Faculty Evaluation and Feedback Systems

93% of academics at Maastricht University know about Recognition & Rewards. Only 6% are highly satisfied with how it is implemented. The Maastricht Young Academy just published a comprehensive evaluation of R&R at UM, based on a university-wide survey (N=124) conducted between June 2023 and October 2024. Here is what the data tells us: 📊 47% see no clear effect on recognition of their work 📊 29% are dissatisfied, 35% are unsure about the implementation 📊 Only 21% ended up with a concrete development plan after their appraisal For early-career academics, the numbers are particularly sobering. 33% of UDs report dissatisfaction. 35% do not know where they stand. Not a single UD indicated an "extremely positive" view of R&R. And UDs were the most likely group to report "no impact" on their career. That is a disconnect worth paying attention to, because early career staff were the people R&R was designed for. There are also notable differences between faculties. Some, like SBE, report lower uptake, less integration into appraisals, and higher rates of perceived "no impact." This is not to blame, but it is about knowing where to focus efforts. The good news: the principles behind R&R enjoy broad support. People want fairer recognition, diverse career paths, and transparency. The intention is right. Now the execution needs to follow. MYA formulated six strategic recommendations: 1️⃣ Clear and consistent communication across all faculties 2️⃣ Workload impact assessment and mitigation 3️⃣ Transparent assessment frameworks with actual rubrics 4️⃣ Mandatory R&R training for all supervisors 5️⃣ University-wide standardisation and monitoring 6️⃣ Equal opportunities regardless of gender, age, or health status We have a long way to go. But the path is clear, and this report is a solid foundation to build on. Link to the full report in the comment. Share it with your colleagues. Especially the ones still figuring out what R&R means for them. Kudos to Costas Papadopoulos, Boukje Compen, Alexandre Skander Galand, Irina Dimitrova Nikolova, PhD, Sejla Imamovic, Marie Berk, Caroline Déharbe, and the entire Maastricht Young Academy Working Group. #RecognitionAndRewards #HigherEducation #AcademicCulture #MaastrichtUniversity #MYA #FairCareers #Transparency #EarlyCareer

One of the biggest time wasters in schools this time of year? The evaluation process.   Don't get me wrong. Clear performance evaluation is critical in any industry, especially one as vital as K-12 education.   So many schools get this so wrong. For example, many districts use the Danielson rubric to evaluation teaching. On the NY state website, there is a link to a 42-page Danielson rubric. Forty. Two. Pages. On page 42, the rubric included the instruction to evaluate whether "students create materials for Back-to-School Night that outline the approach for learning science."   Seriously?   The problem is that these 42-page rubrics and full-period observations and hours writing up the reports don't do anything to improve teacher practice. They make good leaders do unnecessary work, and they allow ineffective leaders to hide behind a seriously flawed process.   What's the alternative?   I coach school leaders to support teachers using a simple, 4-page rubric that answers the following questions: 1) Classroom Environment: Do the expectations and relationships create the conditions for powerful learning? 2) Rigor: Are students engaged in content aligned to grade-level standards? Is the teacher intellectually prepared to focus on the meat of the lesson?  3) Feedback: Do students know what high-quality work looks like? Does the teacher affirm and challenge students to produce top-quality work?    4) Thinking: Are students doing the heavy lifting? Are teachers holding all students accountable to do the heavy lifting?    Teachers are observed frequently with a weekly coaching meeting that supports them based on this simple rubric.   Then, at evaluation time, instead of dog-and-pony shows with Byzantine rubrics and leaders holed up in their offices writing long reports and hosting tiresome evaluation reviews, leaders simply replace a regular coaching meeting with a mid-year and end-of-year evaluation that is simple and effective:   Are you on track to meeting your goals? Why/why not? Based on our four key teaching questions, where are you consistently meeting the mark? Where is your top area for growth? What would a plan of support for that area look like?   The evaluation takes the leader less than 30 minutes to write up and less than 30 minutes to do with the teacher and has 100X the impact of long evaluation processes.    

