>

Teaching Resources

Campus Resources

AdvancED

AdvancED: The Institute for the Advancement of Higher Education is Vanderbilt’s hub for teaching excellence and educational innovation.

Vanderbilt Center for Languages

The Vanderbilt Center for Languages provides pedagogical training, workshops, and peer support for Vanderbilt's foreign language instructors.

Classroom Scheduling

Arts & Science classrooms are allocated during creation of the official course schedule (January/February for fall courses, September for spring courses, and December for summer courses). To ensure that your classroom meets your needs, work with your departmental scheduler to include room preferences in the Campus Planning Interface (CPI).

Classrooms are scheduled for co-curricular academic purposes by the Arts and Science Office of Academic Services (arts-sci-records@vanderbilt.edu). This includes all activities associated with A&S courses and some additional activities that are associated with academic credit, such as dissertation defenses.

If you need a room for any activity not associated with A&S course credit, or if you need to reserve a non-classroom space for any purpose, you must schedule the room through the Virtual EMS.

Classrooms for films, review sessions, make-up classes, etc. can be requested via Virtual EMS using the A&S classroom template.

Classroom Recording Policy

The use of technologies for audio and video recording of lectures and other classroom activities is allowed only with the express permission of the instructor. In cases where recordings are allowed, such content is restricted to personal use only unless permission is expressly granted in writing by the instructor and by other classroom participants, including other students. Personal use is defined as use by an individual student for the purpose of studying or completing course assignments. When students have permission for personal use of recordings, they must still obtain written permission from the instructor to share recordings with others. For students registered with EAD and who have been approved for audio and/or video recording of lectures and other classroom activities as a reasonable accommodation, applicable federal law requires instructors to permit those recordings. Such recordings are also limited to personal use, except with permission of the instructor and other students in the class.

All rules concerning video/audio recording should be explicitly stated in class syllabi.

Teaching Evaluation Resources

  • Purpose

    Teaching is central to the role of faculty in the College of Arts and Science, integral to the mission of the college, and a practice we all pursue as a community. It is therefore essential that we ensure excellence and equity in teaching. Regular evaluation of teaching provides data and dedicated time for essential reflection and self-improvement (formative review) as well as for reappointment, promotion, and tenure decisions (summative review). The process of discussing, creating, and implementing evaluation criteria and processes creates critical opportunities for departments and programs to build a shared set of values around teaching and enhances our community around teaching practices.

    To ensure a holistic evaluation of teaching for all faculty in the College of Arts and Science, three sources of information are required, recognizing that insights from each facet inform and enrich the overall assessment of teaching effectiveness:

    1. Peer review of teaching;
    2. Student reviews from online course evaluations; and
    3. Self-assessment of the faculty member through a letter or personal statement.

    As teaching is a shared practice among all faculty, the principles and processes for teaching evaluation of faculty of all ranks should be similar, though the summative review, final documents, and eligibility for serving as a reviewer may vary depending on the rank of the faculty (see below). Note that while teaching evaluation is required for reappointment, promotion, and tenure, it is also encouraged more regularly as a formative process.

    Below are recommendations for best practices in the assessment of teaching in the college.

  • Summative Review (for Reappointment and Promotion)

    While evaluating teaching, departments and programs are encouraged to use templates and practices, developed in consultation with Faculty Council, and available through the A&S Office of Undergraduate Education. However, departments and programs may employ and/or adapt their specific forms and criteria as they elect. In either case, it is essential that this process employ clearly and transparently defined templates, practices, and criteria agreed upon by department/program faculty, and that this information is readily available to all faculty.

