Supportive behaviors
A measure to gauge the extent to which each staff member is helpful to colleagues—designed to encourage collaboration that reduces workload
A survey instrument and analytical method that evaluates the actual impact, and not merely the popularity, of teaching staff.
A tool that automatically generates suggestions and practices that teaching staff can apply to improve their classes
Skill development
A scheme that inspires staff to develop their capacity to write fluently and persuasively—or to co-opt peers who have developed this capacity—to reduce workload
A performance management approach that is more suited to the needs of academics who conduct research—prioritizing development over outcomes
The collaborative index
A measure to gauge the extent to which each staff member is helpful to colleagues—designed to encourage collaboration that reduces workload
Overview of the problem
-
Tertiary institutions would operate efficiently if staff helped each other more effectively
-
Even simple tasks—such as highlighting sections of documents that colleagues should read—could significantly diminish the workload of staff
-
Yet, staff who do assist colleagues effectively are not rewarded proportionately, diminishing the frequency of these helpful acts
Overview of a solution
-
Tertiary institutions could utilize an index that measures the degree to which staff are helpful to other people.
-
Specifically, the measure of one person represents the extent to which other individuals are happier after they meet and interact with this person.
-
To construct this index, an algorithm identifies all the individuals with whom this person interacts—perhaps online, using Microsoft Delve, Microsoft Graph, surveys, or other tools
-
The algorithm then utilizes other information—such as responses from staff satisfaction surveys or the number of positive words, compared to negative words, in emails—to estimate the happiness of each colleague over time
-
A simple formula is applied to calculate the association between how often a staff member interacts with various colleagues and changes in the happiness of these colleagues over time
-
This index might inspire staff to identify creative opportunities to help and to support one another
Variations
-
Staff may also record practices they implemented to help another individual
-
The practices of staff who receive a high score on this index might be communicated across the organization—primarily to clarify which practices are most helpful and to encourage other individuals to emulate these practices.
Some relevant literature
Utility over popularity
A survey instrument and analytical method that evaluates the actual impact, and not merely the popularity, of teaching staff.
Outline of the problem
-
Tertiary institutions often invite students to deliver feedback about their teachers and courses. These institutions utilize this feedback to achieve two goals: to improve practices and to evaluate teaching staff accurately, typically to inform promotions or other decisions
-
Unfortunately, the second goal is hard to achieve. To illustrate, racism, sexism, and other prejudices of students might bias their evaluations of teachers.
-
Or the happiness or laughter of students during classes might also shape evaluations of teachers, even if this happiness or laughter even impairs learning,
Outline of a solution
-
To evaluate teaching staff more accurately, tertiary institutions should first administer a standard evaluation instrument. Sample questions include “To what extent did the teacher inspires students to think critically” or “To what extent does the teacher deliver extensive feedback on assignments”
-
This instrument should also include demographic information, such as the ethnicity of the student and teacher.
-
Second, institutions should choose an outcome they would like to measure and improve—such as the income of graduates three years after graduation.
-
Third, institutions should measure this outcome in alumni, embedded within a more comprehensive and useful survey
-
Fourth, institutions should apply machine learning or other methods to generate a model. This model should be designed to predicts the outcome, such as the income of graduates, from their responses to the standard evaluation instrument
-
For example, this model could predict that income in graduates primarily depends on level of critical thinking and feedback in classes.
-
Fifth, institutions can then utilize this model to evaluate all the teachers.
-
For example, if the students in one class report elevated levels of critical thinking and feedback, this model could predict that over 80% of these students would have attracted a lower income if they had not been taught by this teacher. So, this teacher is assigned a metric or index of 80%
-
In short, this model utilizes standard instruments to generate a metric that estimates the degree to which each teacher benefits his or her students.
-
Because this model controls demographics, the metric is immune to prejudices.
-
The accuracy of this model will also improve over time as more responses are collected.
Some relevant literature
The action plan generator
A tool that automatically generates suggestions and practices that teaching staff can apply to improve their classes
Outline of the problem
-
Tertiary institutions utilize many sources of evidence to evaluate teaching staff, such as surveys of students, surveys of peers, observations of specialists, and portfolios.
-
In many instances, however, institutions primarily design these methods to appraise performance rather than generate feedback that staff can use to improve their classes. Consequently, few staff receive tangible, practical suggestions on how to enhance their teaching—but instead might receive only broad directions, such as to improve their communication or clarity.
