5 Teaching excellence fostered through institutional collaboration: A case for an effective assessment rubric

Introduction

Teaching excellence is a defining characteristic and ongoing challenge at small liberal arts institutions, where instructor independence and mission-driven education converge. Defining and measuring it in such contexts involves navigating instructor autonomy, institutional mission, administrative oversight, and accreditation requirements. This chapter presents a case-based approach to addressing these challenges at Brescia University, a small liberal arts school in Owensboro, KY. We offer an example of an implementable solution that fosters and documents teaching excellence while aligning with both generally accepted standards and the university’s mission. Additionally, we model a collaborative development process between the offices of the Academic Dean and the Center for Teaching and Learning, the two main architects of the teaching excellence assessment rubric.

At Brescia University, the challenge lies not only in defining teaching excellence but also in ensuring its alignment with the university’s mission, which emphasizes holistic education, servant leadership, spiritual growth, and lifelong learning. Excellence in teaching encompasses more than quantifiable outcomes; it includes the quality of student engagement, the cultivation of critical thinking, and the integration of liberal arts values into pedagogical practices. To address the challenge of multilayered nature of teaching excellence, we developed a rubric reflecting both our mission and current academic standards, while also serving as a practical evaluation tool. Co-created by Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) Dr. Amanda Morris and Ursuline Center for Teaching and Learning (UCTL) Director Dr. Anna Kuthy, the rubric fosters a shared understanding of teaching excellence among instructors and administrators. It assesses traditional indicators of teaching effectiveness (student engagement, clarity of organization and instruction, content expertise, use of current and effective pedagogical techniques, preparation and use of instructional materials, availability and responsiveness to students, and adherence to institutional teaching expectations) while promoting ongoing instructor growth. The rubric’s clear, mission-aligned criteria support instructors in documenting their teaching efforts, advancing institutional goals, and meeting accreditation requirements.

The model we present here demonstrates how colleges can define, measure, and document teaching excellence in ways that are both contextually meaningful and practically useful. Our experience underscores the value of a mission-driven approach that balances quantitative metrics with qualitative growth, fostering both instructor development and student success. Designed as a resource for instructors and administrators, this chapter offers insights into the collaborative and mission-driven processes that shaped Brescia’s teaching excellence rubric. By detailing the challenges, strategies, and tools employed, it provides a replicable model for other small liberal arts institutions navigating similar complexities. Each section explores a key aspect of this process, from initial conversations to the application of evaluative tools, following temporal organization. Themes of mentorship, instructor development, and institutional collaboration are emphasized, highlighting the importance of holistic and formative approaches to evaluation. Practical advice, adaptable tools, and lessons learned are provided to support the ongoing growth of instructors and institutions alike.

Let’s start at the very beginning

In The Sound of Music, Maria teaches us that it is good to start at the very beginning. Our journey began in August 2019 with a message from Brescia University’s Academic Dean to the Director of the Ursuline Center for Teaching and Learning, initiating a conversation on Objective #3 of the University’s Strategic Plan: Collaborate with the Faculty Welfare Committee and Faculty Assembly to establish faculty core competencies (benchmarks) in pedagogy that are used in hiring, pre- and post-tenure reviews, and promotion/tenure applications.

Sounds simple enough, right? Wrong. Anyone with experience in an academic setting knows how challenging it is to develop, establish, and implement a process that involves conceptual elements—often hard to define and measure—pedagogical approaches, instructor welfare, and virtually every level of the institution, from the Cabinet and administration to instructors and students. This process must also meet accreditation requirements and align with the university’s core mission—its very soul. We began with fundamental questions, similar to what other institutions ask repeatedly. What do we want Brescia instructors to look like in five, ten, and twenty years? What characteristics do we want instructors to embody as teachers and mentors? How should those characteristics reflect the evolving social, economic, and cultural environment for which we are preparing our students?