When I first started teaching online back in 2017, the course evaluation process bothered me. Initially, I was excited to get feedback from my students about their learning experience. Then I saw the survey questions. Even though there were about 15 of them, none actually helped me improve the course. They were all extremely generic and left me scratching my head, unsure of what to do with the information. It’s not like I could ask follow-up questions or suggest improvements to the survey itself. Understandably, the institution used these evaluations for its own data points, and there wasn’t much chance of me influencing that process. So, I decided to take a different approach. What if I created my own informal course evaluations that were completely optional? In this survey, I could ask course-specific and teaching-style questions to figure out how to improve the course before the next run started. After several revisions, I came up with these questions: - Overall course rating (1–5 stars) - What was your favorite part (if any) of this course? - What did you find the least helpful (if any) during this course? - Please rate the relevancy of the learning materials (readings and videos) to your academic journey, career, or instructional design journey. (1 = not relevant at all, 10 = extremely relevant) - Please rate the relevancy of the learning activities and assessments to your academic journey, career, or instructional design journey. (1 = not relevant at all, 10 = extremely relevant) - Did you find my teaching style and feedback helpful for your assignments? - What suggestions do you have for improving the course (if any)? - Are there any other comments you'd like to share with me? I was—and still am—pleasantly surprised at how many students complete both the optional course survey and the official one. If you're looking for more meaningful feedback about your courses, I recommend giving this a try! This process has really helped me improve my learning experiences over time.

How to Use Dental Student Feedback Meaningfully — Not React Emotionally Most dental schools struggle with one recurring challenge: How do we handle student complaints and feedback in a fair, productive, and evidence-based way? Having worked at multiple dental schools, I’ve seen two extremes: ✔️ Overreacting to a few loud complaints ✔️ Underutilizing thoughtful feedback that could genuinely improve teaching So what does the evidence actually say about using student feedback effectively? ⸻ What We Know From Current Research 1. Student feedback is valuable — but not enough on its own. Teaching evaluations often do not correlate with actual student learning, and they are affected by bias.[1] On their own, they rarely produce meaningful teaching improvement. 2. Feedback becomes powerful when combined with self-assessment and peer reflection. Studies show that clinical teachers generate far more specific and actionable improvement plans when student ratings are paired with: • structured self-reflection[3] • peer group reflection sessions[2,4] Peer reflection, in particular, promotes deeper critical thinking and real behavior change. 3. Structured, constructive feedback systems improve both teaching and student development. Regular, individualized feedback models—especially those using coaching, deliberate practice, and peer input—enhance student competence, reflective ability, and satisfaction with clinical teaching.[5-7] 4. Faculty development is essential. Even excellent clinicians are not automatically excellent educators. Institutions must support faculty with training to interpret feedback and translate it into improved teaching.[8,9] 5. A multi-source, whole-system approach works best. Combining student feedback, self-reflection, peer input, and institutional benchmarking provides the most accurate picture of teaching performance and areas for growth.[10] ⸻ In Summary ✔️ Student feedback is necessary, ✖️ but not sufficient on its own. When used thoughtfully—alongside self-assessment, peer reflection, and strong institutional support—it becomes a powerful tool for faculty development and better teaching. For deans and chairs: stop calling faculty into your office to reprimand them before you’ve reviewed their structural self-reflection or conducted proper peer evaluation. The goal isn’t to react to every complaint. The goal is to create a fair, reflective, and evidence-based system that truly strengthens teaching and improves student learning. ⸻ References 1. Ginsburg S, Stroud L. Academic Medicine. 2023. 2. van Lierop M et al. Medical Teacher. 2018. 3. Stalmeijer RE et al. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2010. 4. Boerboom TB et al. Medical Teacher. 2011. 5. Amini K et al. BMJ Open. 2024. 6. Davis S et al. BMC Med Educ. 2022. 7. Abraham RM, Singaram VS. BMC Med Educ. 2019. 8. Atkinson A et al. Eur J Pediatr. 2022. 9. Ramani S, Krackov SK. Medical Teacher. 2012. 10. Vaughan B. BMC Med Educ. 2020.