Policy on the Evaluation of
Teaching and Papers
Guidelines for the Review,
Evaluation and Continuous
Improvement of Teaching
and Papers
LY
T
N
E
Teaching Development | Wāhanga Whakapakari
R Ako
HE D.
R
T
U IN TE
C
IS ND PDA
T
N WA U
E
M VIE ING
U
C RE BE
O
F
S DDER S O
I
TH UN ES
OC
R
P
Trudy Harris
Teaching Development| Wāhanga Whakapakari Ako
February 2012
Table of Contents
I. Definitions for use with this Document
3
II. Frequently Asked Questions
4
III. Useful Links
4
IV. Introduction
5
V. Evaluation of Teaching and Papers Policy
7
VI. Guidelines for Review, Evaluation and Continuous
Improvement of Teaching and Papers
10
1. Summative Tools
10
1.1 The Paper and Teaching Appraisal
10
1.2 Initiating an Appraisal
10
1.2.1 Who?
1.2.2 When?
1.2.3 How?
1.3 What Appraisal Medium?
14
1.4 Conducting the Appraisal
15
1.5 Processing the Appraisal
16
1.6 Interpreting the Appraisal Results
18
1.6.1 The Mean Value
1.6.2 The Distribution Pattern
1.7 Reporting of Appraisal Results
21
1.8 Benchmarking
22
1.9 Appraisal Summaries
22
2. Evaluation for the Enhancement of Teaching
23
3. Formative Tools
24
3.1 Suggestions for Feedback from Students
25
3.1.1 Regular Anonymous Instant Feedback
3.1.2 The Critical Incident Questionnaire
3.1.3 Learning Reflection Exercises
3.1.4 Focus Groups
3.2 Self-evaluation and Reflection
27
3.2.1 Regular Reflection
3.2.2 Keeping a Learning Diary
3.2.3 Compiling and Maintaining a Teaching Portfolio
3.3 Peer Interactions
28
3.4. Submitting Evidence of your Formative Evaluation 29
4. Processes for Continuous Improvement
29
5. Representative Bibliography
30
6. Contact Details
37
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
IS ND PDA
T
N WA U
E
M VIE ING
U
C RE BE
O
F
S DDER S O
I
TH UN ES
OC
R
P
APPRAISALS • TDU
•2•

I. Definitions for use with this Document
Appraisal
A questionnaire consisting of both paper and teacher
appraisal questions.
Paper appraisal
Refers specifically to the questions associated with
paper design and organisation.
Teacher appraisal
Refers specifically to the questions associated with
teaching.
Formative evaluation
In this context the gathering of qualitative feedback
through a variety of different techniques such as peer
review, with the aim of enhancing practice.
LY
T
Summative
In this context the use of quantitative
feedback to
N
E
evaluation
assess the quality of paper design
and teaching.
This
E
R
.
H
is generally achieved R
Tthe useEappraisal
Dof the
U through
University
of C
Waikato’s
formal
N
questionnaires.
S ND I DAT
I
P medium.
Paper-based
AppraisalT
using paper
as a collection
A
N
U
appraisal
E EW G
M
Web -based appraisal
theIN
Internet as a collection medium.
U Appraisal
VI using
E
C
E
B
O RE35 sizeF(foolscap) brown or white envelope with
Appraisal envelope
D
O and Confidential Appraisal Forms” written on
S DER “Private
I
S
it.
H N
TAppraisal
ES
U coverC
sheet A form to be completed by teaching staff identifying
O
how data is to be processed and whether staff wish
to see the questionnaires after processing. This form
PR
is supplied with the appraisal envelope.
•3•
Appraisal report
A PDF report in which each question is summarised
as a frequency bar graph.
Open question report
A PDF file of the open questions responses to an
appraisal.
Appraisal summary
Summary of appraisal results in a few generic
sentences for each appraisal.
APPRAISALS • TDU
? II. Frequently asked questions:
What terminology should we use - ‘Appraisal’ or ‘Evaluation’?
Appraisal:
Evaluation:
The act of measuring the performance of…
The use of the information gained through an appraisal to
determine the performance of….
In this booklet we use both the terms ‘Appraisal’ and ‘Evaluation’. You
will notice that ‘evaluation’ is predominantly used in the Policy while
‘appraisal’ is used in the guidelines. Currently we are moving from a
process of appraisal to one of evaluation.
► III. Useful Links
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
 The Appraisal Order Form:
U IN TED
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/appraisals/staff/apporder/
C
apporder.shtml
IS ND PDA
T
N WA U
 Item Bank:
E
M VIE ING
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/pdf/itembank.pdf
U
E
C RE Appraisal
B
 GuidelinesO
on Photocopying
Questionnaires:
F
D
R
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/pdf/appraisals/guidelines.pdf
IS DE S O
H
SOrder Form:
NSummary
T Appraisal
E
U
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/appraisal/summary.shtml
OC
R
P
Other links:
The following documents can be found at the Teaching Development Unit
(TDU) website http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu.
 Evaluation of Teaching and Paper policy:
 Paper Outline Policy
 Guidelines for the Review, Evaluation and Continuous
Improvement of Teaching and Papers
 Academic Staff Promotions Criteria
 Professional Goal Setting Policy (PGS)
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/official-info/index/docs/evaluation-ofteaching-and-papers-policy
APPRAISALS • TDU
•4•
IV. Introduction
This booklet has been produced as part of the
implementation plan of the University of
Waikato’s new Policy on the Evaluation of
Teaching and Papers. While this booklet contains
the new Policy document its main focus is on the
guidelines to support the Policy.
The new Policy states that over a two year period
academic staff members are expected to evaluate
their teaching and their papers. The evaluation
has to include appraisals, but for development
purposes should also utilise one or more of the
formative feedback mechanisms outlined in these
guidelines. These mechanisms will ensure that
paper and teaching quality is of a high standard
and that areas that need development are
identified.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
IS ND PDA
T
N WA U
E
M VIE ING
U
main
body ofEthis document falls into two
CThe
E Summative
B and Formative Tools. The
O
R
sections:
F
D
section O
on Summative Tools looks at the
S DER
I
S
development
practice around the use of
H
T UN EtheS appraisal.of good
The appraisal provides the
OC University with information for academic
R
promotion, external audits and internal review.