Our initial assumptions were grounded in the alignment of Brescia’s mission, the Ursuline tradition of pedagogy, and the Strategic Plan. We recognized the need for a holistic view of pedagogy: how instructors conduct themselves, how they interact with one another daily, serves as a model for students. Instructors are not just teachers; they are mentors and advisors, exemplifying professional behavior. At Brescia, the ideas of caritas (as those called to love, John 15:12 NIV) and the Brescia Difference (Respect for the Sacred; Devotion to Learning; Commitment to Growth in Virtue; and Promotion of Servant Leadership) must be embodied in these actions, raising the question: What specifically constitutes teaching excellence at Brescia?

The Ursuline tradition of pedagogy, rooted in the community of women started in Italy in 1535 by St. Angela Merici and devoted almost exclusively to education, emphasizes holistic pedagogy through:

• focus on the individual.
• commitment to the whole person in need of formative education.
• the ability of the creative arts to humanize life.
• the importance of service.
• the centrality of community.
• the freedom and call to adapt and change, and to remain open to an as-yet-undreamed-of future (Brescia University, n.d.).

These values informed our approach as we broke down larger questions into smaller, more manageable ones: What characteristics define Brescia instructors now? Which should be cultivated or changed? How do instructors perceive their roles, and what changes do they envision? How can we gather insights from instructors, students, and administrators? Our process began with ideals grounded in the Ursuline pedagogy, followed by data collection and research into best practices, before scaling down to practical applications: What does teaching excellence mean for Brescia? How is it represented in instructors’ actions, experiences, and behaviors? How is it measured? What processes support and cultivate instructors and students concurrently?

At the time, Brescia’s promotion and tenure process included observations by division chairs and the Academic Dean during the first year and student course evaluations. However, no specific rubric or guidelines existed for these evaluations, nor were there standardized follow-up or development plans. Additionally, no measurable goals aligned with the Ursuline values to assess instructors’ development or institutional teaching excellence. We were intentional about including individuals in the conversation, considering the organization of the university, shared governance, and internal approval processes outlined by shared governance structures and the Faculty Handbook, as well as accreditation regulations. Particular attention was given to maximizing buy-in from constituencies most impacted by these efforts, including the Faculty Assembly, Student Government, Faculty Welfare Committee, Curriculum and Standards Committee, Institutional Assessment, Student Support Services, and instructors known for their sharp minds and hesitance to embrace change.

The selected individuals created a task group with the responsibility of shaping the discussion and gathering data (surveys and focus groups with instructors and students), as well as listening and researching to answer the questions of Brescia’s brand of teaching excellence. To emphasize the instructor leadership and put this endeavor truly in the hands of the instructors, the UCTL Director (non-Cabinet position in the rank of faculty) convened and led the task group through the academic year, reporting the progress regularly to the Faculty Assembly. In the first year of this process, the task group identified the existing processes and policies, along with their strengths and weaknesses, in the context of teaching excellence, student academic growth, instructor professional development, institutional assessment, and accreditation requirements.

Over time, these initial questions evolved into specific policies and processes designed to address the following areas:

• How do we maintain and cultivate a culture of teaching excellence among instructors? What roles do the Academic Dean’s Office, Division Chairs, the Ursuline Center for Teaching and Learning (UCTL), and individual instructors play? What other offices should be involved?
• How do we help new instructors embrace the institutional culture rooted in the Ursuline tradition of pedagogy?
• How do we guide and mentor instructors within the framework of Brescia’s mission?
• How do we support instructors in achieving professional longevity at Brescia?
• How do we evaluate instructors holistically and formatively?
• Ultimately, how do we support instructors in a healthy and fulfilling professional journey at Brescia?

The offices of the VPAA and UCTL focused on the instructor performance evaluation elements. We viewed this area as central to the other components, serving as the foundation for ongoing efforts to realize the broader vision of teaching excellence. Once we could define, measure, and document teaching excellence, the same standards could be applied to recruitment communication, pre-hire observations, hiring determinations, incoming instructor orientation, and professional development. This would allow us to build and sustain a culture of teaching excellence at Brescia. We understood that Brescia’s definition and values of teaching excellence were inherently tied to the Ursuline tradition of holistic pedagogy. Instructors had historically embraced and embedded these values in their teaching, but this understanding was largely anecdotal. The question remained: How could we measure and articulate this story while ensuring consistency in teaching excellence institutionally? That we did not yet know.

