Teaching | Computer Science Handbook | Kent State University

Teaching

Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 6. Evaluation is based on three main activities: 1) classroom teaching and instruction, 2) course and curriculum development, and 3) student mentoring.

Classroom teaching and instruction is mainly evaluated using peer reviews, student evaluations, and developed teaching materials. Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction are to be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review. Documentation of innovative teaching methods can be included for review.

Activities that involve making substantial modification to a course or part of the curriculum are to be considered. Examples include, but are not limited to developing a new course, developing new lab materials, addition of distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content / format, etc. Documentation of taking a leadership role on curricular changes and implementing such changes can be included for review.

Documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student training should be included in materials provided by the candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion. A list of graduated and current students along with supervised individual studies, honors thesis, thesis, and dissertations should be included for review.

Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Department, College or University administrators shall be considered when available.

Table 6. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure

Level

Teaching

Typical Activities

I

Effective teacher, effective mentor, and provides leadership in educational activities

Very good4 student and peer perceptions; regularly supervising graduate student research projects, theses, dissertations; demonstrated leadership in teaching innovations, course development, or curriculum development

II

Effective teacher and mentor

Good4 student and peer perceptions; supervising graduate or undergraduate student research projects, theses, or dissertations

III

Meets obligations well

Good4 student and peer perceptions

IV

Substandard teacher

Fair4 student and peer perceptions

V

Substandard, ineffective teacher

Poor4 student and peer perceptions; pattern of complaints for ineffective teaching


4When measured by a Student Survey of Instruction (SSI) with a Likert scale of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor.