Evaluating teaching: guidelines and good practice Evaluation of teaching involves collecting evidence, from various stakeholders, for

the purpose of improving the effectiveness of the teaching-learning process. A successful evaluation generates outcomes that are valid, reliable and indicate directions and action for improvement. There is much more to an evaluation than `putting out a questionnaire'. These guidelines suggest five key questions to be addressed when considering the practical issues of evaluating teaching. They stop short of engaging in the wider issues of how such evaluations relate to the educational aims of the taught programme, or to the total experience of the student; these are issues for attention through the Peer Teaching Observation scheme. 1. What is the purpose of the evaluation? It could be an evaluation of the quality of the educational provision (the product) - which could be the whole programme, a course (module), a class (lecture, seminar, laboratory, etc) the performance of the provider(s) - the academic staff, tutors, support staff, involved in the delivery of this programme/course/class the experience of the students as partners in the process - their experience of what is provided, and of the providers their motivation and approach to learning a combination of these things - provided that the various purposes are made absolutely clear to those asked to make the evaluation Good practice: make clear to all those involved the purpose, or purposes, of the evaluation. 2. What is the focus of the evaluation? For example, you might want to know about the clarity of the stated educational aims and learning outcomes the realism of stated pre-requisites/prior knowledge curriculum and content - perceptions of relevance/usefulness the way in which the curriculum was presented or delivered the development of subject-specific skills the development of non-subject specific (personal and/or transferable) skills the appropriateness of the methods of assessment the appropriateness of the style of teaching, and the performance of teacher the quality of feedback to the student on the performance of the student the motivation/attitudes of the student the educational challenge presented to the students the workload, how reasonable, how realistic the support available to students/coursebooks/resources for independent learning the effort made by the student, and the take-up of support/guidance the overall experience of the student of the teaching and support for learning but a string of questions with such a wide range of foci makes it difficult for the person giving the evaluation to recall, reflect and give a careful response. Good practice: make clear to all those involved the focus of an evaluation - if there are multiple foci organise the questions into clusters, identifying the focus

of each cluster - help the evaluator to concentrate and make a reflective response 3. Who will be asked to make the evaluation? An evaluation of teaching will normally be designed for students as the primary evaluators, but there is advantage in also seeking evaluation by all the partners in the process. The responses of the different participants in the process - students and staff permit a correlation that adds greatly to the reliability and validity of the outcomes of the evaluation. Such correlation provides insight into the level of harmony, or disharmony, of perceptions between the partners in the teaching-learning process. Internal and/or external academic peers can also be invited to participate in the evaluation, to introduce a wider perspective on, for example, the academic standards of the educational provision. Good practice: correlate outcomes of evaluation from different viewpoints wherever possible. 4. Who will see the outcomes of the evaluation; who will act upon them? Before designing an evaluation it is necessary to define how, and by whom, the raw data will be processed to generate outcomes to whom the outcomes will be reported, and in what detail who bears responsibility for taking action in the light of the outcomes The evaluators, and the evaluated, must have access to the outcomes of the evaluation. So too must the person(s) responsible for the management of the quality of the educational provision, such as a Head of Department, programme leader (or equivalent) or chair of a departmental teaching committee. However, not all of these need have access to the same level of detail. Good practice: make clear, from the outset, to all involved in the evaluation process who will have sight of the outcomes, and who will be responsible for taking action, and monitoring the effectiveness of action. (Note: there is little point, and potential harm, in seeking evaluation of matters where there is no realistic prospect of any action following the outcomes of evaluation.) 5. What methods of evaluation are available? Only when the purpose of evaluation, its focus, reporting and responsibility for action have been determined can the method of evaluation properly be addressed. There is always advantage to be gained by using several methods of evaluation and correlating their outcomes. a). Questionnaire This familiar method of seeking feedback from students has the potential advantage of speed (in administration), anonymity (of response) and standardisation (for purposes of comparison between cohorts). It can suffer from poor response rate and validity of outcomes if not designed with care (for purpose and focus), and if over-applied (the effect of "questionnaire-fatigue"). Points to consider: Who should design the questionnaire? The answer is determined by the purpose of the evaluation, and is, most commonly, the person(s) responsible for the delivery of the education under evaluation, but it is good practice to seek the views of the intended evaluators of its suitability for the purpose. The Education Enhancement team can provide help with questionnaire design. Should the questions be designed for response on a rating scale (eg. a positive

statement with response on a scale of `agree' to `disagree')? Rating scales lend themselves to rapid processing and ease of comparability across cohorts/years, especially when using online survey tools, but they limit the range of response. Should the questions be designed for freeform response (eg. "what did you find most challenging about ...")? Freeform responses allow a more subtle range of responses, and for the raising of issues beyond those set out in the questionnaire, but they take longer to complete, longer to process and much longer to report. It is good practice for the processing and reporting to be done by someone not closely involved with the subject of the evaluation. A good compromise is a questionnaire that is mainly of rating-scale format (for speed and consistency) with some opportunities for freeform response. How long should the questionnaire be? In order that the purpose and focus remains clear it is good practice to keep a questionnaire short - about 20 questions would be about right for a rating-scale format, but much less if all the questions allow freeform response. When should it be administered? The answer to this depends entirely on the purpose. For example, evaluation after the end of a module gives a more complete picture, but too late for that cohort to benefit from the information - evaluation part-way through the module, or after individual classes, gives an incomplete picture, but would enable some adjustment of the remainder of the module to benefit that cohort. The purpose and focus also determine the best frequency of administration, but it is unwise to overload to the extent that questionnaire fatigue sets in. It is good practice for a department to have a planned schedule of evaluation, with higher frequency of evaluation where there is cause for concern, and lower frequency where evaluation gives stable positive outcomes. b). Structured group interview (nominal group technique) This is a meeting with students at which they are asked to give their views about a programme, course or class. It must be structured with care to generate constructive debate, and so that students feel free to express their views without personal risk. Typically, students are asked to work in small groups to reflect upon good and bad features of the educational provision (eg. programme, course or module), its delivery, and their own performance and experience. A spokesperson from each group is asked to relay the considered views of the group to the meeting. The role of the member of staff leading the meeting is to compile a summary of such views, to validate them at the meeting, and, later, to produce a short report of the main outcomes. The structured group interview allows students to have greater freedom of expression than a questionnaire, and more opportunity to make constructive suggestions for improvement. It typically requires a meeting of about an hour, but the processing is done during that hour and the time needed for producing a report is short. It is good practice for a group interview to be led by an experienced leader who is not involved in the delivery of the educational provision that is being evaluated, and preferable not in the same department. Education Enhancement can provide guidance on the operation of structured group interviews, and members of EE have experience of leading and reporting such meetings. c). Student-staff liaison committee Every academic department has a staff-student liaison committee. While this is neither

the right venue, nor necessarily the right group, to conduct evaluation, it is an opportunity for students and staff as partners in the teaching/learning process to identify priorities for scheduling evaluations propose particular purposes and foci of evaluation comment on the outcomes of evaluations, their validity and reliability It is good practice for every meeting of a liaison committee to include a default agenda item on evaluation of teaching, so that it is a legitimate topic to raise at any meeting. Points raised at student-staff liaison committees can provide useful correlation with outcomes of evaluations made by other methods (see also the Code of Practice for student-staff liaison committees). d). Self-evaluation and peer evaluation A simple but effective form of self-evaluation by a course/module team is for them to undertake the same form of evaluation undertaken by the students, ie. to complete the same questionnaire, or to conduct a self-evaluation using the same format of a structured group interview. The degree of harmony between the staff responses and the outcomes of the students' evaluation is a good indicator of staff awareness of student perceptions. Items of disharmony suggest that staff understanding of students' needs and concerns needs to be addressed before attending to issues of detail that arise from the evaluation. Peer evaluation, by external examiners, to support self-evaluation of teaching in relation to the maintenance of academic standards is a familiar and routine activity. Less familiar, but equally valuable, is regular peer evaluation of the teaching/learning process. A colleague, focusing on the process that is taking place, adds a dimension of evaluation that may escape the member of staff and the students, who are generally too busy with the business of teaching and learning to observe the process itself. However, casual `dropping-in' on a class is not the best approach to peer evaluation. It is good practice for peer evaluation to be a planned and structured process, involving the separate stages of briefing, to set context and identify aims and learning outcomes of the process that is to be observed observation, with a checklist of key features to look for, agreed at the briefing de-briefing, to give feedback on the observation and to compare the perceptions of the observer and the observed Examples of observation checklists and features to look for in the teaching/learning process are available from the Education Enhancement. Again, both self-evaluation and peer evaluation provide correlation with, and add value to, other forms of evaluation of teaching.
Evaluating Your own Teaching
Introduction Methods for Evaluating Your Teaching Web References and Resources

