Standards for Evaluating Teaching
Information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Department, College, or University administrators shall be considered when available. Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (including all student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s 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 graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student advising should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Kent campus Faculty members are expected to mentor graduate students (particularly at the doctoral level) and/or postdoctoral students.
Criteria for the evaluation of teaching are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure
|
Teaching rating |
Indicators of Rating |
|
Excellent |
At least 5 quality points, of which at least 3 are student and peer perception points, and at least one is an innovation and award point |
|
Very Good |
At least 4 quality points, of which at least 3 are student and peer perception points |
|
Good |
At least 3 quality points, of which at least one is a student perception point and at least one is a peer perception point |
|
Below Expectations |
At least one of:
|
Quality points are assigned as follows:
|
Student Perception Points |
Indicator |
|
2 |
Student perceptions consistently better than norms |
|
1 |
Student perceptions consistently close to norms |
|
Peer Perception Points |
Indicator |
|
2 |
Consistently superior peer evaluations |
|
1 |
Consistently satisfactory peer evaluations |