DOC I-06-08

PROPOSAL TO THE ACADEMIC SENATE

 

 

TITLE:             Sense of the Senate Document-- Evaluating Faculty Teaching for the Purposes of Tenure, Promotion, and Merit

 

SUBMITTED BY:      Executive Committee of the Academic Senate

 

DATE:                                    April 21, 2006

 

ACTION:                    Sense of the Senate Discussion

 

 

 

Provost Council Committee on the Evaluation of Faculty Teaching

2005/2006

 

Evaluating Faculty Teaching for the Purposes of Tenure, Promotion, and Merit

 

Purposes of Evaluating Faculty Teaching

 

The evaluation of faculty teaching serves two distinct but related purposes, one administrative and the other developmental.  Administratively, information gathered through the evaluation of faculty teaching helps faculty and administrators make important personnel decisions primarily concerning retention, tenure, promotion, and merit.  The evaluation of faculty teaching also serves important developmental purposes: the results help guide faculty toward appropriate support services and resources.  Developmentally, the evaluation of faculty teaching helps faculty and administrators promote excellent teaching; administratively, it helps faculty and administrators recognize and reward such teaching.

 

Evaluating Faculty Teaching through Multiple Sources of Information and Multiple Measures

 

Those evaluating faculty teaching for administrative purposes must gather information from multiple sources and employ multiple measures in accordance with department, program, or academic unit guidelines or bylaws.

 

Use of Faculty Teaching Evaluation Results for the Purpose of Tenure and Promotion

 

1.         The evaluation of faculty teaching for the purposes of tenure and promotion must          be based on multiple measures drawn from multiple sources.

 

2.         All tenure track faculty must have their teaching evaluated periodically according to a schedule determined by department or unit guidelines or bylaws.

 

3.         The results of all evaluations must be shared with the faculty member and the    faculty member must be accorded the opportunity to respond to any evaluation of    his or her teaching.

 

4.         When making final recommendations regarding tenure or promotion, the evaluation of             faculty teaching must be based on at a minimum:

 

A.        Student course evaluations for every class the faculty member has taught at the University of Dayton since the last change in rank

 

B.        At least two peer reviews of the faculty member’s classroom teaching conducted during at least two different semesters

C.        At least two peer reviews of the faculty member’s course material conducted during at least two different semesters

 

D.        At least one (1) chair or administrator evaluation of the faculty member’s teaching1

 

E.        At least one (1) self-evaluation produced by the faculty member

 

F.         Faculty-provided evidence of the quality of student learning in his or her courses

 

NOTE: Any exceptions to these minimum expectations must be approved by the appropriate dean.

 

            When and how this information is gathered during the faculty member’s   probationary period will be determined by department or unit guidelines or      bylaws.

 

If the faculty member is teaching an online course, each department or program will take steps to ensure that peers observe the faculty member’s interactions with students online at least twice prior to any final recommendations concerning tenure or promotion and that the chair includes in his or her evaluation an assessment of the faculty member’s teaching in that course. 

 

5.         All procedures regarding the evaluation of faculty teaching for the purpose of      tenure and promotion must adhere to the University of Dayton Regulations on             Academic Freedom and Tenure.

 

Guidelines for Student Evaluation of Faculty Teaching

 

1.         Student course evaluations will be conducted in every course a faculty member teaches at the University of Dayton.

 

2.         Students should complete course evaluations at the beginning of class on the appointed day and should be allowed sufficient time to complete them. 

 

3.         A faculty member must not remain in his or her classroom during the time that    students are evaluating the course.  Each department or unit will ensure that      someone other than the course professor or instructor administers the evaluation        instrument.  In the case of online courses, each department will ensure that           students can evaluate the course anonymously. 

 

4.         Departments or units will establish procedures to ensure that faculty do not          obtain access to the evaluation results until after the due date of final course             grades.

 

Guidelines for Peer Review of Faculty Classroom Teaching and Course Material

 

1.         When possible, peer reviewers should have experience teaching in the same or related area(s) of study as the faculty member being reviewed.

 

2.         Peer review of a faculty member’s classroom teaching should include an evaluation of the faculty member’s instruction and interaction with students. 

 

3.         Peer reviewers should evaluate at least two different courses classes taught during at least two different semesters. 

 

4.         Peer reviewers should meet with the faculty member prior to observing his or her            class to discuss the course goals and the faculty member’s plans for the days he or she will be observed.  Peer reviewers should also meet with the faculty       member after observing the class to discuss his or her evaluation of the teaching.

 

5.         Departments or units should develop a standard evaluation instrument peer        reviewers employ when evaluating a faculty member’s classroom teaching.