P
For this purpose this section provides pointers
about ordering appraisals, the type of appraisal to
use, the timing of appraisals and also the
reporting and benchmarking of results.
The second section is dedicated to Formative
Tools. A number of tools are described that can
aid staff both in obtaining immediate feedback
from students, but also for the acquisition of
more long term feedback to aid with professional
•5•
APPRAISALS • TDU
development. These tools can provide the
rationale for responses given by students to the
quantitative appraisal, and can be of great benefit
in highlighting good practice and areas of
teaching that need development.
Contact details for the Teaching Development
Unit (TDU) are given at the end of the document.
Please feel free to contact the Unit if you have
any questions about any of the information
included in this document. They would be more
than happy to help.
LY
T
N
The achievement of consistently good teaching is E
R THE .
key to the success of our students, fundamental
R
U to IN TED
to the quality of the University and rewarding
C
each of us as academic staff. I encourage
youDto
A
IS N
D
familiarise yourself with these T
policy guidelines
P
N WA U
and employ them wherever
possible.
E
M VIE ING
U
C
E BE
O
Professor Doug
SuttonR
D R OasF Chair of the
DeputyS Vice-Chancellor
ECommittee
I
Teaching
Quality
D
H
N ESS
TJanuaryU2009
OC
R
P
The Policy and Guidelines
are in the process of being
updated so some of the
information in this booklet
will change.
APPRAISALS • TDU
•6•
THE UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO
V. Evaluation of Teaching and Papers Policy
Responsibility for policy:
Chair, Teaching Quality Committee
Approving Authority:
Academic Board
Approved:
Next Review:
September 2010
LY
T
N
E
Scope
R chairpersons
HE D.of
1. This policy applies to all teaching staffR
and theirT
U IN TE
department (or equivalent). C
IS ND PDA
T
A U
Related Documents N
E
W
2. This policy should
M beVread
IE inEconjunction
NG with the following
I
U
documents:
C RE B
O
Paper
F
D ROutline Policy,
O
S
E
Guidelines
for
the
Review, Evaluation and Continuous
I
S
D
H
S
T UN Improvement
E of Teaching and Papers,
C
Academic
Criteria,
OProfessionalStaffGoalPromotions
R
Setting Policy.
P




Definitions
3. For the purpose of this policy, teaching staff means staff whose
conditions of employment are governed by an academic staff
employment agreement and whose duties include the design and/
or delivery of paper offerings.
•7•
APPRAISALS • TDU
Purpose
4. Evaluation of Teaching and Papers Policy forms part of the
teaching and learning quality assurance framework. Its purpose is
to:
a. Promote the University’s commitment to the achievement of
excellence in teaching and learning by supporting teaching staff
to regularly review and evaluate their teaching and papers with
a view to ongoing professional development and improvement
of teaching;
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN to TED
c. Demonstrate a commitment to continuousC
improvement
satisfy external academic audit requirements.
IS ND PDA
T
A U
N
E
W
Responsibilities
M
IE EING
U
5. Teaching staff are required
to: V
C RE B
O
a. Prepare and
maintain
F up-to-date paper outlines
D RaccurateOand
S
for theI papers forE
which they are responsible, in accordance
S
D
H
with
the
Paper
Outline
T UN ESPolicy;
b. Prepare an evaluation
OC of all teaching and papers for which they
R
are responsible
P every two calendar years; the evaluation must
b. Set out the responsibilities of teaching staff, chairpersons of
department (or equivalent) and Deans (or equivalent) with
respect to the review and evaluation of teaching and papers,
and;
be supported by evidence from one or more of the review and
evaluation methods stipulated in the Guidelines for the Review,
Evaluation and Continuous Improvement of Teaching and
Papers, one of which must be a Teaching Development Unit
(TDU) teaching and paper appraisal;
c. Maintain a portfolio of evidence of teaching and paper
evaluations for Professional Goal Setting and promotions
processes.
APPRAISALS • TDU
•8•
6. Chairpersons of department (or equivalent) are required, with
respect to all teaching staff in their department (or equivalent), to:
a. Ensure that a two year cycle of review and evaluation of
teaching is implemented;
b. Monitor evidence submitted in support of paper appraisals
and teaching performance and development;
c. Prepare an annual report to their Dean (or equivalent) on the
teaching staff and papers reviewed within that calendar year;
LY
T
N
E
Rannually
HtoEtheD.
7. Deans (or equivalent) are required to report
R
T
UFaculty/School/College’s
Teaching Quality Committee on their
N ATE
C
I
implementation of this Policy.
IS ND PD
T
N WA U
E
Compliance during
Transitional
PeriodG
M
E
I
N compliance with this Policy
Ifull
U
8. The University
expects
Vto achieve
E
C
E
B Quality Committee will monitor
by theO
end of 2010.
R TheFTeaching
D
RprogressOtowards full compliance during the
Sand support
E
I
SS this will include identifying and addressing
ND Eperiod,
TH Utransitional
relevantC
issues including operational and resource implications.
O
PR
d. Ensure that professional goal setting with staff addresses
teaching and paper quality and evaluation.
•9•
APPRAISALS • TDU
VI. Guidelines for the Review, Evaluation and
Continuous Improvement of Teaching and Papers
1. Summative Tools
1.1 The Paper and Teaching Appraisal
There are five main reasons for undertaking an
appraisal:
LY
T
 To identify good features which should be
N
E
maintained and developed further.
R THE .
R
 To identify unsatisfactory features U
which
N ATED
I
should be abandoned or modified. C
D D
IS Nneeds
 To determine professional development
T
P
N
U
and goals in the light of the
above. A
Ethat Ewould
W support
G a
M
 To gather information
I
N
I
U
case for promotion
or selection.
C R
EV BE
O
 To gather
required
F for academic
D information
R
O
S
audit
E S
I purposes.
D
H
T UN ES
OCan Appraisal
1.2 Initiating
R
P
1.2.1 WHO?
An appraisal can be initiated by a paper convenor
or staff member, who is the sole teacher for a
particular paper, regarding their own paper and
teaching.
