Teaching
Criteria for the evaluation of teaching are listed in Table 2. Course revision is defined as making substantial modifications to a course such as developing new laboratories, adding distance-learning options, or formally proposing to change course content/format.
Other information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Campus or from University administrators shall be considered when available. Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction must be submitted as part of a candidate鈥檚 file for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review. Documentation related to student training should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Differences in missions and expectations across campuses will determine evaluation of teaching.
Table 2. Tuscarawas Campus Faculty: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for Tenure and Promotion
|
Teaching Assessment |
Definition |
Accomplishments* Corresponding to the Assessment Score |
|
Excellent |
Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional development. |
Excellent student and peer perceptions across a breadth of courses that are consistent over time, highly recognized and documented student/mentor accomplishments, innovative teaching methods, develops and engages in significant involvement in research/honors/community engagement or other creative activity projects with students, instructional creativity, regularly develops/revises courses, actively participates in curricular revisions. Other documented recognition of excellence in teaching. Award of pedagogical or other instruction related grants1. |
|
Very Good |
Innovative teacher |
Very good student and peer perceptions, develops/revises courses to improve instructional delivery, works with students in research/honors/community engagement or other creative activity projects, participates in curricular revisions. Other documented recognition of very good teaching. |
|
Good |
Competent teacher |
Good student and peer perceptions. Occasionally works with students on research/honors/community engagement or other creative activity projects, develops/revises a course. |
|
Fair |
Substandard teacher |
Below average student and peer perceptions. Never works with students on research projects, occasionally develops/revises a course. |
|
Poor |
Ineffective teacher |
Well below average student and peer perceptions, pattern of complaints. |
* These accomplishments are intended to be neither all-inclusive nor exclusionary. 1As noted above 鈥淕rants鈥 refers to extramural funding where the role of the Faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated and which are of sufficient magnitude to completely support the instructional activity at a level and duration appropriate for the discipline, including, as appropriate funds for supplies, materials and personnel. 鈥淪eed Grants鈥 are extramural grants that are not of sufficient magnitude to fully support a full program of instructional activity or are intramural grants. 鈥淪eed Grants鈥 should be designed to lead to successful applications for 鈥淕rants.鈥 Grantsmanship should be commensurate with the field of activity with the recognition that the dollar amount of awards varies among fields, but is a significant indicator of the accomplishment.