Teaching excellence observation rubric to measure and document

Teaching excellence, rooted in the holistic approach of Ursuline pedagogy, is the ability to educate and inspire students in a way that fosters their intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual growth while preparing them to contribute positively to the broader community (Gallegos Nava, 2001). This definition encompasses the following measurable characteristics:

• Recognizing and supporting each student’s unique strengths, gifts, and needs, measurable through personalized learning plans, differentiated instruction, and student feedback indicating individual support and encouragement.
• Addressing intellectual, psychological, emotional, social, and spiritual dimensions of education, evaluated by student development in multiple areas, such as academic performance, emotional resilience (via counseling services or reflection activities), and spiritual engagement (through service or community initiatives).
• Balancing creative expression (art, music, literature) with practical and professional learning to humanize education, appraised by the inclusion of creative assignments, interdisciplinary approaches in coursework, and student participation in artistic or cultural events.
• Encouraging active participation in community service and fostering attitudes of servant leadership, assessed through service-learning projects, leadership roles undertaken by students, and reflective evaluations of service experiences.
• Cultivating mutual respect, interpersonal relationships, and the common good within the learning environment, gauged through collaborative projects, peer reviews, and student surveys reflecting a sense of belonging and mutual respect.
• Remaining open to change, innovation, and the evolving needs of society while staying true to core values, evaluated by instructors’ implementation of new teaching methods, curriculum updates that respond to societal changes, and feedback on relevance from alumni and employers.

Brescia University evaluates effective teaching using a combination of documented methods: student learning experience surveys (where students provide feedback on the course), annual reviews of a Faculty Activity Summary that includes developmental goals and progress toward those goals with the Division Chair, and peer and administrative evaluations as part of the rank and tenure process. Teaching observations by the Division Chair and the Vice President for Academic Affairs are a notable part of the evaluation in the rank and tenure process, along with voluntary observation and consultation sessions with the UCTL Director. All these elements are designed around a formative, rather than punitive, approach to teaching excellence. The University’s definition of teaching excellence combines measurable outcomes with the mission-driven ethos of holistic pedagogy, ensuring that teaching excellence serves both the individual learner and the broader community. Building on the work of the collaborative task group, we applied concepts from neuroscience in leadership, teaching effectiveness, and alignment with our institutional mission to approach the task of measuring and documenting teaching excellence at Brescia.

The application of neuroscience in leadership encourages empathy and emotional intelligence to understand areas in which employees respond with approach or avoidance behaviors based on perceived threats and rewards. This understanding supports social behavior modification (Campbell et al., 2022; Dixon et al., 2010). More specifically, the SCARF (Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relationship, and Fairness) model enables leaders to adapt skills in problem-solving, emotional regulation, collaboration, motivation, conflict resolution, and facilitating change (Campbell et al., 2022; Forbes-Zeller, 2020; Freedman, 2019; Gkintoni et al., 2022). Since its emergence in the past fifteen years, the SCARF model has been widely applied across fields, including education (Gkintoni et al., 2022; Gocen, 2021; Pope, 2019), business (Forbes-Zeller, 2020), and nursing (Freedman, 2019).

Understanding that the words “feedback” or “evaluation” alone can elicit threatening signals and incite social pain – registering in the brain similarly to physical pain (Dixon et al., 2010; Slyke, 2010) – helped us to intentionally develop a tool for observations that communicated ongoing development and respected instructor autonomy while embodying the values of Ursuline pedagogy. Evaluation and feedback are necessary for professional growth. As educators, we should continuously strive to learn and teach effectively. However, the loop of evaluation and feedback itself is critical for documenting teaching effectiveness. When assessing teaching effectiveness, the evaluator must recognize and respect the instructor’s vulnerability in that moment.

Not only does the assessment process impact the instructor’s continued employment and salary, but it may also challenge many long-held perceptions of effective teaching. Instructors often teach as they were taught, are experts in their fields, but have not received specific training in pedagogy. Proper protocols and documentation of the instructor’s observable teaching practices, their teaching philosophy and methodology, the observer’s qualitative assessments, and the instructor’s responses and continued learning, all serve as modes of transparency by setting clear expectations that include ongoing communication, a reciprocal exchange of ideas and input, and mutual respect to accomplish shared goals and, ultimately, the institutional mission. Brescia University’s mission emphasizes a liberal arts foundation, personal and social transformation through education, and academic excellence in a student-centered environment. Achieving this mission largely depends on highly skilled and effective teaching to best serve and meet the needs of students.

The next stage of revising the process of teaching observations required an ongoing and intentional collaboration between the VPAA and the UCTL Director, building on and applying the recommendations of the task group. Outside of the teaching observations completed as part of the rank and tenure process, the UCTL Director offers regular consultation and observations to instructors for developmental support purposes. This voluntary professional development tool is not connected to promotion or tenure and allows for ongoing communication and suggestions for improving teaching strategies in a formative, safe environment.

Furthermore, these consultative services offered through the UCTL extend formative support to the holistic evaluative process administered through the VPAA’s office. Specifically, we wanted a tool that provided consistency in the practice of observation, evaluation, development, and mentorship; intersected the mission of the university and generally accepted best practices in teaching and learning; and applied across academic disciplines. We also recognized that we did not need to reinvent the wheel. Many schools utilized rubrics for observations with similar goals.

Common best practices noted while researching available tools included pre- and post-observation conferences, providing the rubric prior to the observation, engaging in a series of observations throughout the semester, and concluding with a conversation about next steps for development. Through this process, we wanted to model for instructors what they can do with and for their students. In other words, we were applying the basic approaches to holistic teaching and learning (Biggs et al., 2022; Darling-Hammond, 2015; Slyke, 2010; Tharp, 2018).

After reviewing several options, we created a rubric adapted from Old Dominion University Center for Faculty Development’s “Faculty Career Support and Professional Development: Teaching Observation Options and Tools” (2020) and New York University’s Teaching Observation Rubric. Draft versions of the rubric were exchanged between the two of us, and adjustments were made before reaching the final product. The main categories incorporated in the observation rubric include Learning Objectives and Context, Organization of Session, Verbal Clarity of Session, Visual Clarity of Session, Clarity of Directions, Learning Environment, Application and Practice, Assessment, and Content Mastery. There is also a supplemental section for online courses that accentuates the online learning environment and engagement.

The rubric provides clear expectations and instructions for both the observer and the instructor:

“Teaching observations offer faculty members the opportunity for feedback and development. At Brescia University, we require faculty to engage in teaching observations by the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Division Chair as part of the promotion and tenure process, as well as the review process for newer faculty members. Separately, developmental observations are available through the Ursuline Center for Teaching and Learning.”

Furthermore, the rubric outlines the observation process involved with the Vice President for Academic Affairs:

• Prior to the observation, faculty members should engage in self-reflection. They should complete the self-reflection questions before the first meeting and present them during the pre-observation conference.
• During the pre-observation conference, faculty will provide a brief overview of the planned upcoming lesson and allow the observer to ask questions.
• Scheduling: Both the teaching observation and the pre-observation conference will be scheduled by the Office of Academic Affairs in consultation with the faculty.
• Observation: The VPAA completes the teaching observation.
• Feedback: The VPAA will write a letter summarizing the visit and schedule a post-observation conference to debrief and provide feedback. The faculty and Division Chair will receive copies of the letter. (The letter includes the completed rubric from the observation.)