Outline of a solution
-
To generate more useful and practical advice to each instructor or educator, tertiary institutions, perhaps in collaboration with one another, should first develop a database of recommended teaching practices that evolves and improves over time.
-
Initially, institutions could distill these practices from meta-analyses and other syntheses of the literature.
-
The database should also record the problems that each recommended practice has been shown to resolve. For example, some practices might overcome disengagement; other practices might resolve conflict.
-
Second, institutions should administer a survey that presents a subset of these recommended practices. Teaching staff should then indicate which of these practices they apply as well as other initiatives they have attempted
-
Third, students complete a survey that assesses the extent to which they experience various problems in classes, such as disengagement or conflict
-
Finally, teaching staff should receive a report that indicates, in order of priority, the 10 to 20 recommended practices they should apply in the future. This report should prioritize the practices that teachers have not applied previously but address the problems that students identified.
-
Institutions should refine the database continually. For example, they could embed some of the other initiatives that teachers have attempted into this database—especially practices that predict elevated levels of student engagement, satisfaction, or learning.
Some relevant literature
The writing pyramid
A scheme that inspires staff to develop their capacity to write fluently and persuasively—or to co-opt peers who have developed this capacity—to reduce workload
Outline of the problem
-
At tertiary institutions, many of the staff who regularly need to communicate in writing, such as publish articles, do not write persuasively and fluently enough
-
For example, in comparison to the most proficient writers—who can write over 5000 words a day—some writers cannot readily write 1000 words a day and do not apply techniques that persuade readers effectively
-
These limitations greatly diminish the productivity and increase the workload of staff.
Outline of a solution
-
One solution, called a writing pyramid, entails several key features
-
First, the tertiary institution introduces a writing program that imparts key skills—such as the benefits of avoiding polysemous or ambiguous words such as “it”, “those”, or “make” or phrases that tend to increase the credibility of reports.
-
The program applies two key features. First, participants are assigned a rank as they gradually advance from Level 1 to about Level 20. Second, the exercises that participants complete are embedded in their daily work, such as writing a publication. Hence, these exercises are designed to expedite, rather than augment, their workload.
-
Staff can publicize the level they have attained in their web profiles.
-
The institution also introduces a range of methods to encourage staff either to complete this program or to collaborate with peers who have completed this program
-
For example, when distributing funding to research projects, the institution might prioritize research teams in which one member has attained a particular level of writing.
Research development appraisals
A performance management approach that is more suited to the needs of academics who conduct research—prioritizing development over outcomes
Outline of the problem
-
In many tertiary institutions, staff meet their line manager once or twice a year to discuss their performance
-
These appraisals, although ubiquitous in many industries, are usually unsuitable to research staff. For example, at many tertiary institutions, research staff are assigned research targets, such as $500 000 of research income and 5 research publications.
-
Unfortunately, many unresolvable and capricious barriers, such as misguided reviewers, can impede these targets. As research shows, when targets are not primarily dependent on the efforts and activities of staff, innovation, resilience, and persistence all tend to decline.
Outline of the solution
-
Institutions should develop an alternative, but optional, performance appraisal scheme that research staff can choose, comprising several features
-
First, rather than meet once or twice a year, research staff should meet their line manager, preferably an advanced researcher, once a month
-
Second, during each meeting, the individuals would discuss and record which research activities the research staff member will complete in a month
-
For example, the staff member might agree to complete a course on grounded theory, write a draft to one publication, read a book on symbolic interactionism, and decide which funding scheme to pursue. To choose these activities, the individuals might utilize their discretion as well as skim a repository of examples. This repository might be derived both from past research as well as the entries of other staff at this institution.
Variation to this solution
-
An alliance of tertiary institutions could develop a tool that facilitates these performance appraisals
-
This tool could, for example, analyze past entries to determine which research activities tend to attract research income or increase publication rat
-
Therefore, this tool could present suggestions on which research activities a specific research staff member should initiate—depending on which activities predict success and which activities the staff member has not completed before.
-
The tool could also calculate the percentage of scheduled activities the staff member has completed—and this metric could be used to inform promotions and other decisions.
Contributors
To seek advice or engage specialists on these initiatives, contact the contributors of this page
-
The collaborative index
-
Utility over popularity
-
The action plan generator
-
The writing pyramid
-
Research development appraisals
​