This section includes feedback from tenure committee members who observed my classes as part of the tenure evaluation process. Their insights focus on areas such as teaching effectiveness, student engagement, and classroom management.

Courses Observed: CHEM V104 (General Chemistry Lecture) and CHEM V101 (Introductory Chemistry Lecture)

CHEM V104 – General Chemistry Lecture

Observation Date: September 25, 2025
Evaluators: Professor Jeffrey Wood and Professor Ryan Petitfils

💪 Strengths Recognized

• Clear and well-organized lecture using tablet-based live problem solving.
• Strong content mastery and flexibility through on-the-spot examples.
• Explicit guidance on exam expectations and emphasis on conceptual reasoning rather than memorization.
• Supportive and approachable tone that fostered student comfort.
• Effective use of technology – slides, stylus writing, and Zoom recording for later review.

⚠️ Areas for Improvement

• Allow longer wait time after posing questions and invite responses from a broader range of students.
• Repeat or restate student answers aloud and acknowledge them by name to reinforce participation.
• Integrate structured engagement methods such as Think-Pair-Share or short warm-ups.
• Increase instructor movement and presence throughout the room.
• Address late arrivals through brief early activities or attendance checks.

CHEM V101 – Introductory Chemistry Lecture

Observation Date: October 9, 2025
Evaluator: Professor Joe Selzler

💪 Strengths Recognized

• Well-structured lesson on limiting reactants using multiple conceptual pathways to build understanding.
• Students were actively engaged in problem solving and responsive to instructor prompts.
• Effective use of the document camera to project student work, comparing accurate and inaccurate solutions.
• Successful inclusion of a live demonstration that connected theory to everyday context.
• Maintained a comfortable, inclusive learning environment with visible rapport.

⚠️ Areas for Improvement

• Circulate more—especially toward the far side of the classroom—to maintain equitable engagement.
• Encourage students to articulate reasoning while solving problems or discussing results.
• Include brief “listen-only” moments during complex explanations to reduce cognitive load.
• Extend post-demo discussion to reinforce conceptual understanding.

Analysis of Changes (Year 3)

Across both observations, the committee highlighted clear continuity in organization, clarity, and classroom atmosphere.
Feedback from the first lecture (V104) emphasized increasing active engagement; the second (V101) reflected early progress toward that goal through demonstrations, shared student work, and guided peer dialogue.
These improvements mark an intentional shift from a primarily instructor-centered delivery toward a more interactive and student-responsive lecture format.

Courses: CHEM V101 and V104 (Lectures and Labs)

Lecture Summary

Strengths included an engaging and comfortable classroom climate, improved visual clarity, and clear explanations supported by annotated on-screen notes.
Students participated more readily than in the first year, demonstrating growing confidence.
Recommendations centered on adding more written cues during lecture, offering short practice breaks for problem solving, and facilitating structured peer interaction.

Lab Summary

The lab environment was described as interactive, safe, and well organized. Students were comfortable asking questions and checking each other’s work.
Suggestions included maintaining strong voice projection, using additional visual cues to sustain attention, and implementing structured peer-review within lab groups.

Analysis of Changes (Year 2)

Compared with Year 1, there was visible progress in student comfort and engagement. Enhanced clarity in visual aids and movement around the room improved both accessibility and energy. Further opportunities for student practice and peer discussion were identified as the next step.

Courses: CHEM V101 and V101L (Lecture and Lab)

Lecture Summary

Strengths included effective use of dual-screen digital presentations, clear visual organization, and creation of a welcoming, low-anxiety atmosphere.
Students benefited from timely and constructive feedback on assessments.
Suggestions included increasing instructor movement, using a microphone for clearer audibility, and writing key concepts on screen to support note-taking.

Lab Summary

Observed strengths were high student responsiveness, organized procedures, and adaptability to unexpected lab situations.
Recommendations focused on stronger voice projection, more student-centered participation, and periodic comprehension checks during experiments.

Analysis of Changes (Year 1)

Initial feedback established a strong foundation of organization, clarity, and student rapport. These early insights shaped the trajectory of later improvements in engagement and instructional design.

Over three years of committee observations, I have refined my teaching from a primarily structured and instructor-led model to one that actively invites student participation and shared reasoning.
The organizational strengths noted in my first year have remained consistent, while subsequent feedback has guided deliberate steps toward more dynamic interaction—through movement, demonstrations, and collaborative problem solving.
This progression reflects my continuing commitment to combine clarity and rigor with a more participatory, student-centered classroom experience.