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 10 •
Note:
When teaching a paper as a team it is preferable
that the paper convenor or one of the teaching
team request a paper appraisal and a teaching
appraisal for each member of the teaching team.
This avoids having multiple paper appraisal
results for a given paper and reduces the number
of questionnaires that students have to fill in.
Please make sure that each member of the
teaching team has given their consent for their
teaching to be appraised. If individual members
of the team do not want to be appraised at a
particular sitting of the paper then they should be
excluded from the appraisal.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
1.2.2 WHEN?
C
At the end of a paper:
D DA
IaSwholeNpaper
T
This allows for
Preview and will
Afor planning
N
U
provide
information
next year’s
E EW G
M
undertaking
professional development,
I EIN
Upaper,
V
developing
promotion/selection applications
C
E
B audit procedures.
O andRfor external
F
D
S DER S O
I
Part-way
a paper:
Sallowsthrough
TH UN E
This
for
immediate
fine-tuning of a paper
C
O and teaching and may have a direct pay-off for
present students if modifications are made.
PR
However it should be noted that the open
questions responses cannot be sent back until
after the relevant Board of Examiners at the
end of the semester.
If immediate formative feedback is required it is
suggested that an informal appraisal method is
used.
• 11 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
1.2.3. HOW?
The standard appraisal questionnaire is the
University’s most basic form of appraisal
questionnaire. It has eight standard summative
questions and two formative open questions for
the appraisal of the paper and eight standard
summative questions and two formative open
questions for the appraisal of the teaching.
The standard questionnaire can be ordered by
emailing or telephoning the Appraisals
Administrator. This then has to be photocopied.
Staff must be able to provide the full paper code
(see below) and the relevant lecturer’s names.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
IS ND PDA
Please note:
T
N WfourAparts: U
Paper code: A paper code
contains
E
G
The department
M Vcode
E e.g. IPHIL250
I
N
U
The
E
CyearRe.g.E07,
B
O
The semester
A, B, S
or Y (see
R and;OF
S DDcalendar)
E
I
S of the paper e.g.
location
S
TH UN The
E TGA (see calendar)
HAM,
C
O code should look like PHIL250Rpaper
So a full
P
07A (HAM).
Teacher’s name: Ensure that the teacher’s name
is given in full e.g. Trudy
Harris rather than T Harris.
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 12 •
In some cases the standard appraisal
questionnaire is not a suitable or subtle enough
instrument to evaluate some aspects of the paper
design or the teaching method. In these instances
it is possible to produce a customised appraisal
questionnaire. This can be done by adding
questions from the item bank.
1. You can customise your evaluation by adding
questions from the TDU item bank (see http://
www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/customised.shtml).
You can enter the items into the online order
form on the website and either print it off and
send it to me, or save and e-mail it to me. If
this is a co/team-taught paper then you should
consult your colleagues about the questions
you would like to include.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
IS ND PDA
T
2. If thereN
is nothingA
in the U
item bank that will
E
W
G
provide
adequate
feedback
about your paper
M
E
I
N
I
U
V feel
Efree to include some of your
C then
Eplease
B
own
questions
and submit as above. To this
O
R
F think of the feedback that you
please
O
S DDERend,
I
S like to have, both about the paper and
TH UN ESwould
your teaching. Again, if this is a co/teampaper then you need to consult with
OC taught
R
your colleagues over the choice of questions.
P
If you choose questions from the item bank or
wish for a customised evaluation then send the
required information to the Appraisals
Administrator who will produce a draft version of
the appraisal.
• 13 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
Please note: During the appraisal sessions at the
end of each semester, it can take
up to three days to generate a
customised appraisal
1.3 What Appraisal Medium?
Generally paper-based appraisals are still the
norm, but recently there has been an increase in
the number of web-based appraisals especially
with the increase in online papers. The ordering
processes for both mediums are the same.
However the Appraisals Administrator will need
to know the medium when a questionnaire is
ordered.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
If a paper-based appraisal is requested thenR
the
U IN TED
questionnaire will be sent to the staffCmember
concerned as a PDF file. This questionnaire
Dwillto DA
IS It N
be ready for printing and photocopying.
is
up
T
P
A
N
U
the relevant convenor/staff
member
to
copy
it
or
E EW to G
have it copied. M
Please Irefer
N http://
I
U
V
E
www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/appraisal.shtml
for
C RE B
guidelinesD
onO
photocopying
questionnaires.
F
S DER S O
I
Ha web-based
appraisal,
a test link to the
S
TFor
questionnaire
willEbe sent to the staff member
UN C
who can test
Oand submit data. This ensures that
R
the questionnaire
works correctly and that the
P
information submitted to the Appraisal
Administrator is in a proper format. Once the
questionnaire has been approved, ITS moves the
questionnaire to the live server. The live link is
sent to the member of staff along with standard
instructions for the students concerning
anonymity of results. This complete process
usually takes a couple of days, so please make
sure that orders for online forms are not left to the
last minute.
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 14 •
1.4 Conducting the Appraisal
The TDU recommends that questionnaires be
distributed at least one lecture prior to the final
lecture, and not in the same hour as a test or
assignment is set. It is also recommended that the
appraisal questionnaires are distributed and
completed at the start of the lecture.
Prior to the students filling in the questionnaires,
try to explain to them the purpose of the
appraisal.
Ask the students to fill in the
questionnaire using blue or black ink, and to fill
in the bubbles as opposed to ticking or circling
them. Allow time for the students to complete the
questionnaire; up to 10 minutes should be fine for
a standard appraisal. The quality of the feedback
tends to deteriorate if too little time is allowed for
completing the questionnaire.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
IS ND PDA
T
N WA U
E
Gthat the staff member
It isM
also recommended
E
I
N
I
U
the
Eroom while students fill in the
Cleaves
EVteaching
B
O
R
questionnaires.
The
completed questionnaires
F
D
R
beO
collected by a student representative or
IS DEshould
S
staff
volunteer.
The completed questionnaires
H
S
T UN E
should be sealed in the appraisals envelope
OC provided and sent to TDU either through the
R
internal post or placed in the appraisals box at:
P
TDU, A-Block Basement.