The first step in the teaching observation process involves a pre-observation conference with the observer and the instructor. During the pre-observation conference, the following questions are considered:

Pre-Observation Self Reflection Questions

• Does my syllabus include all required elements? Is my syllabus clear and easy to navigate?
• Are the class session objectives aligned with the course student learning outcomes and communicate those with students?
• Do I establish a learning environment with a climate of trust, respect and collaboration?
• Do I lead a learning environment that minimizes distractions that could interfere with learning?
• Do I engage with students through appropriate eye contact and voice presentation?
• Do I ensure reasonable pacing and transitions while moving from one topic or activity to another?
• Do I implement active learning and multimodal strategies that foster creativity, critical thinking, and analysis?
• How do I help students grasp challenging material? Do I present examples and varying explanations to clarify new ideas and relate them to students’ prior experience/knowledge? Do I provide opportunities for student application of skills?
• Do I frequently monitor student progress through checks and understanding and adjust?

The Pre-Observation Self-Reflection Questions directly connect to the main categories included in the rubric so that the instructors are prepared, and the evaluation criteria are transparent, thereby eliminating uncertainty and setting clear expectations.

Pre-Observation Conference Questions

The purpose of the pre-observation conference is to discuss the upcoming observation to prepare and empower the instructors through their self-assessment, supported by a self-reflection questionnaire. Secondly, this pre-observation conference ensures that the instructor and the observer are aligned regarding goals and expectations.

Below are examples of pre-observation questions adapted from Pam Robbins’ Peer Coaching to Enrich Professional Practice, School Culture, and Student Learning to help guide the discussion:

• What will your class be about?
• What skills and knowledge will students develop as a result of this class?
• What teaching strategies will you use to ensure students are actively engaged?
• What will students do to demonstrate mastery of the material?
• What learning experiences did students have in the lesson before this one?
• How would you like me to focus the observation?
• Is there any other background information you would like me to know?
• What insights do you hope to gain from the observation?

The pre-observation conference questions emphasize the autonomy and agency of the instructor while contextualizing the upcoming observation. More specifically, the questionnaire intentionally asks how the instructor would like the observer to focus the observation and requests background information they wish to share. This approach signals to the faculty that the intent is supportive and formative. Faculty members often candidly share challenges they face in class, such as a lack of engagement, students using phones excessively, or difficulties in assessing group work. Such insights enable the observer to listen, process, and approach the observation with strategies to enhance the teaching and learning environment for both the instructors and students.

Next, the observation takes place, followed by the observer completing the rubric based on insights from the observed class interactions. Each category is rated as Exemplary, Present, or Absent. Qualitative feedback is offered through comments on strengths and any questions or concerns. All components of the rubric provide the instructor with opportunities to reflect on effective areas and identify potential areas for improvement.

The final step in the observation process involves the post-observation conference between the observer and the instructor. This meeting allows for a debrief of the observation and provides an opportunity to clarify any unclear aspects of the rubric. The observation and assessment report is included in promotion and tenure portfolios if completed by the VPAA, but otherwise, it is provided solely to the instructor by the Director of the UCTL.

Although this process has proven effective so far, it has also been undoubtedly time-consuming. It requires commitment from both the observer and the observed. It can become overwhelming for academic administrators with competing demands and extensive obligations. Moving forward, it may be worthwhile to consider requiring peer observations to help share this responsibility and to encourage a formative approach rather than observation from a direct supervisor. Nevertheless, the current approach is worth the effort. To date, instructors who have participated in this newly adopted observation process have provided favorable feedback. They have expressed appreciation for knowing what to expect and understanding the evaluation criteria in advance. Additionally, instructors come to the pre- and post-observation conferences prepared and offer insightful contributions. The post-observation conferences have been productive and instrumental in clarifying feedback that may have been unclear or needed further detail.

This process models the principles we aim to see in teaching: clear communication of expectations in advance, ongoing dialogue, continuous learning, and consistent development.

Support for instructor teaching excellence

The evaluative process we implemented would not be effective without the accompanying support for instructor teaching excellence (Schleicher, 2016). As mentioned above, the measures used and records kept by the VPAA are mirrored in the consultation services offered through UCTL. The consultation series does not impact instructor promotion and tenure processes unless the instructor chooses to include the evaluative letter in their portfolio. Additionally, UCTL is not organizationally located under the VPAA, which ensures a safe and formative environment for professional development.

