Components of Evaluation | School of Art Handbook | Kent State University

Components of Evaluation

  1. Research/Creative Activity

    In evaluating the credentials of a candidate in the three areas of research, the following factors will be considered (note: numbers in the table 2A refer to descriptions in the categories listed below):

    1. Recognition. A TT faculty memberʼs scholarly reputation is a reflection of the quality, extent, and creativity of his/her research output and is, therefore, an issue that is carefully evaluated for advancement. To be recommended for advancement, a candidate must provide evidence that her/his work has had an impact on the discipline. Recognition by professional peers can include, for example: citations of research, inclusion of images of work in publications, reviews of work in publications, invited lectures, inclusion in festschrifts, and special honors of any type including editorship of journals, service on boards at an international or national level, service on juries, curating of significant exhibitions, inclusion of work in significant public or private collections, receipts of awards, and commissioned work.
    2. Publications. Evaluation of publication record includes an assessment of quality and impact on the field, as well as of quantity. Publication in journals having stringent reviewing policies is more valued than publication in journals that are less rigorous in their editorial control. Documented forthcoming scholarly or creative works will be considered as part of the record of accomplishments. Documentation can include galley proofs of the article or book or advanced notices (published advertisements of same) from the publisher. Refereed publications of impact and quality are given greater emphasis. A faculty member’s specific area of specialization may be a factor in the recognition of the scope and time required for research, production, and the resulting publication or other form of output.
    3. Exhibitions. Evaluation of the record of exhibitions includes an assessment of quality and impact on the field. Consideration is given to documented showing of original work in solo, invited group/mixed or juried exhibitions, and competitions. Significance of the exhibition is considered in relation to prestige of the sponsoring organization, venue, curator, juror, and/or inclusiveness and/or scope e.g. international, national, regional, or local. Documented forthcoming scholarly or creative works will be considered as part of the record of accomplishments.  Documentation can include galley proofs of a forthcoming catalogue or interview, advanced notices (published advertisements of same) from the gallery and so on.  A faculty member’s specific area of specialization may be a factor in the recognition of the scope and time required for research, production and the resulting exhibition or other form of output. 
    4. Presentations. Presentation of papers of original research/creative work is evaluated according to significance of the venue and sponsoring organization, with greater weight given to refereed presentations or peer-invited presentations to scholarly audiences. Conference papers are encouraged, but because of their relatively narrow range of dissemination and sometimes superficial reviewing policies, they represent a more nominal level of research accomplishment.
    5. Professional Activity. TT faculty members are expected to be active participants in the field. Some evidence of outside professional activity is necessary for advancement. Examples of such activity are curating an exhibition, reviewing for journals, attending professional meetings, holding office in a professional organization, serving on professional committees, exhibition juries or as juror, publishing in non-refereed publications, editing, or writing for a newsletter, etc.

    Table 2A. EVALUATION COMPONENTS FOR RESEARCH/CREATIVE ACTIVITY

    Scholarship Rating

    Creative Practice and/or Research is defined by:

    Indicators Corresponding to the Assessment Score – Indicators will vary across disciplines.

    Excellent

    Sustained focus with national/international recognition

    Demonstrated record of publications and/or exhibitions, invitations to give presentations/lectures,

    Review of works featured in national/international journals, appointment to boards of professional organizations at state/national/international level, recognition by professional peers, election to office in a professional organization, chair of a conference, or has extramural funding

    Very Good

    Clear direction and emerging national recognition

    Demonstrated record of publications and/or exhibitions, presentations at professional meetings with rigorous review criteria or committee membership in a professional organization

    ,

    Good

    Developing focus and active engagement

    Some publications and/or exhibitions,

    Some presentations at professional meetings/seminars.

    or chaired sessions at professional conferences/meetings, curated or

    juried exhibitions, edited or reviewed work in journals

     

    Fair

    Unfocused direction and limited engagement

    Occasional publications/exhibitions or meeting presentations

    Poor

    No research program or creative practice

    No publications, presentations, exhibitions, or professional recognition

     

  2. Teaching

    Quality of teaching is a very important consideration in evaluating a TT faculty member for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. No one should expect to be reappointed, tenured, or promoted unless he/she can present solid evidence of good teaching.

    Similarly, poor teaching can retard the advancement of TT faculty who might otherwise meet the criteria. Teaching excellence is a concept that covers a variety of areas, although not all TT faculty members may engage equally in all these activities.

    1. 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 is also critically important. An ad hoc “Teaching Observation Committee* will assist in the evaluation of classroom instruction as outlined below.
    2. Research supervision. Advising 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 so need to be regularly available (within the period of contract.)  Participation as member of a thesis committee is an important factor in evaluation of this aspect.
    3. Pedagogical research. Field study beyond the contract load, collaboration with other units, obtaining teaching grants, teaching recognition
    4. Curriculum development, design, and revision. Indicators of active engagement in curriculum development, design, and revision including currency in appropriate new technology concepts, and methods. Teaching related grants also indicate innovation and engagement in curriculum development. Course and curriculum revision is defined as making a substantial modification in a course or curriculum.
    5. Other indicators in the scholarship of teaching. These could include supervision of teaching assistants, assuring a professional and creative learning environment in the studio or classroom, but activity is not limited to the aforementioned.

    Table 2B.  EVALUATION COMPONENTS FOR TEACHING

    Teaching Rating

    Definition

    Indicators corresponding to the Assessment Score. Indicators will vary across disciplines.

     

     

    Excellent

    Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development and maintains high achievement on course, peer and committee evaluations

    Actively participates in curricular development

    /revisions, establishes record of thesis supervision, evidence of excellent peer evaluations, demonstrates instructional creativity and effort, and/or evidence of excellent student evaluations.

    Very Good

    Innovative teacher; maintains good teaching evaluations

    Develops/revises curriculum, establishes good student and peer evaluations, consistently engages with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative activity.

    Good

    Effective teacher; maintains moderate to good teaching evaluations

    Develops/revises curriculum, establishes mixed (moderate to good) student and peer evaluations, has supervised a few graduate and undergraduate

    research projects

    Fair

    Substandard teacher; meets minimal expectations

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

    Poor

    Substandard, ineffective teacher

    Establishes below- average student and peer evaluations, has a pattern of complaints, does not engage in curriculum supervision

  3. Teaching

    Quality of teaching is a very important consideration in evaluating a TT faculty member for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. No one should expect to be reappointed, tenured, or promoted unless he/she can present solid evidence of good teaching.

    Similarly, poor teaching can retard the advancement of TT faculty who might otherwise meet the criteria. Teaching excellence is a concept that covers a variety of areas, although not all TT faculty members may engage equally in all these activities.

    1. 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 is also critically important. An ad hoc “Teaching Observation Committee* will assist in the evaluation of classroom instruction as outlined below.
    2. Research supervision. Advising 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 so need to be regularly available (within the period of contract.)  Participation as member of a thesis committee is an important factor in evaluation of this aspect.
    3. Pedagogical research. Field study beyond the contract load, collaboration with other units, obtaining teaching grants, teaching recognition
    4. Curriculum development, design, and revision. Indicators of active engagement in curriculum development, design, and revision including currency in appropriate new technology concepts, and methods. Teaching related grants also indicate innovation and engagement in curriculum development. Course and curriculum revision is defined as making a substantial modification in a course or curriculum.
    5. Other indicators in the scholarship of teaching. These could include supervision of teaching assistants, assuring a professional and creative learning environment in the studio or classroom, but activity is not limited to the aforementioned.

    Table 2B.  EVALUATION COMPONENTS FOR TEACHING

    Teaching Rating

    Definition

    Indicators corresponding to the Assessment Score. Indicators will vary across disciplines.

     

     

    Excellent

    Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development and maintains high achievement on course, peer and committee evaluations

    Actively participates in curricular development

    /revisions, establishes record of thesis supervision, evidence of excellent peer evaluations, demonstrates instructional creativity and effort, and/or evidence of excellent student evaluations.

    Very Good

    Innovative teacher; maintains good teaching evaluations

    Develops/revises curriculum, establishes good student and peer evaluations, consistently engages with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research and/or creative activity.

    Good

    Effective teacher; maintains moderate to good teaching evaluations

    Develops/revises curriculum, establishes mixed (moderate to good) student and peer evaluations, has supervised a few graduate and undergraduate

    research projects

    Fair

    Substandard teacher; meets minimal expectations

    Establishes below-average student and peer evaluations; has limited/moderate supervision of student research, limited participation in curriculum revision
    Poor Substandard, ineffective teacher Establishes below-average student and peer evaluations, has a pattern of complaints, does not engage in curriculum supervision

    Fair

    Substandard teacher; meets minimal expectations

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

    Poor

    Substandard, ineffective teacher

    Establishes below- average student and peer evaluations, has a pattern of complaints, does not engage in curriculum supervision