In considering how teaching portfolios should be evaluated for summative purposes, two points need to be made at the outset. First, even a well organized teaching portfolio will demand between one and two hours at a bare minimum to study adequately. To draw any useful information from the portfolio, it cannot be merely glanced at. Second, proper evaluation of a teaching portfolio involves the prior formulation of explicit criteria on which such judgments shall be based.
1) Deciding what reviewers want to learn from the portfolio;
2) Deciding what should be included in the portfolio to achieve the desired result; and
3) Specifying the criteria to be used in evaluating the portfolio.
Needless to say, the criteria actually chosen will vary according to the group doing the evaluation. Departmental executive committees might establish criteria that focus on things like whether an instructor's courses integrate well with the rest of the department's curriculum. This is a matter of particular concern in disciplines such as engineering, where students are expected to master concepts and methods in introductory courses that furnish the foundations for more advanced work. By contrast, curricular fit might not have the highest priority for a higher-level review committee or dean, who would be more concerned with safeguarding the rigor and integrity of the teaching enterprise as a whole. In all instances, however, it is important that the criteria chosen be as explicit as possible, and, where possible, that they be developed in coordination with the instructor(s) undergoing review.
Unfortunately, there exists no single set of criteria applicable in all instances. One possibility is for a panel to select its criteria to emphasize the instructional process itself. Relevant questions in this instance might be the following (adapted from Murray 1995, p. 40):
Of course the "accomplishment" referred to in the first section is subject to interpretation. Do high enrollments or favorable student evaluations in a course represent "accomplishment"? Or student performance on standardized tests? Or observations by peers? It is here where review committees need to take care in formulating criteria that reflect the panel's expectations of teaching performance.
It is important that panels not rely too heavily on quantitative criteria, such as numerical student evaluations or performance on standardized tests. The temptation to do so arises naturally enough from the ease of comparison such numbers provide, as well as from their seeming objectivity. Yet other non-quantitative criteria can be equally valid, and are often more informative.
For example, consider the following criteria, which are related to the design and content of an instructor's courses (adapted from Murray 1995, p. 40):
Although these questions would be difficult, if not impossible, to answer using quantitative measures, they nonetheless point to criteria that reviewers will probably want to include in any assessment of an instructor's teaching portfolio. What all this means is that a review panel would be well advised to gather as much information of diverse kinds as it can reasonably assimilate.
REFERENCES
William Cerbin, "The Course Portfolio as a Tool for Continuous Improvement of Teaching and Learning." Journal of Excellence in College Teaching 1994, 5:95-105.
John P. Murray, Successful Faculty Development and Evaluation: The Complete Teaching Portfolio. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Number 8 (Washington D.C., 1995).