Introduction
Courses need to be continuously monitored, reviewed and renewed to ensure the teaching (including the teaching and learning activities and the assessment) and course (objectives,

learning outcomes and contents) quality are up-to-standards and up-to-date. This is the core duty of any teacher regardless of being a new or an experienced staff. Evaluating teachers own teaching is a way to identify the strong aspects of their practice, as well as their weaknesses which may need to be changed and improved. Teachers should take initiatives and responsibility to evaluate their teaching and make improvements over time. It is important to understand that evaluating your teaching does not mean you are a bad teacher, in fact, it means quite the opposite. A good teacher teaches and learns. You could be the best teacher with the best course materials, course activities, learning outcomes and assessments. But as time changes, course needs to revise to suit the needs of the society, the employers and the diversity of students. A good teacher will take in criticism, initiate evaluation and learn from their students. The Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning (SETL) Questionnaire is one of the ways courses and teachings in HKU are evaluated. HKU places significant importance on student learning and on the continuous enhancement of teaching and learning outcomes. For more information on SETL, please contact the Centre CETL.

Methods for Evaluating Your Teaching

1.

Self-monitoring: Teachers monitor their own performance as they teach. Teachers should monitor themselves while teaching. After each teaching session, teachers should ask themselves (or complete a brief self-evaluation form) on whether they have met their determined goals and objectives, and evaluate the good and the to-be-improved aspects of the session. Teachers can keep a log (i.e. a teaching portfolio, or video log as described in the next section) to track their own progress and improvement over time. Self-monitoring is a meaningful source of information for evaluating teaching. Teachers would take special notice of (and record) those information which are particularly important to them, like a customized profile for individual teachers.

However, self-monitoring involves self-judgment. It is often difficult to be totally fair and objective. Personal biases and misinterpretations of students' reaction by the teachers themselves may interfere with the effectiveness of the evaluation.

2.

Audio and video recording: Teachers can audio- or video-tape their teaching sessions, which allows them to keep record of and investigate their actual teaching performance in detail. Teachers can review the records with other colleagues to discuss the areas for improvements. Audio and video recording provide teachers with objective information that reflects what was actually happening in the class. It is always easy for people to monitor others and notice their weaknesses, but it is rather difficult for them to monitor themselves, especially

during teaching when teachers are devoting most of their attention in instructing and explaining to students. o Recording reflects the actual teaching performance, but it is meaningless by itself. For example, it does not tell teachers whether speaking at a particular pace is good or bad. Teachers have to discuss with their fellows to obtain opinions to identify the strengths and weaknesses in their teaching, as well as possible room for improvements. o It is a good idea to arrange several recording sessions throughout the semester (e.g. one at the beginning, one in the middle and one at the end of semester) to check with the progress and improvement of specifically targeted areas. But it is important to obtain the consent from students and the faculty before doing the recording. o Furthermore, keeping a log of class video records can help teachers track their own progress, and it is also a useful reference material for new teaching staff to learn from. 3. Students feedback on teaching: Students' perception of learning experience in class is sometimes the most direct way to weigh how effective a teacher delivers his teaching. After all, the goal of education is to make students learn and understand. Therefore, what students perceive and experience in class would directly determine how effective they are learning. Collecting students' perception of teaching should be carried out several times in the semester (at least once at mid-term and once at the end of term), to allow opportunities to correct poor practices rather than leaving them till the end of course. Two common methods to collect o information about students' perception towards teaching are questionnaires and interviews. Questionnaires: This is a common method to collect students opinion about teaching, and it has been used widely across universities as a standard practice. Standardized questions on the questionnaires collect information about students' background, general opinions about the course (e.g. the topics are interesting, course materials are difficult, too many assignments, comments given on assignments are helpful etc.), and an overall evaluation on the effectiveness of the course and the teacher, using predefined scales of quantitative scores (e.g. 1 Strongly Agree, ..., 5 Strongly Disagree). Some general open-ended questions such as "What do you think can be improved in this course?" and "What do you like most about this course?" are usually included in the questionnaires. Of course, teachers can put down some specific topical questions in which they particularly would like to know about. Questionnaires can collect responses from a large number of students simultaneously, which provide a comprehensive picture that reflect the opinions of the whole class (i.e. good representativeness), and can be efficiently administered in terms of time and resources. Responses in questionnaires are given anonymously, so students are more willing to freely express what they actually think and perceive about the course. However, the limitation of questionnaire lies at its standardized organization of questions. Questions on the questionnaires are fixed, and therefore the teachers cannot probe further information of their interests immediately base on the respondents responses as in interviews.

