ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú

Introduction

The purpose of this plan is to provide a structure to evaluate and enhance the quality of instruction, and by consequence, enhance student learning in the Department of Architecture and Interior Design at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University. Within this Department, the means of design instruction and course content demands considerable direct interaction with students. Small class size in studios, in combination with advising, counseling and critiquing student work, makes the teacher-student relationship complex. This is in contrast with large lecture classes that are also a function of the department.

When implemented, the Evaluation Plan of the Department of Architecture and Interior Design will provide faculty with information useful in improving their teaching (formative evaluation) and documenting their teaching effectiveness for promotion, tenure and/or merit review (summative evaluation). The different uses of formative and summative evaluations suggest distinct evaluation strategies depending on a faculty member’s tenure and promotion status. Candidates seeking promotion and/or tenure and/or salary increase should utilize a variety of summative teaching evaluation strategies and present multiple indicators of teaching effectiveness in their documentation dossiers or annual reports. All faculty should use both formative and summative measures in evaluating their teaching. University guidelines (MUPIM 7.2.C) specify the use of student evaluations for all courses taught, with the exception of independent studies.

Formative evaluation

Purpose:

Formative teaching evaluation techniques are designed for self-reflective purposes and should aid in the course and teaching development of the instructor. All faculty should use formative evaluations to further teaching effectiveness and student learning. Tenure-track faculty and faculty teaching new courses or using new techniques should be especially mindful of seeking formative feedback for course improvement purposes.

Procedure:

Formative evaluations will be carried out at the discretion of the individual instructor and may be conducted by the instructor. Formative evaluation instruments could include, but are not limited to:

• Informal open-ended student questionnaires
• Formal student evaluations
• Classroom discussion
• Student, peer, chair, and/or alumni consultation
• Peer review of classroom instruction or materials
• Peer review of student work
• SGID audits conducted by MCIS (small group diagnostics)
• Faculty mentor review and discussion
• Participation in teaching workshops, seminars, and programs
• Self-assessment

Function:

Formative evaluations are designed to provide feedback for the improvement of instruction to the faculty member and for the improvement of student learning. Pursuing formative evaluations is strictly the decision and at the discretion of the faculty member; and the faculty member determines the impact and scope of their use. Formative evaluations cannot be used for promotion and tenure decisions or merit considerations, as indicated in MUPIM 7.2.C.4. Only summative evaluations may be used for the purposes of promotion, tenure, and merit considerations.

Summative evaluation

Purpose:

Summative evaluations provide an assessment of a course and/or an instructor and are used in tenure, promotion, and salary decisions. In order to provide a complete picture of an individual’s teaching effectiveness, multiple indicators of teaching effectiveness are required. ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University policy (MUPIM 7.2.C) requires that all faculty conduct student evaluations as one of the evaluative techniques. The Department of Architecture and Interior Design requires that part-time faculty conduct student evaluations at a minimum of all courses, although part-time faculty may choose to use additional measures of teaching effectiveness also. It is the responsibility of the department to conduct these evaluations but at a time to be determined by the part-time faculty.

Procedure:

In compliance with MUPIM 7.2.C, the Department of Architecture and Interior Design administers student evaluations in the following manner:

1. All courses taught in the department must be evaluated in order for departmental average data to be useful and meaningful. In cases where a full-time faculty member teaches courses in other departments, the evaluation form of the Department of Architecture and Interior Design must be employed in addition to any forms required by the other department.

   In a timely fashion, prior to the end of the semester (or summer session), the chair will notify all faculty that student evaluation forms are available and request that they schedule a class time with the department office for conducting evaluations. The faculty member provides information on the date, time, and number of students in the class.

   Departmental standard forms shall be used in order to assure data comparability. Where courses are team-taught, faculty should be evaluated using separate forms. For situations wherein teaching assistants have significant instructional responsibility, those administering the forms should emphasize that the evaluation covers the instructor (not the assistant); however, the role of the assistant can be considered when evaluating the course itself.

   Where teaching assistants actually participate in the teaching, it is appropriate and strongly recommended that they be evaluated.