    The following components are required for summative evaluation of teaching:

    • Chair’s memo: This should describe the chair’s overall evaluation of the candidate’s role in the undergraduate mission of the department. Topics that should be assessed in chair’s memo can include, but are not limited to, curriculum development, internship and independent study supervision, student advising, and undergraduate education leadership. Unit leaders should read all components of the teaching evaluation package before writing the overall memo, including the faculty member’s self-assessment, peer letters or report, and student reviews.
    • Self-assessments: These letters or statements (as dictated by the reappointment, promotion, and tenure guidelines) should be reflective, discussing strengths and weaknesses in the context of both student and peer review. Faculty should also discuss their professional goals and other activities at the department, college, or university level that contribute to the undergraduate mission, including but not limited to curriculum development, internship and independent study supervision, and undergraduate education leadership. The teaching summary report and student reviews should be supplied as a PDF to the candidate by the department/program in advance of writing their self-assessment.
    • Peer review of teaching: Note the rank and title limitations described in the reappointment, promotion, and tenure guidelines. Departments and programs should adopt and implement processes, templates, and tools for peer review of teaching that adhere to best practices (see Resources section below). Peer review of teaching should be arranged no later than the start of the semester in which it will occur, allowing time for a thorough and participatory process. While there is flexibility in processes, some components are required to ensure equity, transparency, and effectiveness:
      • Documented and easily available criteria, procedures, and tools/templates so that all faculty are aware of the processes in advance.
      • Debrief meetings between observer and candidate before and after any peer observation of teaching.
      • Candidates should share appropriate course materials with reviewers to provide context for the observation, which could include syllabi, Brightspace access, assignments, and student work.
    • Student reviews from online course evaluations. These will be prepared by departments for review by the candidate and by unit leaders. As these data are critical to an informed self-assessment, this data will be compiled and provided to candidates in advance of writing their personal statements or letters. Departments and the college recognize the limits of these data for critically evaluating teaching but also recognize the importance of understanding the student experience through their own perceptions and identifying patterns of concern that should be discussed with faculty.
  • Formative Review

    In addition to the required, summative review at the time of reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure, which is a piece of the official record of candidate review provided to the college and the university as part of decision-making processes, departments and programs are also strongly encouraged to develop and regularly implement internal processes of formative review for all faculty in the years between the required, summative reviews. While the data from evaluation of teaching is essential for reappointment and promotion decisions, its true value lies in its formative improvement purposes. Without formative processes in place, this value is lost. Formative processes may be more informal than summative processes with little or no permanent record, may involve peers of all ranks, and may hold perhaps the most promise for growing a culture and community of teaching excellence in the college.

    If adopted, formative review processes should include the following components:

    • Unit leaders should read evaluations of their colleagues every semester to identify and address any concerning patterns before summative review.
    • Formative peer review is strongly encouraged, possibly of a more informal nature than the summative review. However, as with summative peer review, this should at a minimum include a meeting before the observation, some protocol or template for observations, and a debrief conversation after the observation. Note that because these aren’t considered for reappointment and promotion decisions, formative peer review can be carried out by faculty of any rank for faculty of any rank—teaching experience, content expertise, and collegial relationships may be as important as rank or title. There may be little or no permanent documentation of this review, as it is intended solely to support the growth of faculty, though this decision is left to the department/program. While at least one formative review between summative reviews is critical, departments are also welcome to conduct formative peer reviews more frequently if they choose.
    • Faculty should read student reviews of their courses through the university online course evaluations every semester.
    • Faculty should reflect on the positive and constructive feedback provided by their peers, students, and/or unit leader each semester to identify strengths and weaknesses. In addition to driving continuous growth, these reflections and changes that come from them can provide excellent, time-integrated content to build the required self-assessment pieces at the time of summative review.
  • Resources

    The principles and practices outlined below are offered as a resource, not a requirement, for programs and departments as they pursue reappointment, tenure, and promotion processes requiring peer review of teaching. Departments and programs are encouraged to collectively discuss and adopt criteria for peer review that are appropriate for the culture and context of their discipline(s) and community.

