Teaching
Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Tables 3A for Kent Campus Faculty and 3B for Regional Campus Faculty. Course revision is defined as making a substantial modification to a course such as developing several new laboratory experiments, addition of distance learning options, formally proposing and implementing major changes in course content/format, etc.
Other information, such as written comments from colleagues within and beyond the Department, College or University administrators, shall be considered when available. Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI; including all student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material shall also be made available for review. Documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student training should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion. It is anticipated that Kent Campus Faculty members will effectively mentor graduate students (particularly at the doctoral level) and/or postdoctoral students. Evaluation of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations across campuses.
Table 3A. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure of Kent Campus Faculty.1
|
Assessment of Teaching2 |
Definition |
Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score |
|
Outstanding
|
Outstanding teacher; provides leadership in instructional development |
Developed or significantly revised courses, outstanding student and peer evaluations across a breadth of courses and levels, award of a substantial pedagogical or training grant, instructional creativity, leadership in curricular revisions, development of research projects for students (undergraduate honors or individual investigation or graduate students). Other recognition may include teaching awards from outside the Department. |
|
Excellent |
Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development |
Developed or significantly revised courses, excellent student and peer evaluations, instructional creativity, actively participates in curricular revisions. Other recognition may include teaching awards from outside the Department and development of research projects for students (undergraduate honors or individual investigation or graduate students). |
|
Very Good |
Innovative teacher |
Strong student and peer evaluations. Other recognition may include the development of research projects for students (undergraduate honors or individual investigation or graduate students) and the Development or significant revision of courses. |
|
Good |
Meets obligations well |
Marginal student and peer evaluations. |
|
Fair |
Substandard teacher |
Weak student and peer evaluations. |
|
Poor |
Substandard, ineffective teacher |
Weak student and peer evaluations, pattern of complaints. |
1These accomplishments are intended to be neither all-inclusive nor exclusionary. 2The assessment of teaching involves an overall evaluation of teaching and is not solely derived from any single evaluative measure.
Table 3B. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure of Regional Campus Faculty.1
|
Assessment of Teaching2 |
Definition |
Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score |
|
Outstanding
|
Outstanding teacher; provides leadership in instructional development |
Outstanding student and peer evaluations, award of a substantial pedagogical or training grant, demonstrated instructional creativity, active participation in curricular revisions, development of research projects for students (undergraduate honors or individual investigation students). Other recognition may include teaching awards from outside the Department. |
|
Excellent
|
Innovative teacher
|
Excellent student and peer evaluations, instructional creativity. Other recognition may include teaching awards from outside the Department and development of research projects for students (undergraduate honors or individual investigation students). |
|
Very Good |
Innovative teacher |
Strong student and peer evaluations. Other recognition may include the development of research projects for students (undergraduate honors or individual investigation students). |
|
Good |
Meets obligations well |
Marginal student and peer evaluations. |
|
Fair |
Substandard teacher |
Weak student and peer evaluations. |
|
Poor |
Substandard, ineffective teacher |
Weak student and peer evaluations, pattern of complaints. |
1These accomplishments are intended to be neither all-inclusive nor exclusionary. 2The assessment of teaching involves an overall evaluation of teaching and is not solely derived from any single evaluative measure.
