Teaching | School of Art Handbook | Kent State University

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