    Principles for Effective Peer Review of Teaching

    Departments and programs are encouraged to involve all faculty who have a teaching role in their unit* in a collaborative process of designing and choosing practices for peer review that center on the following principles:

    1. Collaborative design of procedures, including all faculty with teaching appointments who wish to participate.
    2. An element of choice by reviewee, possibly including who will perform observations and reviews.
    3. Formative and summative elements, including processes (however informal) that provide feedback on faculty’s teaching before final reviews for reappointment, allowing for growth.
    4. Dual goals of professional development and review for reappointment or promotion, which requires dialogue with the reviewee before and after observations and reviews.

    *Note that these reviews can be performed by faculty of equal or higher rank outside a reviewee’s department or program. Small departments and programs, or faculty who find building pedagogical communities in their programs difficult, are encouraged to work with their chair to build these partnerships including faculty outside their own department/program.

    Best Practices in Peer Review of Teaching

    • We encourage all departments and programs that don’t currently have these processes in place to work with AdvancED: The Institute for the Advancement of Higher Education to design and adopt peer review practices. Set up a consult by completing the partner intake form or call (615) 322-7290.
    • Practices that center discussions of teaching beyond peer review can result in more efficient and effective peer review, including teaching colloquia, regular open classroom practices, department/program pedagogical learning communities, etc.
    • The NSF-funded Teaching Quality Framework Initiative has excellent templates and guidelines for peer-observation, writing letters for peers, and self-evaluation of teaching, which may be useful to departments as they adopt their own practices.
    • University of Pittsburg has compiled a quality set of resources on self-assessment of teaching, which may help faculty as their write letters for their own re-appointment and promotion.

Large Course Assistant Guidelines

  • Guidelines

    The A&S Dean’s Office offers teaching assistant funding to faculty who provide justification for teaching more than 30 students in their Exploratory Core course. Below are the guidelines for selecting, overseeing, and developing graders.

    Criteria for Support

    • 31-60 students: 1 grader (9.5 hours per week)
    • 61-99 students: 2 graders (19 hours per week total)
    • 100+ students: 3 graders (28.5 hours per week total)

    Duties

    Graders may assist in the following ways:

    • Grading
    • Breakout sessions
    • Recitations
    • Office hours
    • Facilitating instructional technology

    Recruiting

    Departments with graduate students should recruit from their own students as much as possible. Departments without graduate students should reach out to DGSs in adjacent departments to find graduate students with the appropriate background. Undergraduates may serve as graders. Departments that request them should be sure of their qualifications and should use good judgment regarding what they are asked to do.

    Compensation

    Graduate students will be paid $15 per hour. Undergraduates will be paid $12 per hour.

    Finance and Administration

    Graduate students on stipend employed for grading at an hourly rate will not receive a contract; department AOs and SAOs will process their payment, and it will be added to their paychecks. Graduate students not on stipend employed for grading at an hourly rate will also not receive a contract, they will simply receive a paycheck that reflects the hours worked. Departmental AOs and SAOs will process this. Recent VU doctorates who are employed for grading will receive a part-time, non-tenure-track lecturer contract from the Dean's Office that stipulates their hours and pay.

    Teaching Assistant Development

    Teaching Assistants perform best when they know their roles and responsibilities, ethical guidelines, and the learning goals and methods of a course. Once hired, we suggest that you have regular communications about the course, your learning goals, how the TA can best support your students, and ethical guidelines of their work, particularly FERPA. To help with in this orientation, please have your TA sign up for TA Orientation or related programs with AdvancED.

    Request

    Faculty whose courses meet the above criteria and wish to have a teaching assistant appointed can submit their request by filling out this form.

     

Syllabus and Teaching Requirements for AXLE Writing Courses

The primary instructor must grade all major written work in a Writing course and initiate and plan class discussions of writing. Teaching assistants should not grade such assignments.

  • 1000-level Writing Course Requirements
    • Students shall be asked to write a minimum of 15–20 typescript pages for the entire term. In general, a typescript page is approximately 250 words.
    • Students shall write at least three scholarly essays, spaced throughout the semester, to provide for sufficient feedback on their writing. Instructors may assign either three distinct assignments or three distinct but interlocking assignments. Instructors are free to devise both the form and content requirements of all assignments, keeping in mind the best practices for the teaching of writing.
    • It is strongly recommended that instructors give students the opportunity to revise a portion of their graded writing.
    • Some class time during the term should be devoted to discussion of the writing process. These discussions should be led by the instructor of the course and can be supplemented by a visit from a Writing Studio consultant.
    • Instructors are encouraged to meet with their students for tutorial sessions devoted to writing in order to support an iterative approach to the writing process.
    • Enrollment is limited to 20 students.
  • First-Year Writing Seminar Requirements
    • First-Year Writing Seminars should follow all of the writing requirements of 1000-level Writing courses.
    • A considerable percentage of the course grade should be derived from writing assignments.
    • All seminars shall introduce first-year students to literature research, including library and database orientation; experience with critical evaluation of the validity, relevance, and significance of source material obtained through literature searches; and instruction regarding the proper citation of source materials. Instructors from the Central Library will be available to conduct these sessions, although Writing course instructors are responsible for arranging the sessions
    • Enrollment is limited to 15 students.
  • 2000-level and Higher Writing Course Requirements
    • 2000-level and higher Writing courses foster advanced, discipline-specific writing skills (including scholarly and/or creative writing). Departments or programs that offer these courses shall determine their specific writing content. In 2000-level and higher Writing courses, continued attention to the process of writing is included in the classroom.
    • Students receive regular feedback on their writing that will contribute toward enhancing writing skills appropriate to specific disciplines. Writing tutorials may also be included.
    • Enrollment is limited to 20 students, unless a department or program can show that there will be additional instructional assistance and that the primary instructor will grade all major written work.
  • Oral Communications Course Requirements
    • Courses which fulfill the Oral Communications option are 2000-level and higher focusing on developing improved public speaking skills. While discipline-specific, these courses should focus on introducing students to the principles and practices of public discourse and reasoned argument.
    • Similar to writing courses, these courses should include regular attention to the oral communications process in class, the opportunity to refine speaking skills through multiple presentations over the course of a semester, and feedback from the instructor.
    • Assignments should contribute toward enhancing oral communication skills appropriate to specific disciplines.

Pedagogical Training for Graduate Students

The College of Arts and Science considers instruction and practice in teaching to be an essential part of the research training our doctoral students receive. This policy establishes the guidelines for graduate students to receive essential guidance and experience in the pedagogical training and teaching they perform within the college by applying the knowledge and skills they have gained from their research in a classroom setting.

  • Policy and Procedure

    Through the transmittal of knowledge via good pedagogical practice, our graduate students’ research also benefits from enhanced skill in communication, critique, and organization. For these reasons, it is essential that all College of Arts & Science doctoral students engage in teaching experiences under the supervision of their departments. Teaching experiences may include serving as teaching assistants, section leaders, laboratory instructors, graders, or, with the proper training and under the proper supervision, instructors of record for undergraduate classes.

    Teaching experiences may also come as part of a teaching practicum course offered by the graduate student’s department or certificate program. Because students in practicum courses are both receiving training relevant to careers in research and applying their research training in a teaching role, both their practicum course participation and the teaching experiences they have as part of these courses can be reasonably considered to be a part of the overall effort on grants, assuming that such teaching practice has been (a) codified in the program’s graduate student guidelines and expectations, and (b) approved by the Dean of Research and Graduate Education.

  • Budget Justification for Sponsored Projects

    When Graduate Student Research Assistants are at least partially budgeted on federal or non-federal externally sponsored projects, the following text is recommended to be included in the requisite budget justification (as an addendum to the explanation of the graduate student’s effort on the project) at the time an application (proposal) is officially submitted to the external sponsor:

    Consistent with the College of Arts & Science’s established policy, effort of Graduate Student Research Assistants budgeted herein may include additional professional preparation via a practicum course that involves both seminar participation as well as supervised practical application of the student's research training in a teaching role.