|
|
EVALUATION OF FACULTY MEMBERS | No. 8-11 | Rev. 5-12-98 |
| Date 4-8-81 | |||
I. REFERENCE
PPM 3-62 - Evaluation of University Personnel
II. POLICY
A. Departmental Interviews
Every three years, or more often at the discretion of the department chair or dean, or at the request of the faculty member, faculty members shall meet with their department chair for an interview covering the recent performance of the faculty member. Goals of the interviews include finding ways to help faculty members improve their performance, finding ways the University might better support faculty members, and discussing individual, department, and University goals and expectations.
Teaching performance should be a priority item for discussion. To provide a focus for discussion and better inform the chair, faculty members shall bring to the interview a summary of their most recent activities in teaching, in scholarship, and in service (vita update since the last review).
The chair shall send a written summary report of the interviews to the dean for inclusion in the personnel file. That report shall include a listing of the major items of accomplishment of each faculty member, and identify deficiencies, if any, for inclusion in the personnel file. An individualized copy of the report shall be sent to the faculty member, who may make a response to the dean.
B. Student Evaluations
In an attempt to chart ongoing teaching performance, each year each faculty member shall have student evaluations administered and compiled by an impartial third party in at least two of the courses that the faculty member teaches. The two courses to be evaluated each year will be determined through consultation between each faculty member and his/her department chair. If the faculty member and the chair cannot come to agreement on which two courses should be evaluated by the students, the choice of courses to be evaluated will be subject to binding arbitration by the dean, after consultation with the faculty member and the chair. At a minimum, the results of those evaluations shall be seen by the chair, the faculty member, and review committees when the faculty member is reviewed. The summaries shall be kept on file in the office of the chair.
In the case of a faculty member who is on tenure track or who is seeking promotion, the chair shall send to the faculty member's professional file summaries of that faculty member's student evaluations mentioned above, plus department averages for similar courses.
C. Peer Review
Every candidate for promotion or tenure review shall undergo peer review. (Peer review may also occur prior to the formal review as part of a mentoring process designed to cultivate the candidate's potential in an atmosphere separate from evaluation.)
1. The purpose of the peer review is to facilitate the evaluation process primarily through evidence-gathering. In particular, peer review promotes a more accurate understanding of teaching effectiveness by compiling and assessing documentation provided by the candidate demonstrating teaching effectiveness (see PPM sec 8-11, II-D). The peer reviewers may also gather materials regarding the candidate's scholarship and service activities. Peer reviewers should interpret this information in terms of department and college expectations and summarize the candidate's strengths and weaknesses in the designated areas. The results of the peer review are subsequently evaluated by the department Promotion and Tenure Committee, which is charged to make a formal evaluation and forward its recommendation.
2. The peer review committee may be the department Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. (PPM 8-26) If the peer review committee is not the department Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, it shall consist of a minimum of three members who are familiar with the program. If the faculty member and the chair cannot agree, the makeup of the committee will be subject to binding arbitration by the dean, upon consultation with the faculty member and the chair.
3. At a minimum, all candidates for promotion or tenure shall undergo a peer review of their teaching during the year of their formal review. The peer review committee shall select a chairperson to coordinate all meeting dates/interviews, and assure that the peer review summary is placed in the faculty member's professional file prior to the faculty member's evaluations. Copies of the peer review shall be sent to both the candidate and the department chair. Departments may set policy as to whether peer reviews in other years are to be conducted and placed in the professional file.
4. A signed copy of the peer review of a faculty member shall be forwarded to the candidate by the department chair along with a notification that the faculty member has a right to respond. Should the candidate wish, the candidate may place a written response in the file or proceed as follows:
a. If the faculty member is up for promotion or tenure review, and the peer review committee is not the department Ranking and Tenure Committee, then the candidate may ask to appear before the department Ranking and Tenure Committee.
b. If the faculty member is up for promotion or tenure review, and both committees are the same, then the candidate may ask to appear before the college Ranking and Tenure Committee.
c. If the faculty member is not up for promotion or tenure, then the candidate may wait until the next promotion tenure review or petition for the removal of the peer review as provided in PPM 8-24.
D. Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness:
While student evaluations are important in demonstrating certain skills related to excellence in teaching, they are not sufficient for a complete evaluation of a candidate's teaching abilities. Therefore, it is incumbent upon candidates to provide evidence that they are competent in three different elements of teaching: Subject Knowledge, Pedagogy, and Assessment of Student Learning. Clearly courses are taught in context. Candidates are encouraged to discuss this context in cases where it impacts their teaching and/or techniques they use in the classroom. All candidates shall establish documentation for assessment by a peer review committee demonstrating their teaching skills.
Subject Knowledge:
Candidates shall demonstrate that they possess the current knowledge and/or skills necessary to provide up-to-date instruction for the courses they teach. Candidates may choose among, but are not limited to the following:
Presentation of the candidate's view of the discipline, knowledge of the discipline, and the state of the discipline.
Narrative of the state of the discipline.
An assessment of the candidate's knowledge by outside experts.
Exhibit of a focused evaluation by an outside expert.
Class materials, handouts, syllabi, class notes, etc.
Web pages that the candidate is using for classes.
Attendance at professional meetings with a statement by the candidate on how it impacts his/her teaching.
Narrative on how the candidate's scholarship connects to the classroom.
Pedagogy:
Candidates shall demonstrate an acquaintance with the pedagogy of their disciplines. They should demonstrate knowledge of the issues surrounding the pedagogical approach they choose and articulate their purposes for their choices. They should also demonstrate a continuing effort to improve instruction. Candidates may choose among, but are not limited to, the following:
Attendance at professional meetings with a narrative describing how that meeting helped the candidate improve his/her teaching.
Videotape of the candidate's teaching with analysis by the candidate.
Student evaluations.
Narrative on how the candidate views teaching.
Classroom observations by peer review committee.
Examples of collaborative teaching statements from collaborator on the candidate's skills.
Documentation of research the candidate has conducted with students.
Interviews with students discussing their level of satisfaction with the course and instructor.
Assessment of Student Learning:
Candidates must demonstrate that they know how to and do assess students' learning with valid, reliable assessment methods and tools. Candidates may choose among, but are not limited to, the following:
Examples of research with students.
Student work (outcomes) presentations, publications, projects, etc.
Examples of classroom assessment techniques.
Assessment narrative.
Examples of exams, quizzes, tapes of conferences with students, etc.
Recommendation from employers, cooperating teachers, supervisors, or other individuals in the position to competently comment on the preparation of the candidate's students.