 

6.         Each department or unit must develop its own set of procedures governing the    peer review of classroom teaching.  These procedures should stipulate how peer reviewers are to be selected, which courses they are to evaluate, and what type      of report they are to submit to whom.

 

7.         Peer review of a faculty member’s course material should include, at a minimum,          an evaluation of his or course syllabi, assignments, and examinations.

 

8.         Peer reviewers should meet with the faculty member prior to reviewing his or her            course material to discuss the faculty member’s course goals, students, and         teaching philosophy.  Peer reviewers should meet with the faculty member after reviewing his or her course material to discuss his or her evaluation.

 

9.         Departments or units should develop a standard evaluation instrument peer        reviewers employ when evaluating a faculty member’s course material.

 

10.       Each department or unit must develop its own set of procedures governing the    peer review of course material.  These procedures should stipulate how peer         reviewers are to be selected, what material they will evaluate, and what type of      report they are to submit to whom.

 

11.       The faculty member must have an opportunity to respond to any report submitted by a peer who observed his or her classroom teaching or evaluates his or her course material. 

 

Guidelines for Self-evaluations of Faculty Teaching

 

1.         In their self-evaluations, faculty should assess the strengths and weaknesses of            their teaching and indicate steps they have taken to improve the quality of the instruction they offer students

 

2.         Each department or unit must develop its own set of guidelines for the self-          evaluation of faculty teaching including the specific content of the evaluation, its            length, and its format.

 

Guidelines for Submitting Evidence of Student Learning

 

1.         Evidence of student learning can include, but need not be limited to:

 

·         samples of student work

·         test or quiz results

·         comprehensive examinations

·         pre-and post test scores

·         standardized test scores

·         third party testing (e.g., licensure)

·         performance in capstone courses

·         performances

·         exhibits

·         video- or audiotape evaluations

·         student surveys or interviews

·         reflective student essays

·         employer evaluations

·         internship evaluations

 

2.         Each department or unit must develop its own set of guidelines concerning the               submission of evidence of student learning.  These guidelines should indicate

            what types of evidence faculty should submit and how it will be evaluated. 

 

 

 

1The chair or administrator review of a faculty member’s teaching can include, but need not be limited to a summary of the written comments on the faculty member’s student course evaluations; commentary on how well the faculty member has lived up to contractual obligations; classroom observations of faculty teaching; observations on the faculty member’s contributions to the teaching mission of the department, unit, or university; an assessment of the faculty member’s teaching in the context of overall teaching performance in the department, unit, or university.

Use of Faculty Teaching Evaluation Results for Making Merit Decisions

 

1.         The evaluation of faculty teaching for the purpose of determining merit must       be based on multiple measures drawn from multiple sources.

 

2.         The results of all evaluations must be shared with the faculty member and the    faculty member must be accorded the opportunity to respond to any evaluation of    his or her teaching.

 

3.         When making final recommendations regarding merit, the evaluation of faculty teaching must be based on at a minimum:

 

A.        Student course evaluations for every class the faculty member has taught at the University of Dayton since the last merit evaluation

 

B.        An Annual Teaching Report produced by the faculty member not to exceed four (4) single-spaced typed pages plus an appendix.  The Report should include:

 

(1)       a summary of the faculty member’s teaching responsibilities since the last merit review

(2)       a summary of courses taught for the first time or of new courses the faculty member has developed since the last merit review

(3)       a summary and evaluation of new pedagogies employed by the faculty member since the last merit review intended to enhance student learning

(4)       a summary of work completed by the faculty member involving the supervision of independent study projects, research projects, field work, or theses/dissertations since the last merit review

(5)       a summary of teaching-related professional activities completed since the last merit review including publications, conference presentations, and workshop participation

(6)       a summary of the faculty member’s participation in any service learning activities since the last merit review

(7)       a summary of any teaching-related rewards or recognitions earned by the faculty member since the last merit review

(8)       a summary of any peer review of the faculty member’s teaching completed since the last merit review

(9)       a summary of any other information the faculty member believes is relevant to an evaluation of his or her teaching since the last merit review

(10)     an appendix that includes relevant and appropriate evidence of student learning in the courses taught by the faculty member since the last merit review

NOTE: Any exceptions to these minimum expectations must be approved by the appropriate dean.

 

C.        An Annual Chair Review of Faculty Teaching produced by the faculty member’s chair or immediate supervisor that includes: 

 

(1)       a summary of the faculty member’s Annual Teaching Report

(2)       a summary of the students’ written comments on the faculty member’s course evaluations

(3)       an assessment of the faculty member’s teaching in the context of overall teaching performance in the department, unit, or university

 

NOTE: Any exceptions to these minimum expectations must be approved by the appropriate dean.

 

This Review must be shared with the faculty member and the faculty member must be accorded the opportunity to respond to the document (see item 2 above).