Guidance for Evaluators and Departments

To evaluate teaching effectively, we must define what constitutes teacher effectiveness and excellence. While departments, academic units, or institutions could develop their own definitions from scratch, using an existing, evidence-based framework can significantly streamline the process. With substantial input from KU faculty, CTE leaders have developed Benchmarks for Teaching Effectiveness, a rubric-based framework that identifies seven dimensions of teaching, including course instruction, mentoring, advising, and contributions to the broader teaching community. This framework helps instructors represent their teaching and provides a structured approach to peer review. The following guidelines outline ways evaluators and departments can use the Benchmarks Framework.

The Benchmarks Framework aligns with KU’s teaching evaluation policy, which calls for multiple sources of evidence, including the intellectual aspects of teaching and student learning. Such evidence may include teaching statements, course materials, peer evaluations, student survey results, student reflections, alumni letters, and external evaluations. While no evaluation method is perfect, Benchmarks offers a broader and fairer approach than relying solely on student surveys.

Grounded in research on scholarly teaching and its evaluation (e.g., Bernstein & Huber, 2006; Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997; Hutchings, 1996), the Benchmarks Framework provides a comprehensive view of teaching effectiveness. Not all instructors engage in every activity outlined in the framework, but those who do should have their contributions recognized—particularly in major reviews.

The Benchmarks for Teaching Effectiveness Framework provides a structured approach to assessing teaching across the full range of faculty teaching activities. The Benchmarks rubric articulates more specific criteria for each dimension: 

1. Goals, Content, and Alignment. The instructor organizes course content and activities around relevant, appropriate, and well-articulated goals. 
2. Class Climate. The instructor creates a motivating, open, and respectful class climate.
3. Achievement of Learning Outcomes. The instructor consistently attends to student learning and uses it to inform teaching.
4. Reflection and Iterative Growth. The instructor develops teaching over time, in response to student performance, feedback, and professional learning.
5. Mentoring and advising. The instructor demonstrates exceptional quality and time commitment to mentoring and advising.
6. Involvement in Teaching Service, Scholarship, or Community. The instructor makes positive contributions to the broader teaching community, both on and off campus.
7. Teaching Practices. The instructor uses well-planned and effective teaching practices that support learning in all students.

You can find many tools related to the Benchmarks Framework and more information about how KU departments are using it as part of a multi-institutional project called TEval on the Benchmarks project page.

The Benchmarks structure may differ from what evaluators are used to because it doesn’t rely solely on student surveys of teaching. The student voice is important, but research into student surveys has increasingly challenged the validity and fairness of those surveys. Benchmarks brings in evidence from instructors, peers, and students, making it a fuller and fairer means of evaluation. 

We have created several guides to help evaluators consider evidence from each dimension of the Benchmarks Framework (see the sidebar). The seven dimensions of the Benchmarks Framework provide structure to evaluators in the same way they provide guidance to instructors. This guidance assumes that your department has already adapted and agreed upon the components of the rubric, the evidence that might be included, and the weighting (if any) of each section of the rubric. If you haven’t had those conversations, we suggest you go to the main Benchmarks project page, learn more about the Benchmarks process, and begin discussions within your department. Additional guidance on how to do that is forthcoming.

The Annual Review Template provides guidance on what information you might collect from faculty, and how to streamline processes for annual review in a way that will align with larger review processes. The template also includes a structured table format to assist faculty with reflection, along with prompts and suggestions for supporting documentation.

There is no single, perfect way to work through the materials for evaluation. Again, keep in mind that Benchmarks provides a broader perspective on teaching, allowing evaluators to compare the materials provided by the instructor, peers, and students, and to look for areas of agreement and disagreement. Here is one way to do that:

1. Start with the materials provided by the instructor. Gain insight into the instructor’s approach to teaching, their goals, and their reflective practices.
2. Compare this information with results from the student survey of teaching. Look for patterns in student feedback that align with or differ from the instructor’s perspective.
3. Examine peer evaluation results and compare them to the other materials. Use peer observations to contextualize both the instructor’s reflections and student feedback.

Find the Department Evaluation Form in the sidebar to guide you through questions for evaluating an instructor’s materials, along with a list of information sources where evaluators can find appropriate evidence from the instructor, peers, and students.

Interpreting materials from the instructor

This seems a natural place to start because, ideally, it will help you understand how the instructor approached teaching, why they took that approach, how they evaluated student learning, what they learned from that evaluation, and what adjustments they made to their courses based on various types of feedback. In other words, Benchmarks helps the instructor and evaluators view teaching as a reflective, iterative process rather than a score that suggests success or failure. Every semester brings new students and new challenges, and an important goal of evaluation is to consider how the instructor has adapted to those challenges.

To do this, you can examine two key types of instructor provided-evidence:

• Instructor statements explaining teaching approaches, successes, challenges, and future plans - either as a single comprehensive statement or shorter dimension-focused statements using the Instructor Self-Reflection Guide or the prompts in the Template for Annual Review.
• Supporting documentation including syllabi, sample assignments, activities, and student work that provides concrete evidence of teaching effectiveness. This documentation should be referenced within the instructor's statements for easy navigation.

Examining evidence from students and peers

In line with KU policy, we recommend that evaluations also draw on information from peers or a third party, and students. Each source provides unique insights into teaching effectiveness.

• Student Feedback. Student perspectives provide crucial insights into the learning experience. Consider two main sources:
  • KU Student Survey of Teaching (SST). When evaluating student surveys, consult KU's Using Student Survey Data guide for proper interpretation of both quantitative and qualitative responses. Look for consistent feedback themes that emerge across courses and semesters. Check how these align with the instructor's stated teaching goals and methods - do students experience the course in ways that match the instructor's intentions? Pay particular attention to comments about learning climate, course effectiveness, and any specific teaching improvements the instructor implemented based on previous feedback. Focus not just on individual data points but on broader patterns that indicate the instructor's ongoing development and responsiveness to student input.
  • Mid-semester Feedback. When examining mid-semester feedback, look for how systematically instructors collect and respond to student input during the course. Review their documentation of feedback collection methods, their analysis of student responses, and how they communicate intended changes back to students. Focus on specific adjustments they made based on the feedback and evidence of how these changes impacted student learning. Pay particular attention to feedback patterns that align with or differ from end-of-semester evaluations, as this can indicate the effectiveness of mid-course corrections. The instructor's approach to mid-semester feedback often reveals their commitment to ongoing course improvement and responsiveness to student needs.
• Peers and Other “Third-party” Evidence. Peer review provides a professional perspective on teaching effectiveness. Consider multiple forms:
  • Peer Observations. When reviewing peer observations, evaluators should examine how effectively instructors implement teaching methods and engage students, checking for inclusive practices and alignment between stated course goals and actual delivery. Look at the quality of course materials, assignments, and how instructors respond to observation feedback. Consider using the Peer Review Guidelines in the sidebar to structure classroom observations, course material reviews, post-observation discussions, and written feedback aligned with Benchmarks dimensions.
  • Additional Third-Party Evidence. Consider other forms of peer or external evaluation like COPUS classroom observations, external teaching reviews, teaching development participation, and professional recognition.