The Teaching Evaluation Initiative
As we strive to improve and build upon a culture of excellence in teaching and learning at Texas Tech, the Teaching, Learning, and Professional Development Center, the Teaching Academy, and the Office of the Provost and many other organizations, councils, committees, departments, and individuals have partnered together to consider how we might define, reflect upon, and evaluate teaching at Texas Tech University. This effort is called the Teaching Evaluation Initiative.
The goal of the Teaching Evaluation Initiative is to shift our campus culture to a three-voice teaching evaluation process that includes student feedback, self-reflection of one's own teaching, and peer evaluation of teaching. In particular, we strive to make the way in which we evaluate teaching transparent and multifaceted. The Teaching Evaluation Initiative is a collective project that builds upon a history of teaching excellence at Texas Tech. It is not our intent to mandate teaching practices, technologies, or strategies but rather we seek to collectively create shared resources and tools that faculty and departments can choose to adopt or adapt.
This project reflects our value and love for teaching. For more information, please contact Suzanne Tapp.
Project History and Timeline
In Fall, 2020, representatives from Texas Tech University were accepted to an invitation-only workshop convened by the Network of STEM Education Centers (NSEC), the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and the TEval Project with support from the National Science Foundation (IUSE 1524832, DRL 1725946, 1726087, 1725959, and 1725956). Attendees were divided into action planning campuses (Rutgers, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, University of California Los Angeles and University of Missouri) and Advisory Campuses (University of Colorado, University of Kansas, University of Massachusetts Amherst, University of Southern California, and University of Oregon). As we learned from other institutions and observed the ways in which they had improved their institutions' teaching cultures, the Teaching, Learning, and Professional Development Center partnered with the Texas Tech Teaching Academy to being a similar project at Texas Tech. The timeline on this page summarizes our progress to date.
A project of this nature is only possible with support from many individuals and stakeholders including the TLPDC, Teaching Academy, Office of the Provost, Office of the President, Office of Faculty Success, Faculty Senate, Chairs Council, Academic Council, Student Government Association, and many others. We acknowledge that our continued participation in TEval workshops and mentorship from Dr. Ginger Clark, Associate Vice Provost for Academic and Faculty Affairs (USC), as well as Dr. Noah Finkelstein, Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado Boulder, have provided significant guidance in our initiative. Many Texas Tech faculty members, staff, students, and administrators have devoted time to this project and without our shared work, our progress would be impossible.
Please click on the headings below to learn more about efforts in each of these areas:
Student Course Feedback
The charge of the Student Evaluation Committee was to examine course evaluations at
Texas Tech from an evidence-based perspective. We assessed our existing three-question
survey and considered the research investigating student evaluation data and the known
biases in this data. Review the frequently asked questions about this updated process.
The following individuals served as members of the Student Course Evaluations committee:
Michael Serra (Co-Chair), Suzanne Tapp (Co-Chair), Raegan Higgins, Angela Lumpkin,
Kerk Kee, Jason Headrick, Hayden Holmes, Sandra Huston, Sarah Wagnor, Kerri Ford,
Jason Rinaldo, Lauren Gollahon, Toby Brooks, Jackson Huffman, Molly Jacobs, and Addison
Sparks.
Why do we want to change the survey?
- To provide better information for instructors and administrators
- To gain better quality data focused on student perception of instruction
Summary of Recommendations:
| The process is not changing: The tool is changing. | |||
| Old Questions (4 questions total) |
Revised Questions (10 questions total) |
Categories | Scale |
| The course objectives were specified and followed by the instructor. Overall, the instructor was an effective teacher. |
The instructor presented material in a way that helped me engage in the course | Questions about the Instructor |
Likert scale Same response scale |
| The instructor helped me to understand the relevance of the course content | |||
| The instructor tailored instructions and lessons to incorporate a variety of perspectives | |||
| *Overall, the instructor’s teaching methods helped me learn the course content | |||
| Overall, this course was a valuable learning experience. |
The course assignments facilitated my learning | Questions about the Course | |
| The course was organized | |||
| There were opportunities for me to be successful in the course | |||
| *Overall, this course helped me learn required concepts or skills | |||
| Please make any overall comments or observations about this instructor or course |
In terms of your learning, what were the MOST EFFECTIVE aspects of this course and why? | Overall Questions | Free- Response Open-ended |
| In terms of your learning, what were the LEAST EFFECTIVE aspects of this course and why? | |||
| *Questions marked with an asterisk are aligned with questions on the current student
evaluation survey for comparison with previous years. |
|||
Summary of the Student Evaluation Committee’s Work
In 2021, the Student Evaluation Committee began with a literature review to consider the validity, information, and biases associated with student evaluations. They reviewed course evaluations from other institutions and built a question bank. In partnership with Texas Tech Institutional Research, they gained insight of the capabilities with SmartEvals for customization and data analysis. This committee spent significant time with student focus groups and other stakeholder groups on campus including faculty, staff, and administrators to listen to concerns, preferences, and challenges of our student evaluation process. This work resulted in a draft of a revised survey form. Two pilot tests with the new questions resulted in a set of 8 Likert scale questions and 2 open-ended questions. The new student feedback form will be implemented in Fall, 2024 and reviewed after the completion of Fall, 2025 and Fall, 2027.
