Evaluation of Teaching | Kent State University

Evaluation of Teaching

Every candidate for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor on both Kent and Regional Campuses is expected to demonstrate success in teaching.  Successful  teaching in the graduate programs normally is also a prerequisite, when such instruction is relevant to the appointment.

Evidence of successful teaching may be presented in the following forms (those marked with an asterisk are mandatory):

  • Representative syllabi, examinations, handouts, and other teaching materials*
  • Peer reviews over the course of the probationary period* [See department policy statement on peer evaluation of teaching in Section 2 G.1]
  • Student evaluations (including the University SSI summary sheets and student comments) which typically meet or exceed the norms for the courses*
  • Informal evaluations of teaching
  • Service on graduate examination, thesis, and dissertation committees
  • Documentation of student success (such as prizes won, publications, career placements, etc.)
  • Curriculum development and revision
  • Use of digital technology
  • Invited lectures and readings
  • Awards and prizes
  • Evidence of integration of current scholarship or creative work in the field in classroom instruction
  • Evidence of participation in other teaching development activities (such as teaching circles and teaching pairs, or by engaging in peer reviews of colleagues)

The three mandatory sources for documenting success for personnel decisions—numerical data from SSIs, discursive comments from SSIs, and peer evaluation of teaching—will be used together to make a determination that a candidate has demonstrated success in teaching. While individual components of numerical data like the relationship of individual student response to departmental means and standard deviations could be used to indicate patterns and trends of a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, no single source of data will be used in making decisions about a candidate’s teaching success. Instead, all three data sources will be considered in determining teacher success for personnel decisions.

Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 2.  Course development is defined as creating a new course, adding distance learning options, adapting course to new learning environments or technologies, etc.

Table 2. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor.

Evaluation 

Definition

Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

Excellent

Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional

development

Development of courses, research opportunities for students (undergraduate and/or graduate); consistent pattern of success evidenced in  student and peer evaluations; instructional creativity; leading curricular initiatives; teaching awards

Good

Successful teacher

Consistent pattern of success evidenced in  student and peer evaluations; model teaching materials; participation in departmental curricular reviews or initiatives

Marginal

Inconsistent teacher

Inconsistent pattern of effectiveness evidenced in student and peer evaluations; adequate teaching materials

Inadequate

Substandard teacher

Consistent pattern of lack of success evidenced in  student and peer evaluations; substandard teaching materials

Poor

Ineffective teacher

Consistent pattern of lack of success evidenced in  student and peer evaluations, substandard teaching materials; pattern of complaints