Evaluation of Teaching

In evaluating the teaching record of a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion, the Committee should consider the following factors:

  1. Classroom instructionPerformance of the Faculty member in the classroom is an important part of teaching evaluation and includes such characteristics as coherence, interest-level, organization, etc. The quality of course content is also critically important. Although evidence of effective teaching does not rely exclusively on student evaluations of instruction, these evaluations, including the student’s written comments, will be included as part of the review of teaching. Formal reviews of instruction by colleagues respected for their effective teaching also are expected. Candidates are encouraged to solicit at least one (1) peer review per year. Syllabi and other artifacts of teaching (e.g., sample assignments and exams, classroom materials, and student projects) serve as further evidence of a candidate’s teaching effectiveness.
  2. Research supervision. The supervision of undergraduate and graduate student research is an integral part of the workload of Faculty members (on the Kent Campus) and serves as an important role of the Faculty in consideration for promotion.  When students publish their work (i.e., thesis or dissertation) or pursue their professional goals/ aspirations, this reflects on the Faculty member who mentored them. Faculty members in doctoral granting programs are expected to supervise student research.
  3. Clinical supervision (if required). For some Faculty members in the School, the teaching of professional skills to clinical students is considered the equivalent to teaching in a traditional classroom setting; therefore, its evaluation for reappointment, tenure, and promotion follows the same guidelines as described in “Classroom Instruction.”
  4. Advising/mentoring.  Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are expected to be responsive to their undergraduate and graduate students and provide high quality and sustained mentorship through their duties as academic advisors and dissertation/thesis/project directors or committee members. Mentorship at the graduate level would include activities such as publications, presentations, and career development for graduate students. Mentoring undergraduate students on special projects such as Honors College, McNair Scholars Program, and other programs promoting undergraduate student scholarship should also be considered.
  5. Innovative teaching activities. Implementation and evaluation of innovative teaching strategies are valued. Examples include new course development or the inclusion of service-learning activities, student mentoring initiatives, and web-based instruction (e.g., online course development or the inclusion of podcasts, blogs, wikis, online assignments, discussions and quizzes). Evidence of teaching scholarship (e.g.., journal articles, presentations, and other publications) has value and demonstrates the candidate’s commitment to effective teaching and mentoring. Involvement in the University Teaching Council, participation in the Faculty Professional Development Teaching Scholars’ Program and Learning Communities, and the recognition of a candidate’s teaching or mentoring through University or professional awards provide additional evidence of the candidate’s teaching effectiveness.
  6. Funding. Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are encouraged to seek internal and external funding to support specific teaching lines of inquiry by submitting applications to foundations or grant-funding sources.  Funding norms of specific fields should be discussed in the candidate’s contextual statement. External funding may be difficult to secure by junior Faculty, so applications for funding should not be the primary focus of a candidate’s teaching agenda prior to tenure, but unsuccessful applications at this stage in a Faculty member’s career have value and are viewed as a foundation for subsequent submissions.