Another key difference between the evaluative process and the developmental process offered by the consultations lies in the number of observations. The VPAA conducts a single observation, while the UCTL supports development through a series of observations over a semester or an academic year. Otherwise, the processes are similar. The instructors initiate a consultative observation by completing a form that communicates to UCTL staff the specific area they wish to address. Alternatively, instructors may reach out to address a problem or an ongoing self-identified weakness or challenge. After the initial request, UCTL staff meet with instructors for a pre-observation session, followed by the observation itself, shared insights, and another in-person session to discuss strategies for change. This is followed by additional observations and discussions as needed. The process continues until instructors achieve their self-identified goals. Instructors may also request a post-consultation evaluation letter for inclusion in their teaching portfolio.

Goals and findings: what works and what doesn’t work?

We entered this project with goals of developing a tool to document effective teaching based on observation that could 1) define, measure, and document teaching excellence in ways that are both contextually meaningful and practically useful, 2) align the evaluation criteria with the university mission and Ursuline education tradition, and 3) offer a balance of quantitative metrics with qualitative growth, fostering both instructor development and student success. The rubric defines effective teaching through the identified categories, which align with the university mission, and measures the categories with specific criteria. The rubric emphasizes best practices in effective teaching not only through its measurement criteria, but also through the process itself which models effective teaching and learning.

The rubric serves as a practical, useful tool for the observer and the observed. For the observer, it provides objective consistency to the teaching evaluation as it applies effective teaching practices across academic disciplines. For the instructor observed, it communicates consistent and transparent expectations. It allows the observer to focus and reflect on areas for growth from conversation with the instructor, which brings meaning and purpose to the observation as opposed to checking an item from a list of obligatory requirements. It allows the observer to frame the documented feedback in alignment with the instructor’s goals and self-identified areas for growth and development. This process thrives on a reciprocal exchange, fostering partnership and collaboration rather than top-down evaluation, perfectly supporting the Ursuline educational tradition and servant leadership.

Finally, the rubric offers qualitative feedback that explains and enhances the quantitative metrics. Experience thus far has shown this to be key. Instructors have commented on the quality and detail provided in the qualitative comments, noting the appreciation of actionable feedback and practical strategies to improve specific aspects of their teaching such as engagement or organization and structure of the lesson. One constraint noted at this point is the limited experience of observing one teaching session. This provides limited insight into teaching overall. While the rubric inherently helps to address this with the inclusion of the self-reflection questions and the review of the syllabus for context into the course holistically, opportunity remains to provide even more consistency in the overall process of documenting teaching effectiveness at our university.

Continuous assessment of the process

We aim to expand this process of evaluating, measuring, and documenting teaching excellence. We hope to incorporate these elements into instructor recruitment and hiring to communicate expectations from the outset of the working relationship with instructors. Additionally, we seek to bring more consistency to the observation process by requiring division chairs to utilize the same measurement tool for evaluations.

A critical component of fostering a culture of teaching excellence lies in the intentional mentorship (McMurtrie, 2018), maintenance, and cultivation of instructors throughout their careers. At Brescia University, the current mentorship structure is largely informal, varying significantly across divisions and relying on the initiative of individual instructors or division chairs. While this flexibility has allowed organic mentorship relationships to form, it has also created inconsistencies in the experiences of instructors, particularly for new hires. To address this, Brescia’s VPAA has implemented a structured first-year orientation program for new instructors. This initiative, supplemented by events offered by the UCTL, provides an initial foundation of support and opportunities for instructors to connect with one another. However, developing a more formal mentorship program remains a promising avenue for growth.

A comprehensive instructor mentorship program could include elements such as peer mentors for new instructors, structured check-ins with division chairs, and workshops tailored to different career stages. For instance, early-career instructors could benefit from guidance on navigating the tenure process and building a teaching portfolio, while mid-career and tenured instructors might focus on leadership opportunities, advanced pedagogy, or research collaborations. Late-career instructors could engage in mentorship roles themselves, passing on their expertise while preparing for transitions such as emeritus status. These stages reflect an intentional approach to addressing instructor needs holistically throughout their professional lifespan, supporting not only individual growth but also institutional retention and development.