A three minute DVD has been developed to
inform students about the appraisals process: why
it is done, what the information is used for and
how to complete it. You may play this DVD in
class to students. It is available at: http://
www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/appraisal/index.shtml
• 15 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
The teaching team should not view the completed
questionnaires at this stage. The Privacy Act
(1993) requires that the comments made by
students are kept confidential. The questionnaires
will be returned to those staff who requested
them, after the relevant Board of Examiners
meeting.
1.5 Processing the Appraisal
For both paper-based and web-based appraisals
the Appraisals Administrator will prepare an
Appraisal Report of the summative information.
This report is produced in a .PDF format and
returned to the staff member via e-mail. Normally
these results are ready within two to three weeks
of the date that the completed questionnaires were
sent to TDU. However at peak processing times
these reports could take a little longer.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
IS ND PDA
T
N WA U
E
G
M willVIgenerally
The Appraisal Report
E INcontain
U
information relating
the paper
E and the
C ontoRtheboth
Epaper
B
O
teacher. Information
will
be returned
F
D
R
to each
teaching team. The
E of tothe O
IS member
D
information
relatingSS
the teacher will be
H
TreturnedUtoNthe individual
CE teaching team member Along with these
concerned. O
questionnaires should
R
P
be an Appraisal Cover
To view the open questions responses for paper*
based appraisals the staff member must have
requested to view the original questionnaires on
the information form. In line with the Privacy Act
(1993) the original questionnaires will be sent to
staff members after the relevant Board of
Examiners. This is also true for those staff
members conducting mid-semester appraisals.
Staff may view the questionnaires for a month
and they must be returned to TDU. During this
APPRAISALS • TDU
Sheet which should be
signed by the teaching
staff. This form gives
information on how the
teachers would like the
data to be processed
and whether they wish
to
view
the
questionnaires
after
processing.
• 16 •
time the staff member has responsibility for the
confidentiality of the questionnaires. The paper
questionnaires can be viewed by all members of
the teaching team, while individual teachers only
have access to their teaching questionnaires
unless consent is given by other members of the
teaching team.
For web-based appraisals an Open Questions
Report will also be produced but, as with the
paper-based questionnaires, this report will only
go back to the teaching team after the relevant
BOE.
LY
T
N
E
HEin Dall.
Response rates need to R
beRrecorded
T
appraisals. Where smallUgroupNappraisalsE are
C must advise
I TDU
Tof the
required, lecturers/tutors
A
S
D
I
Dand tutorial
students in each
group. N
Data onP
lab
T
A
N
U
sizes are
not available through the student
E(JadeSMS)
W N
database
butGcan be provided by
M
E
I
I
U
Erates are needed at that level.
Clecturers
EifVresponse
B
O
R
F the original questionnaires for one
R willOstore
S DDETDU
I
Sfollowing the appraisal, after which time
year
S
TH UN E
they will be destroyed.
C
O
student has the right to have
PR Please note: Each
their questionnaire destroyed after
the report has been completed so
that it is not available for viewing.
• 17 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
1.6 Interpreting the Appraisal Results
The Appraisal Report shows the distribution of
responses, on the relevant scale, for each
question. Figure 1 shows a typical example. To
the right of each graph a numerical table indicates
the frequency of responses in the first column,
with the total number of responses at the bottom.
The middle column shows the distribution of
responses in percentages, with the right-hand
column showing the cumulative percentages.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
IS ND PDA
T
N WA U
E
G
M Report
E
Figure 1 A typical output from an Appraisal
I
N
I
U
C REV BE
O
The “Overall,
I was satisfied F
with the quality of
R
O
this Ipaper”
provides
staff with the
S DDquestion
E S
H
students
perception
of
the
quality
of the paper.
S
TThe “Overall,
UN CE
this teacher was effective”
O
questions again
gives staff a general indication of
how effective
PR the students believe their teaching
Overall, I was satisfied with
the quality of this paper
Mean:
2.8
Always 1
3
5.6%
5.6%
Usually 2
20
37.0%
42.6%
Sometimes 3
20
37.0%
79.6%
Seldom 4
8
14.8%
94.4%
Never 5
3
5.6%
100.0%
54
100.0%
100.0%
has been.
1.6.1 THE MEAN VALUE
The means provided indicate the central tendency
of the distribution. Taken in context with the
scale used (Always, Usually, Sometimes, Seldom,
Never) a mean of 1.6 for a paper questionnaire
indicates a tendency for students to have
responded that they were Always or Usually
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 18 •
satisfied with the quality of the paper. A response
of 3.4 on a teaching appraisal indicates that the
students responded that the teaching was
Sometimes or Seldom effective.
1.6.2 THE DISTRIBUTION PATTERN
While the mean is a good indicator of the central
tendency of the data, the distribution of responses
in the histograms can also provide additional
information.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
IS ND PDA
T
N WA U
E
M VIE ING
U
C RE BE
O
F
S DDER S O
I
TH UN ES
OC
R
P
A positive trend (Figure 2) is represented by
most responses falling into categories 1–3. This is
the trend that is hoped for. It indicates that,
generally, all is going well and that the students
think that the paper/teaching can be continued
without change. However this does not mean that
improvements cannot be made.
Overall, I was satisfied with
the quality of this paper
Mean:
Always 1
27
50.0%
50.0%
Usually 2
Sometimes 3
16
11
29.6%
20.4%
79.6%
100.0%
Seldom 4
Never 5
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
54
100.0%
1.7
100.0%
Figure 2 A positive distribution of results
A negative trend will have most responses in
categories 3–5 (Figure 3). When this pattern
emerges careful thought has to be given to why
this response has been made for this question.
Responses from the open questions could
provide valuable insight into this result.