Timeline:
| Timeline | Goal | Action |
| Fall 2021 | Review literature about student evaluations and look at course evaluations from other institutions |
|
| Spring 2022 | Gather feedback from stakeholder groups on campus | Chair survey, faculty survey, student survey, Chair Academy session, student focus group (via Zoom), faculty roundtables (3) |
| Fall 2022 | Collect suggestions, rank survey categories, vet proposed questions and changes. Consider ways in which we can support faculty who receive biased feedback and provide resources to interpret survey data | Discussion at Faculty Senate, Chair Academy, Provost’s Council, and Student Government Association |
| Spring 2023 | Pilot Test One (Validate questions and gather information). Provide more transparent instructions for students | Revised student instructions on survey to focus on the evaluation process and divided questions into four categories: instructor/instruction, course/course design, free response (positive feedback/why), free response (feedback about possible improvements and why) |
| Fall 2023 | Pilot Test Two (Consider additional questions and question order on survey. Seek further validation) | |
| Spring 2024 | Present final recommendations to stakeholder groups |
|
| Fall 2024 | Full implementation |
|
| Fall 2025 and Fall 2027 | Review and Assessment | Analysis of response rates, number of words to open-ended questions, and overall analysis of evaluation ratings |
Summary of Pilot Tests:
Fall, 2023 Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) analysis of free-response data (conducted by Dr. Michael Serra: College of Arts & Sciences):
- The students’ language is more authentic and genuine with the new questions.
- The new questions seem to encourage more analytical thinking (more cognitive/thinking terms) and less emotional wording.
- There are fewer gendered words with the new questions which could equate to some reduction in gender based biases.
Analysis from Pilot Test 1 (Spring, 2023) and Pilot Test 2 (Fall, 2023)
(conducted by Dr. Jaehoon Lee, Woonyoung Song, and Xiunan Shi: College of Education):
- The order of the questions matters: The summative questions at the end of each section (as opposed to the beginning of each section) result in more variation in responses for all questions and indicate that students are taking more time to read the questions.
- The questions listed above have a high information value (information refers to how precisely the item discriminates between individuals at various levels of the trait. Here, the trait represents the effectiveness of the instructor/course).
- Overall, the students wrote about twice as many words (total) with the two proposed free-response questions.
How Do Faculty Interpret their Student Course Feedback?
Interpreting Student Course Feedback from an Administrator’s Perspective
Self-Reflection of One's Own Teaching
The Self Reflection committee is comprised of Lisa Garner Santa (co-chair), Dominick Casadonte (co-chair), and Andrew Stetson.
With the goal to document the efforts instructors have made this fall semester to address our unique teaching situation, the Teaching Academy and TLPDC are recommending self-reflection using already available areas in Digital Measures that can be found here.
Peer Evaluation of Teaching
TTU Definition of Teaching
Texas Tech University is committed to student-centered, intentional, evidence-based, and engaging teaching and learning. This definition has been endorsed by the Teaching Academy Executive Council, Chair Council, Associate Deans Council, Academic Council, and the Provost. Learn more about how we define teaching excellence.
Student-Centered
Excellent teachers tailor learning to be collaborative (when appropriate) and fair, ensuring every student is empowered to take an active role in their own learning. They strive to create learning environments that support student success and wellness and anticipate a variety of life experiences, learning histories, identities, and perspectives. These teachers have high expectations for students and provide opportunities for them to convey their learning.
Intentional
Excellent teachers are intentional in how they design and foster the learning experience to achieve specific goals and outcomes. Over their careers, they use a variety of instructional techniques, remain receptive to improving and innovating their teaching methods, and understand that excellent teaching is reflective and evolving.
Evidence-Based
Excellent teachers are purposeful in using best teaching practices grounded in a solid understanding of pedagogy drawn from research, experience, and professional dialogue. They seek evidence to establish and track the effectiveness of teaching methods to ensure students reach learning outcomes.
Engaging
Excellent teachers help learners develop as independent, creative, and critical thinkers by actively engaging students in the learning process. These teachers develop and share their genuine interest in the topic and demonstrate the applicability of content to academic and professional pursuits.
Departmental Teaching Plans
Several departments have agreed to participate in a pilot program in Fall, 2024 through Spring, 2025 to develop departmental teaching plans. These departments include Human Development and Family Sciences, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Management, and Plant & Soil Science. In this pilot program, the goal of the project is to consider how the departments currently evaluate teaching, what additional resources might be beneficial, and how they can create or build onto a plan vetted and agreed up by their faculty colleagues. Some departments on campus have already engaged in this work, such as Kinesiology & Sport Management.
This project is conducted in collaboration with the DeLTA Project (NSF IUSE 1821023) at the University of Georgia (UGA). We plan to adapt their model of designating small faculty teams to prepare departmental teaching evaluation plans. At UGA, they call this group the Catalyzing Action Team (CAT). Two faculty members from each department are paired with a TLPDC staff. The faculty team will then share this information with the department. In the UGA model, the CDACs of the involved departments are called the Leadership Action Team (LAT). The LAT group will update Chair Council to share progress with other departments as we consider broader adaption.
Other Resources
Subcommittee Information:
Resources and recorded sessions from the 2021 Advancing Teaching & Learning Conference (ATLC), focused on teaching evaluations at TTU.
Teaching, Learning, & Professional Development Center
-
Address
University Library Building, Room 136, Mail Stop 2044, Lubbock, TX 79409-2004 -
Phone
806.742.0133 -
Email
tlpdc@ttu.edu