Ready or not? Convening department heads to reform teaching evaluation

Most STEM departments have inadequate teaching evaluation practices. As a result, they are largely unable to recognize and reward evidence-based teaching. Yet widespread adoption of evidence-based teaching likely depends on systems that incentivize these approaches. With this in mind, we undertook the DeLTA project at the University of Georgia. DeLTA (Departmental and Leadership Teams for Action) aims to transform how STEM departments evaluate teaching. DeLTA advocates for using three voices to inform teaching evaluation: students, trained peers, and instructor self-reflection.

The DeLTA project convened 12 STEM department heads to enact new teaching evaluation practices in their departments. They gathered for facilitated meetings five times per year for three years. Drawing on a social cognition theoretical perspective, we created opportunities in meetings for heads to recognize and critically evaluate their ideas about teaching evaluation and to construct new knowledge. Drawing on a cultural perspective on change, we created opportunities for heads to uncover underlying assumptions and values and craft new departmental practices. Meetings created space and impetus for reflection that otherwise would not occur. Both meetings and tailored consultations provided scaffolding and differentiated support for advancing teaching evaluation practices.

We studied the impact of DeLTA on teaching evaluation practices. We systematically documented changes in departmental teaching evaluation practices for the three voices between 2019 and 2022. We did so by developing the Guides to Advance Teaching Evaluation (GATEs), which articulates a list of best practices for using each voice. We gathered data about departmental evaluation practices using interviews and analyzed data using the GATEs. Some departments made major changes by advancing practices for at least two voices and enacting multiple best practices. Other departments made minor changes, generally trying out one new voice without attention to best practices. A few departments pursued no change, despite continued involvement for three years.

We aimed to uncover differences in the thinking of department chairs who pursued more and less change. We characterized each department chair's thinking about changing teaching evaluation practices using the readiness for change theoretical framework. Readiness for change is a cognitive precursor to engaging productively in the change process. We gathered data using interviews and recordings of the facilitated meetings. We conducted qualitative content analysis using both deductive and inductive coding. We created profiles for each department chair and contrasted those who pursued major changes, minor changes, and no change to teaching evaluation practices. These analyses generated hypotheses about the thinking that motivates department chairs to pursue reforms to teaching evaluation. For example, department chairs who pursued major changes to teaching evaluation practices expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the status quo of teaching being seen as second-class work that goes largely unrecognized.