 express themselves. have learnt). o

Also, questionnaire survey is better to be administered by someone who is not in charge of the grades of students, so that students would feel more comfortable to

Questionnaire survey must be careful designed to avoid confusion and negative effect from the students (e.g. students may think that this is a way to test how much they

Interviews: Focus-group interviews with students can be conducted by the teachers themselves (if trust has been built among the teacher and students) or an outside person (if greater level of objectivity is required). Teachers can set the questions that they are interested to know about with their faculty's colleague and consultants in advance, and probe more detailed information and clarifications from students during the interview. It is obviously a more flexible option compared to large class questionnaire surveys.

Directly interviewing students can usually reveal students' thoughts on some unanticipated aspects, which can generate lots of useful information.

entire class. o

But interviews can usually only be conducted with a small portion of students in the class, which may not necessary be reflecting the whole picture of thoughts of the

Besides the above methods, teachers can also deduce how well the students are learning and acquiring knowledge from the class by looking at their assignments and test results. Provided that the assignments and tests are well-designed and have high validity in measuring students' learning achievements, they can be good indicators of how effective the goal of helping students to learn is achieved by the teaching delivered. However, teachers cannot infer from assignments and test results about what is good or bad about their teaching, and what causes students to learn better or worse. One general limitation of assessing teaching quality based on students feedback is that their opinions can be very biased to their own perspectives. Many students may not actually know what they should know and learn from the course. Also, students usually do not possess enough knowledge about how the course can be taught, including the possible pedagogies and course contents. It is also very important that teachers should tell students that they are aware of and are genuinely interested in the opinions given. After receiving students' feedback, teachers should describe to the students what changes are made in response to their opinions, and also explain the reasons why they choose not to change the other practices as requested by students. Students would question the usefulness of collecting their opinions if teachers do not let them know their opinions are heard.

4.

Feedback from observation by other colleagues and experts: Teachers can invite other colleagues or experts to sit in their classes and directly observe how the teaching is

conducted (including teaching style, contents, pace etc.), to give feedback and constructive criticisms. Similar to video recording, observation by other people allows teachers to become aware of many things that they are too busy to notice while conducting their teaching. Teachers can negotiate with the observers before the class observation regarding the areas of focus, and o discuss the important points in a debriefing meeting afterwards. Peer-observation: Junior teachers can invite other junior peers to observe and give feedback to their teaching. This would be free from any political risk and peers would be o willing to exchange and share their ideas freely and honestly. Observation by senior colleagues: Teachers can also invite experienced senior teachers to be their observers. Senior teachers who have experiences in teaching can often provide useful opinions for new teachers to get started smoothly. Nevertheless, political risks can be a concern since some teachers behave differently when being observed by seniors o who make decisions about their promotion and tenure. Observation by professionals from an outside party: Teachers may consult their universitys teaching support center or similar organizations to arrange a teaching consultant to observe their classes. These consultants do not necessarily need to possess adequate knowledge about the subject being taught, but they can provide objective comments to teachers on general presentation skills, skills of facilitating student discussions, and ideas for active and interesting learning approaches.