• 19 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
Overall, I was satisfied with
the quality of this paper
Mean:
Always 1
Usually 2
Sometimes 3
0
0
11
0.0%
0.0%
20.4%
0.0%
0.0%
20.4%
Seldom 4
Never 5
16
27
29.6%
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
54
100.0%
100.0%
4.3
Figure 3 A negative distribution of results
Responses that are split between high and low
ratings for the same question produce a polarised
distribution (see Figure 4). This distribution
could reflect student attitudes to changes in paper
delivery, with those who are more traditional in
outlook giving the negative bias and those who
enjoy a more innovative approach providing the
positive bias. Here the open questions responses
would be most revealing.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
IS ND PDA
T
N WA U
E
M VIE ING
U
C RE BE
O
F
S DDER S O
I
TH UN ES
OC
R
P
Overall, I was satisfied with
the quality of this paper
Mean:
2.9
Always 1
Usually 2
24
5
44.4%
9.3%
44.4%
53.7%
Sometimes 3
0
0.0%
53.7%
Seldom 4
5
20
9.3%
37.0%
63.0%
100.0%
54
100.0%
100.0%
Never 5
Figure 4 A polarised distribution
The Open Question Report (generally for webbased appraisals) is a true recording of the student
responses to the Open Questions in the appraisal.
This information provides the rationale behind
the student responses to the qualitative part of the
appraisal and as such, provides valuable insight
into the student’s experience.
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 20 •
At the top of the Appraisal report information is
provided on the whether the paper is sole, co- or
team-taught and on student enrolment and
response rate for a given paper. Information on
the teaching team is taken from the Cover
Appraisal Sheet (see page 3). Enrolment
information is taken from the University’s most
up-to-date enrolment query from BRIO. The
information supplied is the overall enrolment for
a given paper and does not give information on
tutorial group sizes. The response rate indicates
the number of questionnaires returned as a
percentage of the overall enrolment figure. It is
this response rate that is used in the Appraisal
Summary mentioned on page 23.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IResults
1.7 Reporting of Appraisal
N ATED
C
The reporting Iprocess
S NatDeach Dlevel of the
University isTindicated
1 below. All this
P
Ain Table
N
U
information
will
be
produced
by
E EW G the TDU.
M
IN for Demonstrators,
U
VI BAppraisals
E
PleaseEnote:
C
O Sessional
R Assistants
and Tutors will go to the
F for distribution.
D
R
O
paper
convenor
S
I DE S
H
N ES
T
Recipient U
C Report
O
Teacher
Paper and individual teacher report.
PR
Paper Convenor
Paper report for that particular paper.
COD
Aggregated data for all papers relevant to department.
Teaching reports through PGS.
Dean/Faculty/School/
APC/TQC
Aggregated paper results for each department in Faculty/
School.
University/TEC
Aggregated results for each Faculty/School.
Table 1. The Reporting Structure within the University for Appraisal Information
• 21 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
1.8 Benchmarking
Average results for department and faculties will
be computed for use as benchmarks. These can
be used by staff as a guide to how well their paper
and teaching is developing. Generally, staff who
have excellent teaching methodologies and paper
design get a rating of 1 (which is consistent with
Always satisfied with the quality of the paper;
This teacher was Always effective). Staff can
compare their results against Departmental mean
values which will be distributed by their COD.
Y
L
T
1.9 Appraisal Summaries
N
E
Currently, Human Resources Policy requires an
R THE .
R
Appraisal Summary for all promotion and
U
ED
C
increment reports. An Appraisal Summary
is a IN
T
IS Nof D PDA
two page document recording the statistics
T
A year.U
each paper taught by a teacher
the last
NoverW
E
G
Usually, this two-pageM
limit is only
enough
space
E
I
N
I
U
V
to provide statistical
information
for
seven
E
C RE B
papers. If D
youO
have taught
more
Fthan seven papers
R
O
S
over Ithe last year,
choose the papers that you
E then S
D
H
S
would
like
included
in
the
T UN E summary. Appraisal
summaries canC
be ordered using the order form at
O
R
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/appraisal/
P
index.shtml
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 22 •
2. Evaluation for the Enhancement of
Teaching
To this point, the guidelines document has
focused on the use of review and evaluation data
for promotion and increment purposes
(summative evaluation). An equally significant
dimension of any review and evaluation of
teaching and courses is to support the ongoing
development of approaches to teaching
(formative evaluation). The data set generated for
promotion or increment purposes is generally
quite different in scope, style and focus from that
which emerges from a teaching development
process. Thus, while it is unlikely that the same
data set can be applied to these two quite distinct
evaluation contexts, the one may inform the
other. For example, summative evaluations of
teaching and courses may signal the need for an
individual staff member to be encouraged to place
a greater emphasis on developing current
teaching practice. Equally, a formative evaluation
process may prompt a particular focus within a
summative evaluation to ascertain the extent to
which a particular teaching enhancement strategy
had been effective. Even the most competent of
teachers can further enhance their practice
through reflective evaluations of the ways in
which their approaches to teaching impact on
student engagement with learning. The notion of
reflective practice in teaching is summarised as
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
IS ND PDA
T
N WA U
E
M VIE ING
U
C RE BE
O
F
S DDER S O
I
TH UN ES
OC
R
P
……..looking at what you do in the
classroom, thinking about why you do it,
and thinking about if it works - a process
of self-observation and self-evaluation.
By collecting information about what
• 23 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
goes on in our classroom, and by
analysing and evaluating this
information, we identify and explore our
own practices and underlying beliefs.
This may then lead to changes and
improvements in our teaching.
Julie Tice, Teacher trainer, Writer,
British Council Lisbon
A number of formative tools can be usefully
applied when considering the process of
evaluation for development of teaching and a
range of these is outlined in the following section
of the document with, in addition, a
representative bibliography at the end of this
section.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
IS ND PDA
T
A U
3. Formative Tools EN W
Gand
E
I
N
For evaluation U
to M
be comprehensive
I
V BE in the
developmental, C
it needs E
to be embedded
O
R
day to day
of teaching
F and learning.
D context
R
O
S
ThereI are a number
tools that can be
E of formative
S
D
H
employed
on
a
regular
basis
to
inform teachers
S
Tand learners
E
UN about
the
quality
of
the learning
Cindicate appropriate modifications
O
experience
and
PR
and adjustments.
In addition to using a range of
tools, it is helpful for teachers to obtain feedback
from different sources. Obviously, the learners’
perceptions are crucial, but research also indicates
that student feedback on teaching and learning is
limited. Incorporating other sources of feedback
helps to provide a much richer picture of the
teaching and learning.
