Evaluation

There are 3 types of evaluations that you may use for programs: program evaluations, EEETs, and peer reviews. Program evaluations should be conducted for most programs, especially when utilizing a new curriculum or teaching a curriculum for the 1st time. Educators are expected to have 3-5 EEETs submitted and 1-2 peer reviews completed each year for their performance reviews.

Program Evaluations

Program evaluations are developed for specific programs to monitor impacts of a program. These are evaluations that you can develop yourself for your county programs or use evaluations developed by other ANR staff, teams and planning committees for curriculum such as pesticide recertification. See below for example evaluations.

Watch Stakeholder Identification in Evaluation

Stakeholders are critical to the planning, implementation, and results of an evaluation. Therefore, when planning to conduct a program evaluation it is important to make sure you consider all of your stakeholders. You not only have to understand who all of your stakeholders are, but how they may be impacted by your evaluation results. Your most critical stakeholders may not always be who you think they are. Presenter: Dr. Joy Rumble

 

Evaluation of Effective Extension Teaching (EEETs)

Evaluation of Effective Extension Teaching (EEETs) forms provide both quantitative and qualitative assessments of teaching from the learners’ point of view. Please note that these forms do not measure the impact of teaching, but rather the quality of teaching. When used in conjunction with other kinds of information, these forms provide extensive, objective documentation of teaching effectiveness.

Data from Ohio State University Extension instructors/educators have been collected since 1991. A database exists which allows comparisons on nine teaching effectiveness variables for individual in the promotion/tenure process. The individual submitting EEET forms for tabulation can use the results for self-improvement. EEET forms are a required component of both the performance appraisal process and the promotion/tenure process for program faculty and staff.

The EEET summary on any given Extension instructor’s teaching is confidentially returned to that instructor. It is the responsibility of the Extension instructor to review his or her EEET summary report for accuracy and completeness before sending to his or her supervisor for performance appraisal purposes.

Click here to access the EEET webpage and download forms for your program. Have someone from your office collect the forms from event participants and mail in (mailing address on cover form). You will need 3-5 EEETs completed each year.

 

Peer Evaluations of Teaching

Extension colleagues support one another in constantly enhancing the quality of teaching by observing one another’s educational activities and then summarizing their observations and providing helpful feedback in a letter to the instructor observed. Letters are structured around five important considerations: curriculum choice and development; how the faculty member promotes learning; faculty member’s preparedness; methods of/approaches to/strategies for/instruction; use of teaching aids; and student evaluation. A great place to start is with your mentors!

All Extension professionals are encouraged to invite peers to formally evaluate their teaching to help inform strategies for improving instructional delivery and effectiveness. A&P and faculty educators and specialists shall arrange for at least one peer evaluation of teaching annually. Other Extension professionals for whom teaching is a core component of their work are encouraged to do the same. This peer evaluation of teaching focuses on key dimensions outlined below and is provided in formal letter format.

Peers should be selected who possess a level of expertise needed to provide constructive and useful evaluative feedback on teaching (i.e. higher level of expertise as evidenced by additional years of experience, or a higher rank). It is not necessary that the peer reviewer have deep expertise in the subject matter.

NOTE: The peer evaluator does not have to be of an equal or higher rank; however, seeking feedback from peers of an equal or higher rank should be the practice to the extent possible, especially for faculty pursuing promotion.

The annual peer evaluation of teaching should be documented in narrative form as a letter from the peer to the instructor requesting the evaluative feedback. The letter should be on official letterhead of the peer and signed by the peer. Personal characteristics of the instructor and the importance of the subject matter are relevant only to the extent that they impact quality of teaching. Teaching materials (such as teaching outlines, handouts, audio/visuals, web sites, evaluation instruments, etc.) can be included in the review. When possible and feasible, the peer is encouraged to share verbal feedback to the instructor at the conclusion of the teaching event.

KEY DIMENSIONS OF PEER EVALUATION OF TEACHING LETTERS

  1. Curriculum Choice and Development
  • Appropriateness for audience and specific teaching objectives
  • Use of and appropriateness of supporting materials
  1. Instructional Strategies
  • Effectiveness of methods and materials
  • Effectiveness in engaging participants
  • Effective use of time allotted
  1. Promotion of Participant Learning
  • Learning objectives clearly stated and developed
  • Supporting materials useful to learners in their own situations
  • Opportunities provided for active participation
  • Key points identified and clearly summarized; questions addressed clearly
  • Personal characteristics: enthusiastic, self-confident, professional, interested in student success, approachable and accessible to participants
  1. Instructor Preparedness
  • Appropriate depth of disciplinary knowledge; technically accurate
  • Logical organization of class time, presentation, and teaching methods
  • Accommodates differences among learners and keeps participants focused on the objectives
  1. Evaluation of Learning
  • Appropriateness of evaluation materials and approach
  • Participant feedback on how activities/projects/assignments contribute to learning
  1. Summary Comments
  • General comments
  • Summary of strengths and specific things that worked
  • Summary of suggestions for improvement
  • Comparison to last review by this observer (if applicable)
  • Include name, title, rank (when peer is faculty) and signature

Peer Evaluations updated 10/16/2020