Teaching Stewardship Evaluation — Three Pillars of Effective Teaching

Rank and Status Performance Standards and the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching

Recognizing the need to improve the evaluation of teaching, the University formed the Peer Review of Teaching Task Force with the following charge:

1. Identify principles and practices associated with effective peer review of teaching based on the best research.
2. Foster efficient, objective, and thorough reviews.
3. Provide developmental support for faculty. 
4. Improve the reliability of summative reviews of teaching. 
5. Provide a consistent framework for peer reviewers to use across the University and a “tool kit” of approaches within the overall framework that will allow for appropriate variation across disciplinary educational approaches. 

As you might expect, the research literature presented a range of possibilities. However, there was a common thread that could be phrased this way: Effective teachers create an environment of high expectations and a supportive atmosphere of belonging which results in student learning. Further, effective teachers are never satisfied with “good enough,” they continue to seek ways to advance teaching and learning. This could be summarized into the categories of student learning, the learning environment, and processes of improvement which became the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching.

Recommendation: The Three Pillars of Effective Teaching

The Task Force further developed a set of criteria and guiding questions around each pillar. These serve as “a consistent framework for peer reviewers across the University.” These are outlined below:

Recommendation: A Teaching Portfolio

Another significant concern of the University and the Task Force was the amount of work. However, for evaluation of teaching to be substantive, thorough, and reliable, someone must put in time and effort. It seems logical that the person who will benefit most should put in the time and effort. This dovetails with another common element from the research—that effective teachers engage in evidence-based reflection to improve teaching and learning, even if informally. Consequently, the Task Force recommended a thoughtful, consistent, and curated Teaching Portfolio.

The Teaching Portfolio is more efficient in that this single activity accomplishes multiple priorities. First, the Teaching Portfolio is a means to systematically improve teaching and learning at BYU. The Teaching Portfolio will encourage a more substantive dialog around the teaching stewardship during Annual Stewardship Interviews. Further, documented efforts to improve may also support Along with the Three Pillars, the portfolio provides a common framework for all faculty to evaluate teaching and learning in their own courses and to guide efforts to improve.

The Teaching Portfolio formalizes and structures a practice most teachers are already doing, and all teachers should do. It is normal for faculty to reflect on the past semester. What may have been informal reflections are now guided by the Three Pillars and recorded in the Teaching Portfolio. Further, the results of this reflection are actionable for the next semester and having those ideas recorded may improve follow-through. If the faculty member engages authentically in this process, they, their students, and the university will benefit from this work immediately.

In this way, the portfolio process also spreads the work out over time. Each end-of-semester reflection becomes part of the Teaching Portfolio. To complete their submission for rank and status review, the faculty member creates a Teaching Narrative that summarizes the evidence found in the portfolio entries and highlights important trends and milestones.

Further, the Teaching Portfolio provides the faculty member a voice in the rank and status process that was previously absent. It provides a concrete mechanism for the faculty member to meet their responsibility to present “persuasive evidence to the university that they qualify for CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement” (BYU Rank and Status Policy 1.2).

This approach reduces the time that would otherwise be required of peer reviewers while increasing the focus and substance of their reviews. In past practice, the responsibility of providing substantive evidence was implicitly on the peer reviewer. This would take an inordinate amount of time to do well, consequently, reviews tended to be less than substantive. In this process, the bulk of the evidence is already collected in the Teaching Portfolio and in student ratings and comments. With a little additional triangulation in the form of classroom visits (which is a current expectation), the peer reviewer’s task becomes one of evaluating whether the evidence presented satisfies the criteria of the Three Pillars. By using an evidence-based, learning-centered approach, peer reviews become more objective and avoid the idiosyncrasies of personal opinion regarding teaching practices.

Finally, the Teaching Portfolio “allows for appropriate variation” across disciplines within the common framework of the Three Pillars. Colleges and departments can determine the format, length, content, and stylistic and evidentiary standards for their respective areas.

See also:

• BYU Rank & Status Policy