Home >> APT Table of Contents

printable version

Appendix 2

Faculty Teaching Portfolio
Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness

General Information: A candidate for promotion/tenure in the School of Dentistry must develop a dossier, called a Teaching Portfolio, based on a set of guidelines established by the faculty and which are described in the School of Dentistry’s Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure. The candidate uses the Teaching Portfolio to document his/her teaching effectiveness. The Teaching Portfolio is divided into three sections:

I. Teaching Experience:

A. Course instruction: Prepare a table listing courses taught since your last appointment or
promotion. Include predoctoral, DDS, and graduate level courses. A sample table might resemble:

Role: I was course director and delivered 7 of the 10 two-hour lectures. I arranged for the 3 other speakers in this course and gave them an outline of topics to be covered. Other faculty were used because they had special expertise in the assigned topics. I wrote and evaluated all tests. These included 2 half-hour quizzes and a final examination. The syllabus and tests are included in my portfolio, as well as a course evaluation by the students. Outside work required of
the students consisted of reading assignments in the syllabus, averaging about 3 hours per week. The basic syllabus was developed by previous course directors, but I updated it by adding an index and photoplates (pages 23 and 64) and writing Chapters 8 and 9, which is new material covering dental materials recently introduced to the profession.

Role: I was one of 7 instructors in this all day laboratory course. I supervised 8 students in their first cavity preparation and placement of amalgam, composite and gold inlay. This is a demanding course requiring constant attention to detail with each student. I participated in evaluating the 5 laboratory projects used as test material. I also prepared 2 of the teaching model displays (sample enclosed). These were useful for the students to visualize the desired size of cavity preparation.

B. Work with graduate students: Data is to be provided for all Masters and Doctoral level students in six specific areas. These are (1) number students (current year); (2) number of committees chaired; (3) number of committees as committee member; (4) total number of students awarded the Master’s degree; (5) total number of students awarded the Doctoral degree; and (6) graduate student evaluations of teaching effectiveness, provided by each graduate student and using EAC forms or personally developed teaching evaluation methods.

C. Continuing Dental Education (CDE): Prepare a table listing the CDE courses you have taught. Sample table headings are provided below:

II. Evaluation of Teaching

1. Summarized data from student evaluations
   1. Educational Assessment Center: Summarize data from these forms in a table presenting courses taught by academic year. Titles and numbers are included. A sample table might resemble:

      Course Number

      Required or Elective Course Type (Lecture/Clinical)

      Quarter/ Year

      # Students

      Average Ratings

   2. Personally developed course evaluation procedures: A summary of the data should be presented in a table similar to the one above, but labeled “Self-Developed Recent Student Evaluations.”
2. Self-assessment in response to peer evaluation of teaching efforts: Summarize the peer teaching evaluation forms provided by members of your Peer Teaching Evaluation Review Committee (and other colleagues, if applicable). Include areas of strength and weakness noted and discuss discrepancies, if any, between your own assessment of your teaching and the evaluations provided by peers who have observed your teaching efforts.
3. Self-assessment summary: The candidate is to describe how he or she attempts to improve instruction, including approach to teaching and teaching philosophy. Examples might include modifications made in teaching based on student evaluations, attempts to utilize innovative teaching methods, and participation with colleagues to discuss improved teaching.

   The following is an example of a self-assessment summary. It is provided to illustrate how a candidate might present a self-assessment summary related to teaching effectiveness.

   Response to Student and Peer Evaluations:
   I rely heavily on self-designed assessment tools, which enable more specific diagnostic questioning, especially in my Graduate teaching. My goal in evaluating Graduate small seminar and clinic teaching effectiveness is to foster a dialogue with the students on the specifics of each course (e.g. selection and order of assigned readings, value of student participation, value of clinical feedback and required course projects). While I feel that goal is met through my self-designed assessments, I have little in the way of conventional “summaries” to offer. I can say, however, that the students have responded favorably in general and have offered some useful comments concerning the value of certain texts and the contribution of discussion to their learning. One comment that more than one student has made (on my self-designed assessments, as well as on the Educational Assessment Center forms) acknowledges my willingness to hear student opinions. Since one important goal of graduate training is to foster professional development in the students, I am gratified by these comments. While I have always been open to student opinions, some of my early peer evaluations indicated that I should provide more critical feedback to students I am supervising in the clinic. I now provide each student with very clear instructions about how to improve his/her performance during each phase of a clinical procedure.