Conclusion: lessons learned worth sharing

The process of defining, measuring, and documenting teaching excellence at Brescia University has illuminated key lessons for cultivating a culture of teaching excellence at small liberal arts institutions. First, aligning institutional mission and values with instructor evaluation practices is indispensable. By grounding our approach in Brescia’s Ursuline tradition of pedagogy and its mission of holistic education, we ensured that the evaluation framework reflects the unique identity and aspirations of the university. This alignment has not only clarified the institution’s expectations but also fostered instructors’ buy-in by connecting these processes to shared values that resonate with the entire academic community.

Second, collaboration across institutional roles has proven essential in establishing sustainable systems. The active engagement of instructors, administrators, and the UCTL brought together diverse perspectives, resulting in transparent and cohesive processes. The development of a shared rubric integrating formative and summative assessment exemplifies the importance of intentionality and consistency. Supporting tools, such as pre- and post-observation conferences and self-reflection prompts, have reinforced the emphasis on professional growth, ensuring that instructors feel supported in their teaching journeys rather than evaluated in a punitive manner.

Lastly, adaptability and responsiveness have been central to refining the evaluation process as needs evolve. Incorporating instructors’ feedback, adjusting tools, and offering continuous professional development have strengthened both the tools themselves and the sense of community among instructors and administrators. These iterative efforts have not only enhanced the evaluation framework but also reinforced a shared commitment to Brescia’s mission of personal and social transformation through education.

Through this work, we offer a replicable model for institutions seeking to cultivate teaching excellence in ways that are inclusive, mission-driven, and sustainable. The lessons learned underscore that teaching excellence is not merely a set of metrics but a dynamic, collaborative process that reflects the evolving needs of instructors and students. By remaining steadfast in its commitment to servant leadership, holistic education, and academic excellence, Brescia University is not only honoring its legacy but also ensuring its relevance for generations to come.

Useful tools

The tools especially useful in those front conversations came from: Stanford University’s Center for Teaching and Learning, multiple articles from Inside Higher Education, the Teaching section of The Chronicle of Higher Education, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Education and Skills, American Council on Education, and University of KY Faculty/Staff Self-Care & Wellness.

Columbia University Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Best practices in faculty mentoring. Columbia University. https://provost.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/MentoringBestPractices.pdf

Green, D. W., & Ciez-Volz, K. (2010). Now hiring: The faculty of the future. In B. D. Cejda & J. P. Murray (Eds.), New directions for community colleges: Hiring the next generation of faculty (No. 152, pp. 81–92). Jossey-Bass. DOI: 10.1002/cc.430

McMurtrie, B. (2018, June 28). Want to help professors become better teachers? Find them a mentor. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Help-Professors-Become/243788

Tracey, M. D. (2006, January). Faculty mentoring faculty: Universities increasingly offer mentoring programs that link new faculty with more experienced colleagues. Monitor on Psychology, 37(1), 38.

UCSF Faculty Academic Affairs. (n.d.). Mentoring. University of California, San Francisco. https://facultyacademicaffairs.ucsf.edu/faculty-life/mentoring

University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts. (2001). Junior faculty mentoring and third-year reviews: Principles and best practices: A report to chairs, directors, and faculty from Dean Shirley Neuman (June 18, 2001). University of Michigan. https://vpf.berkeley.edu/faculty-mentoring/other-mentoring-resources

 

References

Astin, A. W. (2012). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (2014). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education. John Wiley & Sons.

Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Teaching for quality learning at university (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Boudett, K. P., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (Eds.). (2020). Data wise, revised and expanded edition: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press.

Brescia University. (n.d.). Ursuline pedagogy: Brescia difference in teaching and learning. https://libguides.brescia.edu/c.php?g=706679&p=6288879

Campbell, S. J., Walsh, K., Prior, S., Doherty, D., Bramble, M., Marlow, A., & Maxwell, H. (2022). Examining the engagement of health services staff in change management: Modifying the SCARF assessment model. International Practice Development Journal, 12 (1), 5. DOI: 10.19043/ipdj.121.005

Columbia University Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Best practices in faculty mentoring. Columbia University. https://provost.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/MentoringBestPractices.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. Teachers College Press.

