Committee Observation Feedback

Feedback from tenure committee members who observed my classes as part of the evaluation process, kept as a cumulative record so that each year can be read against the ones before it.

The record

Every observation the committee has made, as recorded on the Form A2 reports where a report exists. A dash means the form did not record the value or has not been located.

Three of these were reviews of a Canvas course shell: Aaron Jones in 2024, Anthony Mansueto in 2025, and Ryan Petitfils in 2026.

Year 4 — Fall 2026

Four committee members conducted three site visits this semester: a lab observation, a lecture observed jointly by two members, and a review of the Canvas course shell.

CHEM V101 · Laboratory

September 21, 2026 — Malia Rose-Seisa

Strengths noted. The lab began on time, with students signing in at the instructor's desk. The opening slides listed the equipment and learning objectives and included photographs showing how to read a meniscus and where to measure from on a ruler. During the briefing, students located the revised step in their lab manuals, then moved straight into paired work while I circulated to check sign-in and safety gear and answer questions. A lab checklist laid out each step, what to record and calculate, and what students should be able to explain afterward.

Areas for improvement. Have students copy the equipment list and objectives into their notes. Carry demonstration items around the room so every student can see them, and walk the lab far more, both between the aisles and around the perimeter, so every student stays on the same page; one raised hand in the back row went unnoticed. Make sure students actually estimate the last digit when reading a volume. Clarify how the checklist is meant to be used, whether it is turned in or kept, and whether some steps might be better left for students to work out on their own.

CHEM V101 Late Start · Lecture

October 5, 2026 — Jeffrey Wood and Russ Frohardt

Strengths noted. The observers highlighted clear expectations about what to memorize for the next test, well-placed questions throughout, and clear worked examples for naming ionic and molecular compounds. The slides were easy to read, and the use of zooming was described by one observer as "masterful and dynamic" and by the other as an "amazing use of technology." The naming flow chart served as a strong visual anchor, and the Name Builder and naming game in Canvas gave students more ways to practice. Both noted the practical advice on memorization and learning, illustrated with my own experience studying Japanese. One also noted the supportive, relaxed atmosphere and the in-class quiz work.

Areas for improvement. Project my voice further. After posing a question, allow more wait time and follow up with a hint if needed; one answer whispered from the back went unheard. Acknowledge students by name when possible, and repeat their answers so the whole class can hear. Prompt more active participation, since students were largely passive during the lecture portion. The front board is a bit dark for working problems.

The two observers differed on two points. One found the pace well judged, while the other suggested slowing slightly. One saw me mostly at the front during the practice quiz, while the other noted that I moved through the room once the activity was underway.

CHEM V101 · Canvas course shell

October 12–16, 2026 — Ryan Petitfils

This review covered the Canvas course shell. Its feedback will be shared at the committee's final meeting, after this portfolio is submitted.

Across the visits

Both classroom observations recommended more movement through the room, and both noted a student response that was missed: a raised hand in the lab and a whispered answer in lecture. My response to the movement recommendation appears on the Fourth-Year Reflection page.

Year 3 — Fall 2025

Four observation sessions by five committee members across two courses, including a review of an online section.

CHEM V104 · Foundations of General, Organic, and Biochemistry

September 25, 2025 — Jeffrey Wood and Ryan Petitfils

Strengths noted. A clear, well-organized lecture built on tablet-based live problem solving; strong content command, with examples generated on the spot; explicit guidance on exam expectations and an emphasis on conceptual reasoning over memorization; a supportive tone that put students at ease; and effective use of slides, stylus annotation, and recording for later review.

Areas for improvement. Allow longer wait time after posing a question, and draw responses from a wider range of students. Repeat student answers aloud and acknowledge them by name. Add structured engagement methods such as Think-Pair-Share or short warm-ups. Move through the room more. Address late arrivals with a brief opening activity or attendance check.

CHEM V101 · Elementary Chemistry

October 9, 2025 — Joe Selzler

Strengths noted. A well-structured lesson on limiting reactants that built understanding through several conceptual pathways; students actively solving and responding to prompts; effective use of the document camera to project student work and compare accurate against inaccurate solutions; a live demonstration connecting the theory to everyday context; and a comfortable, inclusive room with visible rapport.

Areas for improvement. Circulate more, especially toward the far side of the room, to keep engagement equitable. Ask students to articulate their reasoning while working. Include brief listen-only moments during complex explanations to reduce cognitive load. Extend the discussion after a demonstration.

CHEM V101 Late Start

October 20, 2025 — Malia Rose-Seisa

Strengths noted. Students respond openly to the room, comfortable enough to ask questions, talk through class information, and treat the lecture as somewhere they belong. Material presented clearly and in a welcoming, accessible way.

Areas for improvement. Build in more active learning (group work, Think-Pair-Share) so that students engage with one another during lecture and not only with the instructor.

Her summary for the year, written as department chair:

Howard continues to shine as an excellent, high caliber instructor and a full-time faculty member. In the classroom, Howard's demeanor, quality of instruction, and teaching methods encourage students' engagement, participation, and success in ways that are accessible to all students and promote their intellectual curiosity and openness to learning. […] As a faculty member, Howard goes over and above expectations with his work on curriculum, stipend activities such as the lab video project, lab manual editing, and DE committee work.