   Self Assessment of Progress in Teaching:
   I am committed to continuously improving my teaching. I make a special effort to review student evaluations of my courses and to respond to student concerns. This effort is evident in the increased ratings in my student evaluations upon my second and subsequent offerings of a course.
   
   In the graduate seminars as well as the DDS-level courses that I teach, I try to acquaint students firsthand with some of the fundamental knowledge as well as the cutting-edge research in the topic area. Through modeling and discussion, I try to foster critical inquiry as well as present a body of knowledge. I have found most students respond favorably to this approach and feel that students find me approachable and helpful, as well as instructive, when they approach me on the clinic floor as well as in the laboratory and in seminar courses.

   I have placed special effort on enhancing my seminars that focus on first-hand reading of research. I found that many students need help to develop the critical reading and discussion skills that one expects at a graduate level, so in addition to in-class modeling, I provide students in my seminars with a list of questions they use to guide their
   reading and discussion of the articles. While by no means foolproof, these study guides have improved the quality of class discussions by keeping them more focused and scholarly, and student comments in evaluations indicate that the study guides help them learn more from the articles. Sample study guides are attached to the seminar
   syllabi that can be found in the “Course Syllabi Section” of my Teaching Portfolio.

   I have devoted special attention to RESD 528 and 529, the pre-clinical laboratory course. This course places extremely heavy demands on second-year dental students and is a prime requirement for their entry into the Restorative Clinic. I have sought to introduce alternative teaching methods and a better integrated sequencing of tasks to enhance student understanding as well as their ability to acquire fundamental operative skills. With the help of my teaching colleagues, I developed projects requiring students to analyze their own technical work. Through careful record keeping, I learned that students found these newer approaches to teaching, practicing, and self-evaluation very useful in helping them make the bridge between theory and practice. I was also gratified when my personal contribution to RESD 528 and 529 was rated as 4.00.

   In addition to teaching courses in which I have primary responsibility, I have also had the opportunity to participate in teaching activities that cut across departmental lines. My involvement in the combined Perio-Pros-Restorative course (DENT 568) was to supervise the diagnosis, treatment planning, and placement of intra-coronal preparations in complex cases. I was pleased that the comments of graduate students indicate that my contributions to the multidisciplinary teaching and care team were valuable.

III. Supportive Materials: Components of the Teaching Portfolio Related to Instructional Materials and Teaching Effort

The purpose for permitting additional instructional materials and related documentation to be included as part of the Teaching Portfolio is to provide the candidate with every opportunity to insure that all aspects of his/her teaching efforts are available for review. Such components of a Teaching Portfolio could include:

• A reflective statement about how the construction of the portfolio has led to any improvements in teaching.
• Teaching awards received.
• A representative syllabus with information about the course content and objectives, teaching methods, reading and homework assignments, and student testing procedures.
• Manuals and other teaching materials.
• Tests and test reliability data and other data that show the extent of student learning; standardized test scores before and after the course.
• Descriptions of availability of remediation.
• Teaching evaluations from other faculty not reflected in the PTERC Report.
• Examples of teaching materials, such as video tapes, slides, self-instructional modules,
  textbooks/chapters, etc.
• Contributions to professional teaching journals.
• Invitations to teach or conduct training workshops at other institutions or professional organizations.
• Evidence of use of instructional materials by other teachers.
• Data and materials relevant to team teaching or interdepartmental/ disciplinary teaching.
• Independent peer reviews of teaching materials.