Dixon, P., Rock, D., & Ochsner, K. (2010). Turn the 360 around. NeuroLeadership Journal, 3 (1). https://www.academy-bbl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Turn_the_360_around.pdf

Forbes-Zeller, L. (2020). What role can social cognitive neuroscience play in promoting prosocial behaviors in organizations? ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2468175135?pq-origsite=primo

Freedman, B. (2019). Risk factors and causes of interpersonal conflict in nursing workplaces: Understandings from neuroscience. Collegian (Royal College of Nursing, Australia), 26 (5), 594–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2019.02.001

Gallegos Nava, R. (2001). Holistic education: Pedagogy of universal love. Foundation for the Education of Universal Holism.

Gkintoni, E., Halkiopoulos, C., & Antonopoulou, H. (2022). Neuroleadership as an asset in educational settings: An overview. Emerging Science Journal, 6 (1), 893–904. https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2022-06-04-016

Gocen, A. (2021). Neuroleadership: A conceptual analysis and educational implications. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IJEMST, 9)(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1237

Green, D. W., & Ciez-Volz, K. (2010). Now hiring: The faculty of the future. In B. D. Cejda & J. P. Murray (Eds.), New directions for community colleges: Hiring the next generation of faculty (No. 152, pp. 81–92). Jossey-Bass. DOI: 10.1002/cc.430

Harrison, R., Meyer, L., Rawstorne, P., Razee, H., Chitkara, U., Mears, S., & Balasooriya, C. (2022). Evaluating and enhancing quality in higher education teaching practice: A meta-review. Studies in Higher Education, 47 (1), 80–96. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1730315

Keig, L. W., & Waggoner, M. D. (1995). Peer review of teaching: Improving college instruction through formative assessment. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6(3).

Mangione, D., & Norton, L. (2023). Problematising the notion of ‘the excellent teacher’: Daring to be vulnerable in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28 (2), 373–388. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2020.1812565

McMurtrie, B. (2018, June 28). Want to help professors become better teachers? Find them a mentor. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Help-Professors-Become/243788

Munna, A. S., & Kalam, M. A. (2021). Teaching and learning process to enhance teaching effectiveness: A literature review. International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI, 4)(1), 1–4.

Parker, P. M. (2014). Teaching excellence from whose perspective? International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation, 20 (4), 35–43. DOI: 10.18848/2327-7920/CGP/v20i04/48357

Pope, S. (2019). A systematic literature review of school leadership intelligences for the development of neuro-educational leadership [Doctoral dissertation, University of New England]. University of New England Theses. https://dune.une.edu/theses/285/

Schleicher, A. (2016). Teaching excellence through professional learning and policy reform: Lessons from around the world. International Summit on the Teaching Profession. DOI: 10.1787/9789264252059-en

Simonson, S. R., Earl, B., & Frary, M. (2021). Establishing a framework for assessing teaching effectiveness. College Teaching, 70 (2), 164–180. DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2021.1909528

Slyke, E. (2010). An alternative to performance appraisal. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employeerelations/pages/analternativetoperformanceappraisal.aspx

Tharp, R. (2018). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780429496943

Tracey, M. D. (2006, January). Faculty mentoring faculty: Universities increasingly offer mentoring programs that link new faculty with more experienced colleagues. Monitor on Psychology, 37 (1), 38.

UCSF Faculty Academic Affairs. (n.d.). Mentoring. University of California, San Francisco. https://facultyacademicaffairs.ucsf.edu/faculty-life/mentoring

University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts. (2001). Junior faculty mentoring and third-year reviews: Principles and best practices: A report to chairs, directors, and faculty from Dean Shirley Neuman (June 18, 2001). University of Michigan. https://vpf.berkeley.edu/faculty-mentoring/other-mentoring-resources