Chemical Education Today
Editorial
Evaluating Teaching Is Important In a report that has not yet been published in print, the National Research Council (NRC) suggests that a more objective and comprehensive approach to evaluation of teaching could improve both the rewards for good teaching and the level of respect accorded those who achieve excellence in teaching (1). The report argues persuasively that at present the most commonly used methods for evaluating teaching represent only a small fraction of a broad range of possibilities and do not begin to address all of the criteria that should be met by high quality teaching. As a consequence, within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, evaluation of teaching is perceived as less rigorous, less objective, and therefore less valuable and persuasive than is evaluation of research in chemistry and other sciences. The NRC report was prepared by a committee that explored pedagogical research on teaching evaluations. The report identifies a broad range of fair, objective methods for evaluating teaching and learning, but concludes that most such methods are not widely applied. It suggests that summative evaluations, such as those on which personnel decisions are based, need to be improved, because they seldom require evidence of improved student learning. The report recommends using formative evaluations to provide continual, informal feedback that can be linked to opportunities for professional development and to the evaluation of curricula and programs as well as individuals. The NRC report recognizes that any system of evaluation that requires significant additional time, funding, or energy is unlikely to be successful. It “points out ways in which the fair evaluation of teaching and learning in STEM disciplines can be institutionalized as the basis for allocating rewards and promotions, at a level of effort consistent with a department’s or college’s educational mission.” The NRC report makes five general recommendations that it expects diverse institutions of higher learning can adapt to their individual circumstances: •
Teaching effectiveness should be judged by the quality and extent of student learning.
•
Scholarly activities that focus on improving teaching and learning should be recognized and rewarded as a bona fide scholarly endeavor.
•
Valid summative assessments of teaching should not rely only on student evaluations.
•
Individual faculty…and their departments should be rewarded for consistent improvement of learning by both major and nonmajor students.
•
Faculty should accept the obligation to improve their teaching skills as part of their personal commitment to professional excellence.
Evaluation is more effective when it is based on more than one type of evidence. Faculty colleagues can observe classes and labs, analyze course content and teaching materials, and evaluate information about service and course-development activities. Both undergraduate and graduate students can com-
ment on effectiveness in the most commonly used advising, mentoring, and supervising research. methods for evaluating A faculty member can provide self-assessment teaching…do not begin to and critical information about pedagogical chaladdress all of the criteria lenges and successes for comparison with other that should be met evidence. A record of creative applications for support to improve teaching and learning argues for strong commitment to pedagogy. Institutional data and records can be mined for data about retention of students within a faculty member’s courses, changes in course enrollments, whether students enroll in other courses within the same or a related discipline, and students’ level of success in subsequent courses. The report cautions that criteria such as those just mentioned are subject to misinterpretation and must be used intelligently and carefully. The NRC report encourages faculty to “set clear goals for their students and ascertain whether students are meeting those goals throughout the course.” Chapter Five is devoted to formal and informal assessment methods that have been tested and reported in the science-education literature. It nicely summarizes how faculty can obtain high-quality information that will help determine whether instruction has improved student knowledge and capabilities. Both formative and summative evaluation methods are described in detail. The report notes the importance of determining whether students understand concepts. Methods are described that enable a teacher to identify which concepts have not been understood and then tailor instruction accordingly. This report is representative of the NRC’s strong efforts during the past few years to improve STEM education. I am encouraged that a research-oriented group is devoting such attention to the kinds of problems we teachers face every day. The NRC’s stance indicates that those problems are crucial to the enterprise of science in this country and the world. Reading this report, and implementing some of its recommendations, is a positive step you can take to improve both your individual effectiveness and that of your department and institution. Literature Cited 1. National Research Council. Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; Committee on Recognizing, Evaluating, Rewarding, and Developing Excellence in Teaching of Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Marye Anne Fox and Norman Hackerman, Editors, 2003. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press: Washington, DC. (available at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309072778/html/)
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 2 February 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
119