Immunization:This schedule may vary depending upon where you live, your child's health, the type of vaccine, and the vaccines available. Some of the vaccines may be given as part of a combination vaccine so that your child gets fewer shots. Ask your doctor which vaccines your child should receive.

Birth

HBV: Hepatitis B vaccine; recommended to give the first dose at birth, but may be given at any age for those not previously immunized.

1-2 months

HBV: Second dose should be administered 1 to 2 months after the first dose.

2 months

DTaP: Diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine Hib: Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine IPV: Inactivated poliovirus vaccine PCV: Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine

Rota: Rotavirus vaccine

4 months

DTaP Hib IPV PCV Rota

6 months

DTaP Hib PCV Rota: This third dose may be needed, depending on the brand of vaccine used in previous immunizations.

6 months and annually

Influenza: The vaccine is recommended every year for children 6 months and older. Kids under 9 who get a flu vaccine for the first time will receive it in two separate doses at least a month apart. Those younger than 9 who have been vaccinated in the past might still need two doses if they have not received at least two flu vaccinations since July 2010. Kids 6 months to 5 years old are still considered the group of kids who most need the flu vaccine, but updated guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now recommend that all older kids and teens get it, too. It's especially important for high-risk kids to be vaccinated. High-risk groups include, but aren't limited to, kids younger than 5 years old, and those with chronic medical conditions, such as asthma, heart problems, sickle cell anemia, diabetes, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). It can take up to 2 weeks after the shot is given for the body to build up immunity against the flu.

6-18 months

HBV IPV

12-15 months

Hib MMR: Measles, mumps, and rubella (German measles) vaccine PCV Chickenpox (varicella)

12-23 months

HAV: Hepatitis A vaccine; given as two shots at least 6 months apart

15-18 months

DTaP

4-6 years

DTaP MMR IPV Varicella

11-12 years

HPV: Human papillomavirus vaccine, given as 3 shots over 6 months. It's recommended for both girls and boys to prevent genital warts and certain types of cancer. Tdap: Tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis booster. Also recommended during each pregnancy a woman has. Meningococcal vaccine: And a booster dose is recommended at age 16.

College entrants

Meningococcal vaccine: Recommended for previously unvaccinated college students who will live in dormitories. One dose will suffice for healthy college students whose only risk factor is dorm living.

Special circumstances

HAV is recommended for kids 2 years and older who have not received the vaccine and are at increased risk of developing hepatitis A. This includes kids who live in states or will travel to countries where the disease is common.

Meningococcal vaccine can be given to kids as young as 2 months old who are at risk of contracting meningococcal disease, such as meningitis. This includes children with certain immune disorders as well as those who live in (or are planning to travel to) countries where meningitis is common. This vaccine also should be given to teens 13 and older who did not receive it in childhood.

Pneumococcal vaccines also can be given to older kids (age 2 and up) who have immunocompromising conditions, such as asplenia or HIV infection, or other conditions, like a cochlear implant.

Current Immunisation Schedule

The National Immunisation Program (NIP) Schedule (0 - 4 Years) Valid from 1 July 2013
Age Birth Disease immunised against Hepatitis B

2 months Diphtheria Tetanus Pertussis Polio Hib Hepatitis B Pneumococcal Rotavirus 4 months Diphtheria Tetanus Pertussis Polio Hib Hepatitis B Pneumococcal Rotavirus 6 months Diphtheria Tetanus Pertussis Polio Hib (refer to note 1) Hepatitis B (or at 12 months) Pneumococcal Rotavirus (refer to note 2) 12 months Measles Mumps Rubella Hib

Hepatitis B (or at 6 months) Meningococcal C 18 months Measles Mumps Rubella Varicella Pneumococcal (refer to note 3) 4 years Diphtheria Tetanus Pertussis Polio Measles (refer to note 4) Mumps(refer to note 4) Rubella (refer to note 4)

