learning Communities, etc.) to support teaching.
  • Publication(s), conference presentations or other research on teaching.
  • Awards or nominations for research, teaching, or service related to improving teaching.
  • Conference programs from presentations, letters, or other evaluations of quality of presentations; samples of presentation notes or published proceedings; programs from institutes or letters evaluating participation or impact.
  • List of service on department or University teaching committees or presentations at KU Summit or the Center for Teaching Excellence.
  • Letters attesting to impact of guest presentations in classes; formal evaluations if available.
  • Books, web addresses, or other materials generated, along with any letters attesting to the impact or quality of the materials.
  • Products developed for schools, feedback from organizers of presentations, statements from professional society or honors or awards for contributions.
  • List of administrative or coordination activities, along with new materials developed and commentary from colleagues and students involved.
  • Observations and comments by students, colleagues, chair, dean on unit level contributions.
  • External funding of proposals/awards related to teaching, reviews of proposals.
  • Lists of faculty colleagues mentored on teaching, with examples of feedback given or comments from colleagues about the impact of the shared work.

Faculty colleagues and/or the department chair would evaluate the evidence provided by the faculty member to judge the degree to which he/she was attaining the aims cited above.