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 24 •
3.1 Suggestions for Feedback from Students
3.1.1 Regular Anonymous Instant Feedback
This can be done in a variety of ways. The aim is
to provide quick feedback on a particular lecture,
module or section of learning. These are simple,
easy to obtain, read and analyse. Students may,
for example, be asked to identify two key points:
 The aspect of the lecture/section/module
that they found most interesting.
 The point of the class that they may find
most difficult to understand or grasp.
LY
T
N
Another common strategy is R
to E
ask students
to
.
HtheEmain
R
write a one sentence summary
of
T
D
U
E
learning in a particular
C class. IANcomprehensive
T
A
S
D
collection of in-class
feedback
exercises
can be
I
Dexercises
Nof these
T
P
found in the
compilation
A
N W(1993). This
U feedback can bybe
Angelo E
and Cross
G on-line.
MandVhanded
IE EinIorNposted
written
U
CIt is R
crucial
E thatBthe lecturer responds to trends in
O
student
F or revisits concepts that many
D R feedback
O
S
appear not to grasp. The ensuing
I DEstudents
S
H
conversations
can extend and enhance the
S
T UN E
classroom
learning
experience for both students
C and teachers.
O
PR
3.1.2 The Critical Incident Questionnaire
This is a particular form of instant feedback
suggested by Brookfield (1995). This
questionnaire, which lecturers are encouraged to
distribute regularly to students, monitors the
affective dimensions of the students’ learning
experience as well as their cognitive
understanding. Examples of the questions are:
• 25 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
 At what moment in the class this week did
you feel most engaged with what was
happening?
 At what moment in the class this week did
you feel most distanced from what was
happening?
 What about the class this week surprised you
most?
3.1.3 Learning Reflection Exercises
As part of the paper assessment students can be
asked to write regular reflection exercises on their
learning process. These may take the form of a
learning journal or single reflection pieces. These
exercises can also give lecturers an insight into
the relation between their teaching and student
learning. Additionally, reflection exercises help
students to develop their metacognitive skills.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
IS ND PDA
T
N WA U
E
M VIE ING
U
3.1.4 Focus Groups
E way of
C RE an excellent
B
Focus groupsOcan provide
F student learning
gaining anDin-depth
RinsightOinto
S
E
I
and
of teaching.
S Small groups such as
Dclasses
Hexperience
S
N
Tpostgraduate
provide
the optimum context
U CEgroup. However,
for using a focus
group
Ocan also be conducted focus
discussions
in a larger
R
P a small group of invited students when
class with
the teacher wants to examine some particular
aspect of the paper or teaching more closely.
Examples include investigating the students’
grasp of a particular theory or new teaching
strategy. Focus groups must be conducted by a
facilitator and a TDU staff member can facilitate
a focus group discussion, document and analyse
the findings.
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 26 •
3.2 Self-evaluation and Reflection
3.2.1 Regular Reflection
In addition to student appraisal, an important
part of professional development is ongoing
reflection on and evaluation of one’s own
practice. When evaluating a particular aspect of
your teaching and assessment practices, useful
criteria for evaluating your practices are:
 The intended learning outcomes
LY
T
teaching and learning practicesN
E E
 Your own experiencesR
asR
a learnerH
T ED.
(Brookfield, 1995).U
C IN AT
S
I NDDiaryPD
T
3.2.2 Keeping
a Learning
A U it is helpful to
N andW
To enhance
sustain reflection,
E
G
Ma diary
E
keep
in which
regularly jot down
I
N
I
U
V BEof youryousense
your impressions
of the teaching
C
E
O
R
and
learning
that
has
occurred.
There are
F
D RnumerousOquestionnaires
available
to
help you
S
I DE to askSprecise questions about specific aspects
H
S teaching, such as those provided by Brownof
T UN Eyour
OC and Race (1995), Forsyth, Joliffe & Stevens
R
(1995), Moon (1999) and Kahn & Walsh
P
 Your teaching philosophy
 Research-based evidence on effective
(2006).
3.2.3 Compiling and Maintaining a Teaching
Portfolio
Teaching portfolios are increasingly required for
career development purposes, but they are also
very important tools for professional
development. In a teaching portfolio, teachers
generally articulate their teaching philosophy
and it evolution, document and explore elements
of their current practice, and plan future
• 27 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
teaching initiatives, research on teaching and
professional development. The portfolio provides
an ideal way for the University teaching to
document and examine their pedagogy and
practice and to frame future teaching-related
choices. It is a flexible document so that shifts in
thinking, new approaches and initiatives can be
readily included.
3.3 Peer Interactions
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
 Peer lecture/tutorial observation using
D DA
IS negotiated
criteria that have been carefully
N
T
P
and agreed (TDU staff
can alsoAprovide
N
U
Eand feedback).
W NG
teaching observation
M
E
I
I that
U department
V Bgatherings
E
 Informal regular
C
E
O to RdiscussFcurrent classroom
inviteDpeople
R colleagues.
O
experiences
S DEwith
I
S
H
N ES departmental seminar
T  Teaching-focused
U
series. C
RO
 Open
lectures by experienced academics
P
followed by discussion sessions.
Working with colleagues on our teaching can be
very helpful. Sharing ideas about pedagogy and
practice provides another important way of
evaluating and developing your teaching.
Contexts for peer interaction include:
 Using Moodle to exchange thoughts on
ongoing teaching experiences.
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 28 •
3.4. Submitting Evidence
Formative Evaluation
of
your
The use of formative evaluation is an intrinsic
part of the relationship that exists between the
learner and the teacher. As such, examples of
formative evaluation should only be submitted
with PGS documentation to the COD.
For help with Formative Evaluation please
call the TDU.
LY
T
N
Teaching Developer (Quality/Evaluation)
E
Dr Trudy Harris
R THE .
