The mission of the Fashion School is “To inspire students to become creative and resourceful fashion leader.” Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching can include development and revision of courses, peer evaluations of teaching performance, student feedback, and other relevant documentation. 

Other documentation information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the School, College or University administrators shall be considered when available.  Peer reviews 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.  For tenure-track faculty, the FAC, in consultation with the Director, assigns two (2) faculty members to visit the classes of each probationary faculty member and/or candidate for promotion and generally evaluate the faculty member’s teaching performance.

Copies of representative syllabi, tests/examinations, and other relevant teaching materials (such as project descriptions and rubrics, lesson plans) should also be available for review. Faculty members are expected to mentor students when appropriate.  Evaluation of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations.

a. Classroom Instruction.  Performance of the TT faculty member in the classroom is an important part of teaching evaluation and includes such characteristics as preparedness, coherence, innovation, interest-level, organization, interpersonal communication, etc.  The quality of course content and student learning experience is also critically important.

b. Curriculum Development, and Course Design and Revision.  Indicators of active engagement in curriculum development, design, and revision including development of a brand new course, revision of existing course, updating the overall curriculum to maintain currency in appropriate new  concepts, and methods.  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. Teaching related grants also indicate innovation and engagement in curriculum development.  Course or curriculum revision is defined as making a substantial modification in a course or curriculum.

c. Research Supervision.  The supervision of undergraduate and graduate student research is an integral part of the responsibility of TT faculty members and properly serves as an important area in consideration for advancement.  Graduate TT faculty members are responsible for the educational and professional development of graduate students and are expected to be actively engaged in this endeavor.  The level and quality of supervision and service on committees are also important factors in evaluation of this aspect of teaching. 

d. Other Indicators.  These could include supervision of teaching assistants, assuring professional and creative learning environment in the studio or classroom, but activity is not limited to the aforementioned.

Expectations in teaching for promotion to Full Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

  1. Table 2. Evaluation Components for Teaching

    Scholarship Rating


    Typical Activities Corresponding to the Assessment


    Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development and maintains high achievement on course evaluation and peer reviews

    Actively participates in curricular development/revisions.

    Demonstrates evidences excellent student evaluations and peer review. Demonstrates instructional creativity and effort. Establishes excellent record of graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative scholarship.  Receives recognition of educational impact by peers in the institution and profession.

    Very Good

    Innovative teacher; maintains very good course evaluations and peer reviews

    Develops/revises curriculum, establishes good student evaluations and peer review. Demonstrate good record of fostering graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative scholarship.


    Effective teacher; maintains good course evaluations and peer reviews

    Develops/revises curriculum, establishes mixed (moderate to good) student evaluations and peer review.

    Develops moderate level of fostering graduate and undergraduate research projects and/or creative activity.


    Substandard teacher; meets minimal expectations; below average course evaluations and peer reviews

    Establishes below-average student evaluations and peer review; has limited supervision of student research, limited participation in curriculum development and/or revision.


    Substandard, ineffective teacher; unacceptable course evaluations and peer reviews

    Establishes below-average student and peer perceptions, Receives as a pattern of complaints Have not engaged in curriculum development or research supervision