2. The Department makes the appropriate number of student evaluations available to the individual conducting the evaluation. Someone other than the faculty member, and other than the graduate or undergraduate assistants for the course, must conduct the evaluation. Neither the faculty member nor the assistants may be present during the student evaluation.
3. The evaluations are distributed and collected by the third party and returned to the Architecture and Interior Design department office for processing by the University. The University will process and tally all evaluation data. No evaluations will be processed in the department.
4. Student evaluations are available to each faculty member following the submission of grades each semester. Evaluations will be kept in the Department office and may be reviewed by the faculty member at any time or copied for personal records.
5. These data must be presented in promotion and tenure applications: the course data for each question in comparison to departmental averages from similar courses taught in the department that semester (summer course data shall be compared with departmental means from the previous spring semester). The response rate for the evaluation must be included (i.e., 10/15 to indicate 10 responses out of 15 enrolled at the end of the semester).
6. Data analysis shall include comparison of means of individual instructors to the departmental means per question. The departmental means for each question shall be calculated in each of the following categories: all departmental courses, all department studio courses, all departmental lecture courses, all graphics courses, and all department seminar courses.
7. The data for each academic year shall be evaluated by the department chair and summarized in each faculty member's annual letter.
8. Student comments for tenure-track faculty shall be reviewed and summarized by a faculty member outside the Department (and typically within the SFA), in order to obtain a balanced assessment of student comments. This information is included in the candidate’s promotion/tenure dossier.

Additional teaching effectiveness measures

Student evaluations provide only one measure of teaching effectiveness. The Department of Architecture and Interior Design should include other measures in order to enrich the teaching effectiveness data presented. Those seeking promotion and/or tenure and/or salary raises should include two or more measures of teaching effectiveness in their dossiers.

Additional measures of teaching effectiveness include, but are not limited to:

• internal peer review of classroom teaching [see discussion below]
• external peer review of classroom teaching [see discussion below]
• internal review of teaching materials
• external review of teaching materials
• student portfolios
• student examinations and/or papers
• student awards
• chair review of classroom teaching
• chair review of classroom materials
• teaching (faculty) portfolios [see discussion below]
• senior exit surveys
• alumni surveys
• curriculum development activities
• teaching awards

Teaching Portfolio

A teaching portfolio can be effective supplemental material in support of a faculty’s application for promotion and/or tenure. The teaching portfolio should represent courses taught by the instructor and should include: the course syllabus, project statements, sample tests, readers, anonymous examples of student work representing both passing and failing grades, and an assessment of the course results in light of the objectives stated in the syllabus. The portfolio, to be optimally effective should be initiated at the beginning of full-time employment, or even part-time employment where there is the possibility that the individual will become a candidate for promotion or tenure in the future.

Peer Evaluations

Formal peer evaluation for purposes of tenure include the responses of tenured faculty invited by the candidate to participate in or to attend lectures, seminars, or studio reviews. When requested by the applicant for tenure and/or promotion, the applicant’s assigned mentor shall ensure that at least one tenured faculty is assigned to attend lectures or participate in design reviews of the probationary faculty. The peer evaluator must submit a brief assessment, in writing, of the course and instructor (and any suggestions for improvement, based on this class or review, on the pertinent syllabus). A copy of this report shall be provided to the instructor, the Chair of the Tenure Committee, and the Department Chair.

Informal peer evaluations based on direct observation by a tenured faculty of the candidate’s teaching practices may be reported to the tenure committee and considered in tenure deliberations. Only teaching practices directly observed by tenured faculty will be considered; hearsay may not be introduced.

Function:

The Promotion and Tenure Committee and the chair in making promotion and tenure decisions will use summative measures of teaching effectiveness. The chair in making salary recommendations will also use them. Although summative measures are used in personnel decisions, they may also provide useful information to faculty in teaching improvement and course development.

Interpretation:

It is incumbent upon the P & T Committee and the chair to employ a range of data in forming a complete description and assessment of a faculty member’s teaching. The level of student-faculty interaction, class size, class format, and the general nature of the course should be considered in evaluating data. Certain distinctions, not typically scrutinized, may be of great importance: e.g.: Is the course being taught by the faculty member for the first time? Is this a new course being evaluated? How much time was given the faculty person to prepare for this course? Furthermore, since it is impossible to conduct student evaluations which eliminate totally the biases of some students, it is appropriate to analyze student responses in light of the instructor’s age, sex, ethnicity, and other pertinent criteria; e.g.: whether English is the second language for the instructor. No weight should be given to any student response that is clearly prejudicial or not germane to the course and its teaching.

Multiple indicators, over a period of time, considered in combination with an individual’s teaching responsibilities, provide the most complete and accurate representation of teaching effectiveness.