Standards for the Evaluation of Teaching

A Faculty member’s success as a teacher will be evaluated as outlined in Table 2.  Quality of classroom teaching is established through written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Program, College or University.  Peer reviews of teaching and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (including all student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion.

Candidates shall submit syllabi of new and revised courses. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review.  Documentation related to undergraduate student and graduate student outcomes should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion.

  1. Table 2. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for Tenure and Promotion

    Teaching Assessment

     

    Description

                 Accomplishments Corresponding

                        to the Assessment Score

    Excellent

    Innovative educator and an educational leader

     

    Active participation in curricular development and revisions, develop new and revise existing courses, supervises undergraduate and graduate research projects, supervises students’ design competitions and publishing, excellent student and peer evaluations, instructional creativity, teaching awards

     

    Very  Good

    Innovative educator

    Develop new and revise existing courses,  above average student evaluations and  peer evaluations, work with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative activity

    Good

    Meets obligations well

    Average student and peer evaluations, demonstrated strength in teaching, communicates well

    Fair

    Substandard teacher

    No curricular involvement and no development of new or revised course content, below average student and peer evaluations

    Poor

    substandard, ineffective teacher

    No curricular involvement and no development of new or revised course content, below average student and peer evaluations, pattern of complaints