How to Annoy Your Department Chair

Report
RIT Faculty Institute on
Teaching and Learning
How to Annoy Your Department Chair
and Get Poor Ratings for Your
Teaching Efforts
DP Johnson
5/25/2011
“Just because class is
allotted 50 minutes does
not mean it needs to go to
the bell every day”
“Prof spent a lot of time
explaining very basic
things in ways that make
them hard to understand”
This Session
• Challenge
– Administrators use a wide variety of methods to evaluate teaching
– Faculty use a wide variety of methods to describe their teaching
success in self evaluation documents
• Objectives
– Present some effective (and not so effective) techniques used by
faculty to represent their efforts
– Increase your ability to think like an administrator as you prepare
teaching evaluation documents
• Outcomes
– At the end of the session you should be able to…
• List six ways you can annoy your department chair
• Describe challenges faced by administrators as they evaluate
teaching
• Craft more effective teaching self evaluation documents for
annual, tenure and promotion reviews
Qualifiers
• Currently an Administrator
• All good ideas stolen, all bad ideas from experience
• CPED
Compulsive Process Engineering Disorder (CPED)
Desired Process
The System
Your Brilliant Teaching + System Run by Others = Rewards You Want
Grim Reality
Official Data and Input
• Course Evaluations
• Peer Evaluations
• Formal Student
Complaints
• Teaching Awards
• Formal Student
Compliments
• Expectations in Policy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Un-Official Items
Rumor
Conjecture
Hallway Rumblings
Unfair Assignments
Peer Backstabbing
Peer Promotion
Unwritten
Expectations
Good
Bad
Ugly
Evaluation
Resources?
Your Teaching + System + (Rancor x Randomness) – Budget Restrictions = P(Oct Raise)
Grim Reality
Official Data and Input
• Course Evaluations
• Peer Evaluations
• Formal Student
Complaints
• Teaching Awards
• Formal Student
Compliments
• Expectations in Policy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Un-Official Items
Rumor
Conjecture
Hallway Rumblings
Unfair Assignments
Peer Backstabbing
Peer Promotion
Unwritten
Expectations
Good
Bad
Ugly
Evaluation
Resources?
Critique vs Experiment
6 Ways to Annoy Your Chair
How To Annoy Your Chair
• Dismiss “Small Stuff” Feedback
• Typical “Small Stuff” Complaints
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Slow to return graded work
Not sure what is due, when and in what form
Changes to due dates and assignments (verbal)
Bad graphics, old copies, VHS
Perceived disorganized activity
Inconsistent use of mycourses
Too much work / too little work for course outcome
Pet assignments and topics
How To Annoy Your Chair
• Complain About the System ……AND
• Be Uninformed re Policy and Procedure
– Policy and Procedure Manual E4.4.a
– a. Teaching
• The view that teaching is the foremost activity of the RIT faculty is
deeply rooted in the traditions of the institution, and the primacy of
teaching continues to be a hallmark of RIT. Consequently, the basic
consideration, both in initial appointments and matters pertaining
to salary adjustments, promotion and tenure, is the extent to which
high standards of teaching can be achieved and maintained.
• Effective teaching, among other things, consists of clearly and
enthusiastically communicating special knowledge and expertise
based on an understanding of curricular objectives and the learner’s
needs and abilities. Further, it entails advising and mentoring,
selecting and using appropriate instructional methods and materials
which lead to learning, and providing fair and useful evaluations of
the quality of the learner’s work. Effective teaching requires a
sensitivity to and rapport with the learner.
How To Annoy Your Chair
Policy Number: E7.0 ANNUAL REVIEW OF FACULTY
• B. Review Process
– 1. All faculty at Rochester Institute of Technology will participate
in an annual performance review.
– 2. …..
– 3. …..
– 4….
– 5. Each college's or academic unit's review process must include
the following elements:
• a. The faculty member's written self-evaluation and evidence
of performance in the criteria specified above (B.2.).
• b. ….
• c. Standardized student evaluations as established by college
policy. For non-tenured faculty these evaluations shall be
conducted in all sections taught during the period of review.
For tenured faculty they shall be conducted in at least one
section of each course taught during the period of review.
How To Annoy Your Chair
College and Department
• Policy
• Process
• Requests
• Traditions
• MMET/PS
– Self Evaluation
– 3 Categories
• Teaching
• Scholarship/Professional Development
• Service
“I enjoyed this class even
though it was at 9AM on
Monday”
“Teacher is da bomb”
“He is good at teach”
How To Annoy Your Chair
• Ignore Your Audience(s)
How To Annoy Your Chair
• Ignore Your Audience(s)
–
–
–
–
Follow the Process
Address all Categories
Don’t Flood with Text
Don’t Expect me to Remember
• List Classes, Section Sizes, Extra
Assignments, Special Projects
– Don’t Make me
• Re-Type Info
• Look up Dates, Course #’s
How To Annoy Your Chair
• Hand in the Same Crap as Last Year ….OR
• Start a Brand New Life in Every Plan of Work … OR
• Fail to Capitalize on All Your Activity
– Teaching
• Course Development (New or New to You)
• Classes Taught (Sections, Students, Contact Hrs)
– Feedback from This Cycle
• Course Improvements
– Based on Feedback
•
•
•
•
Thesis/Capstone Support
Independent Studies
Special Projects
Guest and Other Instructional Presentations
Sample
TEACHING :
COURSE INSTRUCTION :
Winter 2009-2
Course
Course name
Number
0610-409
Materials Testing II
Spring 2008-3
Course
Course name
Number
0610-409
Materials Testing II
Credit
Hours
2
TOTAL
Contact
Hours
1+2
7
Number
Sections
3
Credit
Hours
2
Contact
Hours
1+2
Number of
Sections
1 lecture
3- lab
TOTAL
Fall 2010-1
Course
Course name
Number
0610-211 Intro to Matls Technology
0610-304 Materials Testing I
0606-101 Undeclared ET Seminar *
Winter 2010-2
Course
Course name
Number
0610-409
Materials Testing II
0610-598
Ideation
Credit
Hours
3
1
1
TOTAL
Credit
Hours
2
2
TOTAL
of
7
Contact
Hours
3
2
2
7
Contact
Hours
1+2
2
9
Number of
Sections
1
1
1
Number of
Sections
3
1
Sample Item
Sample (entire self assessment of teaching)
Teaching:
2006-2: Engineering Economics – 2 sections.
2006-3 Engineering Economics and Power Systems II
2007-1 Engineering Economics – 1 section
How To Annoy Your Chair
• Forget About Other Readers
• Who Else…
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
•
Dean?
Mid-Tenure Committee
Tenure Committee
Next Department Chair
Jargon
Venting
Personal or Personnel Comments
Performance vs Normal Expectations
Other Assignments
– Program Chair
– Grant Release
5
How To Annoy Your Chair
• Describe no Plan for Continuous or
Incremental Improvement
Teaching:
Here is the list of courses I taught from winter 20062 to fall 20071
1. Courses Taught 20062
Course
Number of students
Duration Hr/wk
Credits
Section
0610-304
8
2
1
86
0610-303
20
4
4
02
0617-475
10
3
0
85
Total
38
9
Number of students
Duration Hr/wk
Credits
0610-303
40
4
4
70
0610-303
40
1
0
85, 86, & 87
0617-510
10
3
4
01
0617-510
10
1
0
40
Total
100
11
2. Courses Taught 20063
Course
Section
3. Courses Taught 20064
Course
Number of students
Duration
Credits
Section
PLTW
18
2 weeks
Number of students
Duration Hr/wk
Credits
Section
0610-101
28
2
2
01
0610-302
35
4
4
03
0617-262
23
4
4
01
Total
86
10
4. Courses Taught 20071
Course
TEACHING
COURSE LOAD
Quarter
Winter 2009-2
Course No.
MET 0610-465
Name
Thermofluids Laboratory
Highlights: The new syllabus implemented in 2007-3 was updated by adding pre-lab
presentations for each experiment to encourage further participation.
Students liked the “willingness to answer questions” and the “freedom to pick laboratory partners
and experiment”. Overall, there was a continuous advance in receptiveness and office hours.
Areas for improvement: include more direction and lab procedures, oral communication, and
motivation.
Spring 2009-3
MET 0610-460
Applied Fluid Mechanics
Highlights: The material was presented following the sequence of the textbook but including the
special lecture on dimensional analysis. The increased effort dedicated to break up lectures and
include more examples was positively received as some students indicated they liked the
PowerPoint presentations and the ‘great going’ over examples matching homework and tests,
although few felt lectures were dry and more examples were needed. Several students appreciated
the thoroughness on covering the material and explaining questions, the sense of humor, joviality
and enthusiasm. Some highlighted the availability on office hours and the encouragement on
seeking alternate solutions to problems.
Overall, there was a continuous advance in classroom procedures and fairness in grading; with a
recovery on instructor’s presentation, motivation, and addressing student questions.
Areas for improvement: include more support material while balancing the level of discussion
among the course topics. Dedicate some time to clarify symbols and nomenclature.
Fall 2010-1
MET 0610-305-02/03
Pneumatic and Hydraulic Systems
Highlights: In a joint investigation on the effect of using a modern teaching environment in the
student learning, classes were imparted in the TLT (Teaching and Learning Technology Studio,
Wallace Center). The studio has a wide array of equipment — such as tablet PCs, multi-image
projection capability, collaboration software (DyKnow®) and flexible room furniture.
The current compiled portfolio was again updated and significantly improved to take advantage of
the TLT environment. Relevant videos and support material were added. Multiple in-class
assignments designed for collaboration were also incorporated including some ‘virtual’
experiment set-ups to prepare the students for the weekly laboratory session (now reduced from
110 to 50 minutes). Among others, significant aspects of using the TLT environment were the
ability to provide immediate feedback to the students on class activities and the use of multiples
screens to present simultaneously the topic in discussion, the principles behind the topic, and the
support material.
Compared to previous sessions, in class participation was considerably up and grades did also
improve (9.4% in average). Preliminary voluntary evaluations, surveys and focus groups, indicate
student favored the use of the DyKnow® software and the learning environment.
Sample
““Excellent use of
constructive tangents”
“It came down to
forgetting what I already
know”
“Please don’t retire”
“ I hope he lives to 150 years old so he
can keep teaching here for a long time
and I can take more classes with him”

similar documents