Note: 1. Four doses of Hib vaccine are due at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age when 'PRP-T Hib' containing vaccine is used. 2. Three doses of Rotavirus vaccine are due at 2, 4 and 6 months of age when RotaTeq vaccine is used. 3. Four doses of Pneumococcal vaccine are due at 2, 4, 6 and 18 months of age when Synflorix vaccine is used. 4. MMR vaccine is only to be given at 4 years if MMRV vaccine was not given at 18 months.
mmunization, or immunisation, is the process by which an individual's immune system becomes fortified against an agent (known as theimmunogen). When this system is exposed to molecules that are foreign to the body, called non-self, it will orchestrate an immune response, and it will also develop the ability to quickly respond to a subsequent encounter because of immunological memory. This is a function of the adaptive immune system. Therefore, by exposing an animal to an immunogen in a controlled way, its body can learn to protect itself: this is called active immunization. The most important elements of the immune system that are improved by immunization are the T cells, B cells, and the antibodies B cells produce.Memory B cell and memory T cells are responsible for a swift response to a second encounter with a foreign molecule. Passive immunization is when these elements are introduced directly into the body, instead of when the body itself has to make these elements. Immunization is done through various techniques, most commonly vaccination. Vaccines against microorganisms that cause diseases can prepare the body's immune system, thus helping to fight or prevent an infection. The fact that mutations can cause cancer cells to produce proteins or other molecules that are unknown to the body forms the theoretical basis for

therapeutic cancer vaccines. Other molecules can be used for immunization as well, for example in experimental vaccines against nicotine (NicVAX) or the hormone ghrelin in experiments to create an obesity vaccine. Before vaccines, the only way people became immune to a certain disease was by actually getting the disease and surviving it. Immunizations are definitely less risky and an easier way to become immune to a particular disease. They are important for both adults and children in that they can protect us from the many diseases out there. Through the use of immunizations, some infections and diseases have almost completely been eradicated throughout the United States and the World. One for example is polio. Thanks to dedicated health care professionals and the parents of children who vaccinated on schedule, polio has been eliminated in the U.S. since 1979. Polio is still found in other parts of the world though so certain people could still be at risk of getting it. This includes those people who have never had the vaccine, those who didn't receive all doses of the vaccine, or those traveling to areas of the world where polio is still prevalent. Active immunization/vaccination has been named one of the "Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century".[1]
Contents
[hide]

o o

1 Passive and active immunization 1.1 Active immunization 1.2 Passive immunization 2 See also 3 References 4 External links

Passive and active immunization[edit source | editbeta]

Medical student participating in a polio vaccine campaign in Mexico

Immunization can be achieved in an active or passive manner: vaccination is an active form of immunization.

Active immunization[edit source | editbeta]

Main article: Active immunity Active immunization can occur naturally when a person comes in contact with, for example, a microbe. If the person has not yet come into contact with the microbe and has no pre-made antibodies for defense, as in passive immunization, the person becomes immunized. The immune system will eventually create antibodies and other defenses against the microbe. The next time, the immune response against this microbe can be very efficient; this is the case in many of the childhood infections that a person only contracts once, but then is immune. Artificial active immunization is where the microbe, or parts of it, are injected into the person before they are able to take it in naturally. If whole microbes are used, they are pre-treated. The importance of immunization is so great that the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has named it one of the "Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century". [1] Live attenuated vaccines have decreased pathogenicity. Their effectiveness depends on ability to replicated and elicits a response similar to natural infection. It is usually effective with a single dose. Examples of live, attenuated vaccines include measles, mumps, rubella, MMR, yellow fever, varicella, rotavirus, and influenza (LAIV).

Passive immunization[edit source | editbeta]

Main article: Passive immunity Passive immunization is where pre-synthesized elements of the immune system are transferred to a person so that the body does not need to produce these elements itself. Currently, antibodiescan be used for passive immunization. This method of immunization begins to work very quickly, but it is short lasting, because the antibodies are naturally broken down, and if there are no B cells to produce more antibodies, they will disappear. Passive immunization occurs physiologically, when antibodies are transferred from mother to fetus during pregnancy, to protect the fetus before and shortly after birth. Artificial passive immunization is normally administered by injection and is used if there has been a recent outbreak of a particular disease or as an emergency treatment for toxicity, as in fortetanus. Treatment of this sort is often the subject of case based learning in first year medical curricula. The antibodies can be produced in animals, called "serum therapy," although there is a high chance of anaphylactic shock because of immunity against animal serum itself. Thus, humanized antibodies produced in vitro by cell culture are used instead if available.