CHEM V101 Late Start — online section

Late October 2025 — Anthony Mansueto

The one administrator evaluation in the cycle, and a review of the course shell.

Professor Han appears to be an effective teacher and has certainly invested a great deal in making his courses more interactive, in developing ZTC materials, participating in peer review, Project SAIL, etc. He has also revised lab manuals, developed videos for use in Chemistry classes, and developed an Introductions board for his department. He might consider participation in broader college governance activities.

His student evaluations are outstanding.

The recommendation about college governance is the one nearly every evaluator has now made in some form, across two years. What was done about it is on the Professional Activities and Improvement Plan pages.

Changes across the year

The first two written observations pointed the same direction. The V104 feedback in September asked for more active engagement; the V101 observation two weeks later recorded early movement toward it: demonstrations, shared student work, guided peer dialogue. Organization, clarity, and classroom atmosphere were consistent across both. The shift being asked for, and started, is from a primarily instructor-centered delivery toward a more interactive and student-responsive format.

Year 2 — Fall 2024

Four observations by four evaluators, one of which was a review of the Canvas course.

CHEM V20 (now V101) — HyFlex lecture

September 26, 2024 — Malia Rose-Seisa

A lecture on oxidation–reduction taught to twenty-three students in the room and more on Zoom.

Strengths noted. Clear, colorful slides with animation used to direct attention; questions returned to the periodic table rather than to memory; students on Zoom answered as well as those in the room. A typo in the worked example was caught mid-lesson and handed back to the class to find. The observation closes on the class being organized, engaging, and student-centered, and on voice and delivery being clear.

Areas for improvement. Pause longer and let students do the arithmetic themselves. Repeat student questions aloud, particularly for the students attending by Zoom. One balancing example was pitched above the course level and the room went quiet — a place to slow down and ask leading questions instead.

CHEM V20 (now V101) — lecture

September 26, 2024 — Ryan Petitfils

Strengths noted. An exceptional ability to make complex material accessible, high-level use of technology in both classroom and online settings, and an approachable environment that matches what students say in their own evaluations.

Areas for improvement. Some students want more activities that stimulate interest in the subject. Outside the classroom, more involvement in campus committees and shared governance.

CHEM V20L (now V101L) — lab

October 9, 2024 — Jeffrey Wood

Strengths noted. Professional and responsive with students and colleagues, available beyond what is asked, and bringing multimedia expertise (the supplemental video work) into both the on-campus and online sections.

CHEM V20L (now V101L) — online review

November 12, 2024 — Aaron Jones

The first review of a course shell, a year before the same thing happened again in Year 3. The evaluator worked through the Week 8 module on gravimetric analysis as a student would.

He has a very organized welcome page and welcome module. It contains all of the most important information including the syllabus, how to contact the instructor, campus resources, how to troubleshoot an online course. […] There are detailed guides, notes, clear step by step instructions with photos of the kit. […] The tools and the pages are all accessible within the immersive reader and it works well. […] The class meets the standard for online teaching and learning at the college.

Areas for improvement. The welcome video did not play in either the student view or the evaluator view. He also noted that he is used to online courses carrying more video material than this one did.

Changes across the year

The Year 1 recommendation about engagement continued and became more specific. Evaluators asked less for movement around the room and more for time for students to work and talk to each other. Three of the four evaluators also recommended campus committee work, and this is the first year that recommendation appears.

Year 1 — Fall 2023

CHEM V20 (now V101) and CHEM V20L (now V101L) Lecture — Joe Selzler, Jeffrey Wood, and Aaron Jones. Lab — Malia Rose-Seisa and Ryan Petitfils.

Lecture. Effective use of dual-screen digital presentation, clear visual organization, and a welcoming, low-anxiety atmosphere, with timely and constructive feedback on assessments. Suggestions: move around more, use a microphone for audibility, and write key concepts on screen to support note-taking.

Lab. The one Year 1 report on file is the October 10 lab observation, and it is the most detailed record of the first semester. It notes a room that went quiet and attentive as soon as the procedure began, equipment for the first two reactions set up well ahead of time, safety called out reaction by reaction, and, when the second demonstration failed outright, the failure taken in good humor and improvised past by adding magnesium to generate more hydrogen. Students got up and started work confidently and in full protective equipment.

Areas for improvement. Be more specific about what students should be writing down and where. Consider polling the rest of the room rather than taking answers from whoever volunteers. Make sure students know when they are supposed to be recording observations.

Summary. The Year 1 observations recorded organization, clarity, and rapport, and made the first request to move around the room, which every later year repeats.

Years 1 to 3 compared

The organizational strengths named in Year 1 have stayed consistent. Every year since, the feedback has asked for the same change, from a structured, instructor-led room to one where students participate and reason together. Movement, demonstrations, projected student work, and collaborative problem solving came out of that feedback.

The clearest evidence that the feedback landed is a single line item. The same evaluator observed in 2023 and again in 2024. The one item she had not marked Excellent in 2023 was voice, delivery, and communication, and in 2024 she marked it Excellent.

Two other recommendations recur. The recommendation to move around the room appears in all three years, and again in Year 4. From Year 2 onward, nearly every evaluator also asks for campus committee work, shared governance, and a presence beyond the department.