R
Rm AB.08
U IN TED
C
Tel: 07
838 4634
IS ND PDA
E-mail: [email protected]
T
A U
N [email protected]
E
W
G
M VIE forIN
4. Processes
Continuous
U
C Improvement
E BE
O
R
F improvement of teaching and
continuous
O
S DDERThe
I
S goes beyond the individual teacher. It
S
TH UN Elearning
involves the whole department and ultimately
C
University. In addition to the Teaching
O the
R
Quality
Committee and the work of the TDU,
P
Departments and Schools/Faculty need to
institute a review system which encourages
continuous improvement and staff/student
consultative committees as well as student
representatives in individual courses to provide
feedback. The aim should be a continuous
process of feedback of information, mutual
support and ultimate enhancement of quality.
This goes beyond quantitative surveys and
becomes part of the culture of the institution.
• 29 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
5. Representative Bibliography
Angelo, T.A. & Cross. P. (1993). Classroom
Assessment Techniques. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Argyris, C.& Schon, D. (1975). Theory and
P r a ct i c e; I nc r ea si ng pr o f e ss i o n al
effectiveness. London: Jossey-Bass.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
U IN TED
C
Bell, M. (1996). Developing reflective
Din DA
IS practice
N
the education of universityT teachers.
Paper
P
A U
N
published in the Conference
Proceedings
of
E EofWthe Higher
G
M
the Annual Conference
I
N
I
U
Education C
ResearchEV
and Development
E
B
O
R
Association
of
Australasia
(HERSDA),
Perth:
F
D
R
Western
E SO
IS Australia.
D
H
S for quality learning at
TBiggs,UJ. N
E
(1999). Teaching
university.
Buckingham: Open University.
OC
R
P
Bone, A. (1999). Ensuring successful assessment.
Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J., (1995). Making
connections. HERSDA, Gold Guide Number
2. Australian Capital Territory: Higher
Education Research and Development
Association of Australasia Inc.
Coventry:
Education.
National
Centre
for
Legal
Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion
of academic values.
Studies in Higher
Education 15 (1) 101-111.
Boud, D. (1991). Implementing student self
assessment. Canberra: HERDSA.
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 30 •
Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self
assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D. (Ed). (1998). Developing student
autonomy in learning. (2nd edition) London:
Kogan Page.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985).
Reflection: Turning experience into learning.
London: Kogan Page.
LY
T
N
E
E .
R TaHCritical
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming
R
Reflective Teacher.: U
San Francisco:
Jossey
ED
N
C
I
T
Bass.
IS ND PDA
T
A UAssess your own
Brown, E
S.N
& Race, P. (1995)
W
teaching
M Vquality.
IE ELondon:
NG Kogan Page.
I
U
CBuzan,
E
BUse both sides of your brain. In
O
T. (1983).
R
F
D
O C. (1994). Processes for group
S DERHogan,
I
S
facilitators.
Perth: School of Management and
TH UN ESMarketing, Curtin
University of Technology.
C
O
W., & Kemmis, S. (1983). Becoming
PR Carr,critical:
Knowing through action research.
Bright, B. (1995). What is reflective practice?
Curriculum, 16 (2), 69-81.
Geelong: Deakin University Press, Victoria,
Australia.
Claxton, G. (1999). Wise up: the challenge of
lifelong learning. London: Bloomsbury.
Cowan. J. (1999). On becoming an innovative
university teacher. Buckingham: Open
University.
• 31 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
Elliot, J., (1983). Self-evaluation, professional
development and accountability. In Galton,
M., and Moon, B. (Eds), Changing Schools.
London: Harper & Row.
Forsyth, I., Jolliffe, A.& Stevens, D. (1995)
Evaluating a course. London: Kogan Page.
Fryer, R. (1997). Learning for the 21st century:
first report of the National Advisory Group for
Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning
London: NAGCELL.
LY
T
N
Hall, S. (1997). Forms of reflective teaching E
HE D.
practice in higher education. In Pospisil, R.
&R
R
T
U IN TE
Willcoxson, L. (Eds). Learning Through
C
Teaching, p124-131. Proceedings
of
the
IS ND6th PDA
Annual Teaching Learning T
Forum, Murdoch
AMurdochU
N Perth:
University, February E
1997.
W
University.http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1997/
M VIE ING
U
hall1.html. C
E BE
O
R
F of working
D The explication
Hall, S
S. (1994). R
O
E
I
DwithinSaSteacher's self-evaluation
N
THknowledge
E PhD thesis, Perth: Murdoch
of her
U teaching.
C
University,
Western
Australia.
O
R
P
Hall, S., Coates, R., Pearson, M., Ferroni, P. &
Trinidad, S. (1997). Tilling the field: Action
research in postgraduate supervision. In
Pospisil, R. & Willcoxson, L. (Eds), Learning
Through Teaching, p132-143. Proceedings of
the 6th Annual Teaching Learning Forum,
Murdoch University, February 1997. Perth:
Murdoch University.
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 32 •
Hinett, K. & Thomas, J, (1999), Staff guide to self
and peer assessment. Oxford: Oxford Centre
for Staff and Learning Development.
Isaacs & Parker (1996). Short courses, beyond
and beside: What do newly appointed
university teachers want? Paper presented at
(conference unknown), Queensland: Griffith
University.
Kahn, P. & Walsh, L. (2006) Developing Your
Teaching. Oxan: Routledge
LY
T
NA., Ng, S.,
Kember, D., Ha, T., Lam, B., Lee,
E
R TThe
HEroleDof.
Yan, L. & Yum, J. C. K.
(1996).
R
U INaction Tresearch
the critical friend in supporting
E
C
projects. Published
in
the
Conference
A
IS ND Conference
D
Proceedings
of the Annual
of the
T
P
A
N
U
Higher
Research and Development
E Education
W
G (HERSDA), Perth:
Association
of
Australasia
M
E
I
N
I
U
E
C Western
EVAustralia.
B
O
R
F
R O
S. & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action
S DDEKemmis,
I
S planner. Third edition, Geelong:
TH UN ESresearch
Deakin University Press, Victoria, Australia.
C
O
S. & McTaggart, R. (1996). The action
PR Kemmis,
research reader. Third revised edition,
Geelong: Deakin University Press, Deakin
University, Victoria, Australia.
Martin, E. & Ramsden, P. (1994). Effectiveness
and efficiency of courses in teaching methods
for recently appointed academic staff.
