Performance - Instructional Track

  1. Performance criteria for the evaluation of the teaching/instructional track are listed in Tables 3-6A and 3-6B. Course revision is defined as making a substantial modification to a course such as developing several new laboratories, addition of distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content/format, etc. 
  2. Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Academic Program Area, College or University administrators shall be considered. Peer reviews, when required or as submitted, and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for renewal of appointment and promotion. The faculty performance regarding information from SSIs is only relative to what actions the faculty member took regarding ratings and comments about assigned courses taught. Copies of representative syllabi must be available for review. Other documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student training, if submitted, by the candidate for renewal of appointment and promotion will be considered as well. Evaluation of performance of instructional track faculty shall include all assigned duties, including non-teaching. If submitted, activities considered university citizenship and professional activities will be considered as part of the faculty member’s performance.
  1. Table 3-6A. Instructional Track Evaluation Components for Assessment of Performance for Promotion




    Exemplary level of accomplishment. Innovative teacher. Provides leadership in instructional development.

    Very Good

    Exceptional level of accomplishment.

    Innovative teacher.


    Substantial level of accomplishment.

    Meets obligations well.


    Few accomplishments; Below minimum performance. Substandard teacher.


    No accomplishments.

    Substandard, ineffective teacher.

  2. Table 3-6B. Instructional Track Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

    CAE Guidelines

    Criteria for Evaluation of Performance

    Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty




    Note: Reviewers will evaluate based upon the documented degree of excellence achieved within any given category for those activities that are related to their discipline. The candidate is expected to provide a clear explanation of the nature and importance of accomplishments, initiatives taken, leadership roles, etc. Reviewers will be looking for specifics. For those cases where activities might be considered "exemplary," it is the candidate's responsibility to document and make that case to the review committee.


    The criteria listed below are not all inclusive and the committee may consider items submitted by the faculty member that are not listed, but are considered relevant. Reviewers should note that unless it is part of an FTNTT’s track or workload, scholarship, research and grant writing activities are not required.

    Viewed as exemplary performance:

    • Consistent good performance relative to assessing information from SSIs
    • University or External Teaching Award or Award Nominee
    • Consistently exceptional Peer Reviews based on actual classroom observation
    • Accomplishing dramatic improvements based on prior review feedback
    • Recipient of University or External Teaching Award
    • Documented application of emerging subjects/materials into courses and curricula
    • Documented and effective innovation in pedagogy and/or use of instructional technology
    • Authorship of new course or major revision of existing course
    • Initiation and leadership in creation of a new degree
    • Initiation and pursuit of successful grant application resulting in lab development, equipment, software, or other instructional materials.
    • Participation in program Advisory Board (documentation provided for the degree of participation, accomplishments, etc.) 
    • Maintaining generally favorable/good SSIs etc. while teaching an exceptional variety of preparations and/or new courses requiring a significant learning curve, creation of significant new course materials etc. (These might include, for example, having to learn/teach a new programming language, development of extraordinary online learning tutorials, etc.)
    • Developing research projects for students
    • Instructional creativity
    • Actively participating in curricular revisions
    • Extensive lab development
    • Thesis direction


    Viewed favorably:

    • Thoughtful statement of teaching philosophy & self-assessment
    • Mid-level performance regarding assessment of SSIs and incorporation of student comments etc.
    • Favorable Peer Reviews, if required or submitted, based on actual classroom observation.
    • Evidence of responding to unfavorable SSIs or Peer Review; evidence of course improvement over time
    • Nomination for, or recipient of, Campus Teaching Award; Nomination for University or External Teaching Award
    • Documented and effective innovation in pedagogy and/or use of instructional technology
    • Initiation and leadership in the redesign or restructuring of a degree or concentration
    • Initiation and leadership in the creation of a new certificate
    • Lab development or management
    • Serving on theses, honors, or dissertation committees
    • Advising a student organization related to one's discipline (e.g., a student chapter of a professional organization).
    • Participation in program Advisory Board (document degree of participation, accomplishments, etc.)
    • Authorship in pedagogical research or scholarship

    Viewed unfavorably and/or not considered:

    • No statement of teaching philosophy and self-assessment
    • Notably poor performance on SSIs and little or no effort in assessing information from SSIs
    • Unimpressive reviews by peers
    • No evidence of responding to unfavorable SSIs or Peer Review; no evidence of course improvement
    • Lack of representative syllabi and other supporting documentation
    • Poorly explained and/or appropriately documented citations in any teaching activities; No evidence (or poorly documented evidence) of curricular activity or leadership
    • Poorly documented citations of: innovation in pedagogy and/or use of instructional technology; lab development or management; participation in program Advisory Board; role as advisor to a student organization that's related to one's discipline; course/certification/degree authorship; etc.
    • No evidence of exemplary performance in any form of teaching scholarship if required by assigned track or workload assignment