Approaches to Evaluation of Teaching (formerly SET+)

About

Student experience surveys are insufficient to determine excellence in teaching was codified in collective bargaining agreement. Departments are developing and testing strategies that are appropriate for their context to include other forms of evaluation of teaching. CETL support through consultations, calibration of observers, customized departmental workshops and online training modules. The connection of holistic teaching evaluation and equity is emphasized.

Codified in the last 2 collective bargaining agreements between the University of Connecticut Board of Trustees and the AAUP is the requirement to use additional measures that go beyond standard end-of-semester student satisfaction surveys. The specific text in Article 28 is: Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) can productively inform teaching effectiveness in particular areas. In gauging teaching effectiveness, however, SETs are not to be used as the sole criterion of teaching for disciplinary measures, promotion, tenure or reappointment, or for re-appointment, or for non-reappointment with respect to full-time faculty and adjunct faculty who the University has employed for at least five (5) semesters over a five (5) calendar year period, including summer sessions. Uconn began in 2018 with faculty and academic departments to develop guidance on additional measures. A position was created to lead these efforts. Housing this position within the teaching center confounded who is responsible for developing the evaluation processes; the teaching center operates under the premise of confidential and developmental feedback, not evaluative feedback for administrative purposes or personal decisions. The decentralized approach leaves it up to departments to define the process, resulting in varying degrees of engagement levels. By 2021, all departments had submitted their evaluation policies to the provost office. Many were opting for peer observations or instructor reflection as an additional component.

Interpretation guidelines for the end-of-semester survey itself were updated in 2022, acknowledging some limitations of the instrument but not changing or terminating it.

In parallel, guidance and processes on course and program evaluation were completely decoupled.

A task force was revisiting the topic, and recently more recommendations were created that reiterated 3 inputs the relative value of each to be determined by departmental agreement (student experience, faculty self-assessment, forms of peer evaluation). Departments are not expected to implement all the suggested strategies but identify those methods that will be most useful to their faculty, considering the kinds of courses offered and the modalities in which they are taught. The recommendations are brought to the Senate for approval in fall 2023.

Teaching in times of COVID paused any efforts to significantly change existing teaching evaluation processes. Relaxed reporting requirements, recognition of the outlier context, changed class modalities, and faculty burnout were some reasons. In addition, UConn has been facing extreme leadership turnover that affected the ability of units and individuals to make teaching evaluation reform a focus of their efforts.

At this point, we do not have consistent data to evaluate if the impact is positive or negative.

Despite recognition of its shortcomings, the SET instrument remains in place for now.

More information about this initiative »

Notes from the Teaching Evaluation Repository Editorial Board

Additional Information