Canberra: Australian Capital Territory,
Australia.
• 33 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
McDrury, J. (1996). Developing tools for
reflective practice. Paper published in the
Conference Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the Higher Education Research
and Development Association of Australasia
(HERSDA), Perth: Western Australia.
Mcgill, I. & Beatty, L. (1992). Action learning: A
guide for professional management and
educational development. London: Kogan
Page.
Y
L
T
McGill, I. & Brockbank, A. (1998) Facilitating
N
reflective learning in higher education. E
R THE .
Buckingham: Open University.
R
U IN TED
C
Moon, J. (1999). Learning journals:Sa handbook
I ND PDA
for academics, students T
and professional
A U
N Page.
development. London:E
Kogan
W
M VIE ING
U
Morrison, K. (1995).
Dewey, Habermas
C Curriculum,
E B16E(2) 82-94.and
reflective O
practice. R
D R OF
S
E(1996).SPreparing the university
I
Pettigrove,
M.
D
H
S
N The E
T teacher:
PPIR cycle in context. Paper
U
Cat (conference unknown),
presented
O
R
Queensland:
Griffith University.
P
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher
education. London: Routledge.
Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning
in higher education: untold stories.
Buckingham: Open University.
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 34 •
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner:
How professionals think in action. London:
Temple Smith.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective
practitioner. San Francisco, California:
Jossey-Bass.
Siksna, M. (1996, October). Reflective practice.
Paper to accompany a workshop at the New
South Wales/Australian Capital Territory
regional staff developers' meeting, Armadale:
University of New England, New South
Wales.
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
R
Slaney, K., Crawford, F.,U
Parkin,NJ. & Taylor,
EDP.
C
I
T
(1997). Independent
thinking:
Cross-cultural
A
SPospisil,
DR. & Willcoxson,
I
D
N
possibilities.
In
L.
T
P
A
N
U
(Eds).
Through Teaching, p296-302.
ELearning
W
G6th Annual Teaching
Proceedings
of
the
M
E
I
N
I
U
Forum,
E Murdoch University,
C Learning
EV 1997.
B
O
February
Perth: Murdoch University.
R
F
D
R
IS DESmith,SR.O(1994). The experience of reflective
H
T UN ESuniversity teachers addressing quality in
and learning. The CUTL action
OC teaching
R
research
project, Adelaide: University of
P
South Australia, Centre for University
Teaching and Leaning.
Smyth, J. (1991). Teachers as collaborative
learners: Challenging dominant forms of
supervision. In the series, Developing
teachers and teaching. Day, C. (Ed). Bristol:
Open University Press.
• 35 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to
curriculum research and development.
London: Heinemann.
Stewart, J., & Fantin, I. (1996). A case study of a
research start-up program in higher education
- changing the focus from teaching to
research. Published in the Conference
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Higher Education Research and Development
Association of Australasia (HERSDA), Perth:
Western Australia.
Y
L
T
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of
N
qualitative research: Grounded theory E
R THE .
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park:
R
U IN TED
Sage Publications.
C
D DA
IS teachers.
N
Smyth, J. (Ed). (1987). Educating
T
A UP
London: Falmer Press.EN
W NG
M
E
I
I our own
Uteaching:
Vexploring
Tice, J. Reflective
E
C
E
B
O practice
R Available:
classroom
http://
F
D
R
ww
ISw . t eDa cEh i n g eSn g lOi s h . o r g . u k / t h i n k /
methodology/reflection.shtml
H
T UN ES
Tripp, D. (1993).
OC Critical incidents in teaching.
R
London:
P Routledge.
Teaching & Learning Centre, University of
Victoria (1995). Critical incidents III:
Legends of the fall term. A videotape &
guidebook. Victoria: University of Victoria,
British Columbia, Canada.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action research in
higher education: Examples and reflections.
London: Kogan Page.
APPRAISALS • TDU
• 36 •
6. Contact Details
Senior Lecturer
Dorothy Spiller
Rm A.B.09
Tel: 07 838 4466 ext 8697
E-mail: [email protected]
Unit Administrator
Preetha Pratapsingh
Rm A.B.12
Tel: 07 838 4839
E-mail: [email protected]
LY
T
N
E
R THE .
Teaching Developer (Evaluation/Quality)
R
U IN TED
Dr Trudy Harris
C
Rm A.B.08
IS ND PDA
Tel: 07 838 4634
T
N WA U
E-mail: E
[email protected]
G
M [email protected]
E
I
N
I
U
C REV BE
O
Administrator
F
D Appraisals
R
O
Charlotte
Ferry-Parker
S
E
I
S
RmSA.B.07
TH UND E
Tel: 07 838 4341
C
O E-mail: [email protected]
R
[email protected]
P
Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching & Learning)
Associate Professor Richard Coll
KP.G.19
Tel: 07 838 4100
E-mail: [email protected]
• 37 •
APPRAISALS • TDU
……..looking at what you do in the classroom, thinking about why
you do it, and thinking about if it works - a process of selfobservation and self-evaluation. By collecting information about
what goes on in our classroom, and by analysing and evaluating
this information, we identify and explore our own practices and
underlying beliefs. This may then lead to changes and
improvements in our teaching.
Julie Tice, Teacher trainer, Writer, British Council Lisbon
LY
T
Useful Links
N
E
RDevelopment
.
HE Unit
R
The following documents can be found at the Teaching
T
D
U
E
(TDU) website http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu
C. IN AT
S
I ND PD
T
 The Appraisal Order Form:
N WA U
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/appraisals/staff/apporder/
E
M VIE ING
apporder.shtml
U
C RE BE
O
 Item Bank:
F
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/pdf/itembank.pdf
S DDER S O
I
S Appraisal Questionnaires:
N on Photocopying
THGuidelines
E
U
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/pdf/appraisals/guidelines.pdf
OC
R
P
 Appraisal Summary Order Form:
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/appraisal/summary.shtml
Produced by:
Teaching Development Unit
Wāhanga Whakapakari Ako
Private Bag 3105
Hamilton 3240
New Zealand
Phone: +64 7 838 4839
Fax: +64 7 838 4573
[email protected]
www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu