University of Kansas Advances Teaching Evaluation and Instructional Excellence in College Education
Why Student Surveys Alone Are Insufficient
Student evaluation forms are a familiar part of the academic cycle, but relying on them exclusively can distort the picture of teaching effectiveness. Research shows that these surveys often capture students’ affective responses—”did you like the class?”—rather than the instructional practices that drive learning outcomes. Biases related to instructor gender, race, and course difficulty further undermine their validity.
Biases and Limitations
Studies indicate that student ratings can be influenced by factors unrelated to teaching quality, such as course workload or grading leniency. When these ratings dominate evaluation systems, faculty may feel pressured to prioritize popularity over pedagogical rigor.
Impact on Faculty Development
Because student surveys rarely provide actionable feedback, faculty often miss opportunities to refine lesson plans, assessment strategies, or classroom dynamics. This gap can stall professional growth and limit the institution’s ability to showcase instructional excellence.
The Transforming College Teaching Evaluation Framework
The University of Kansas, in partnership with Michigan State, the University of Colorado, and UMass Amherst, developed a comprehensive rubric through a seven‑year NSF‑funded project. The framework aligns evaluation with the core values of higher education—research, service, and teaching—while offering a fair, evidence‑based approach to faculty assessment.
Seven‑Year NSF‑Funded Project
Launched in 2017, the project gathered data from over 1,200 faculty members and 30,000 students across four institutions. The goal was to create a model that captures multiple dimensions of teaching and provides clear expectations for each.
Core Dimensions of Teaching
Key areas include:
- Curriculum Design and Course Planning
- Instructional Delivery and Engagement
- Assessment and Feedback Practices
- Student Support and Accessibility
- Professional Development and Collaboration
Evidence Sources and Rubric
For each dimension, the rubric specifies:
- Defined expectations at each proficiency level
- Potential evidence sources—student work, peer observation, self‑reflection, and course artifacts
- Guidelines for reviewers to assess consistency and impact
Implementing the Framework on Your Campus
Adopting this model requires coordinated effort across departments, faculty, and administration. Below are practical steps to integrate the rubric into existing evaluation processes.
Building Institutional Support
Secure buy‑in from senior leaders by presenting data that links robust evaluation to improved student outcomes and faculty retention. Highlight how the rubric can enhance the university’s reputation for instructional excellence.
Training Faculty and Administrators
Offer workshops that walk faculty through the rubric’s dimensions, evidence collection, and self‑assessment techniques. Provide administrators with training on how to review evidence objectively and give constructive feedback.
Integrating into Promotion and Tenure
Align the rubric with promotion criteria by mapping each dimension to the competencies required for tenure. This ensures that teaching excellence is recognized alongside research and service.
Overcoming Resistance to Change
Change can be met with skepticism, especially when new evaluation methods demand additional effort. Address common concerns with transparent communication and evidence of success.
Common Concerns
- “It will add workload.”
- “It’s too subjective.”
- “Students will still dominate the narrative.”
Strategies for Buy‑In
Use pilot programs to demonstrate the rubric’s impact, share success stories from partner institutions, and involve faculty in refining the process. Recognize early adopters publicly to reinforce the value of the new system.
Case Studies from KU and Partner Universities
Each participating university tailored the framework to its unique culture. Below are highlights of how they achieved measurable improvements.
University of Kansas Experience
KU’s Center for Teaching Excellence led the initiative, integrating the rubric into the annual faculty review cycle. Results included a 15% increase in faculty satisfaction with evaluation feedback and a 10% rise in student engagement scores.
Michigan State, Colorado, UMass Amherst
These institutions reported similar gains, noting that the rubric helped clarify expectations for new faculty and fostered a culture of continuous improvement.
Next Steps for Educators and Administrators
Ready to move beyond student surveys? Start by exploring the resources below and connecting with the University of Kansas’s teaching excellence community.
Resources and Tools
How to Get Started
1. Assess Current Practices – Map existing evaluation tools to the rubric’s dimensions.
2. Form a Working Group – Include faculty, administrators, and student representatives.
3. Pilot the Rubric – Test with a small cohort and refine based on feedback.
4. Scale Up – Roll out across departments, ensuring training and support are in place.
Schedule a free consultation to learn more about implementing a robust teaching evaluation system. Explore our resources today.
Have questions? Write to us and we’ll help you navigate the transition.
Submit your application today to join the University of Kansas faculty development program and contribute to a culture of instructional excellence. Apply now.
Explore our related articles for further reading on instructional excellence. Read more.
