In The Policy and Procedure Manual of Southern Polytechnic State University, P&P Number 803.07 describes the annual process for evaluating faculty and states: “Teaching is the most significant area to be evaluated.” The P&P requires that faculty submit two types of evidence related to the evaluation of their teaching effectiveness: (a) Student Evaluation Summaries consisting of “data from approved course evaluation forms completed during the period of evaluation,” and (b) the Teaching Assessment Form in which the faculty member does the following:
· Lists several concerns or suggestions from recent student evaluations
· Lists a plan of action for responding to the evaluations
· Lists actions that were taken to respond to previous concerns or suggestions from student evaluation
According to the Bylaws of the School of Arts and Sciences at Southern Polytechnic State University, Section V., Part D., “Evaluation of Faculty”:
In accordance with the Statutes of Southern Polytechnic State University and the Policies of the Board of Regents, each faculty member, regardless of rank or tenure, shall receive a yearly review. Special policies and procedures shall be established by the school to govern the process of annual review, of reappointment, and of review for promotion and tenure. These policies and procedures shall outline the procedure and the responsibilities of those parties involved and shall include a workable timetable for the orderly implementation of that procedure.
The purpose of this document is to establish guidelines for evaluating teaching effectiveness within the policies and procedures established by the University and the School to govern the several evaluation processes: annual review, reappointment, and promotion and tenure.
The document is organized into five sections:
· Definition of the Teaching Evaluation Packet
· Triangulation as a Guiding Principle in the Evaluation of Teaching
· Rationale for Selecting Additional Evidence to Include in the TEP
· Suggestions for Additional Evidence that Could be Included in a TEP
· Responsibilities of Evaluators (Dean and Department Chairs)
P&P 803.07 requires that faculty submit the following forms and documents for their annual review in March of each year:
1. Copy of approved Faculty Expectations Form for the period being evaluated
2. The Annual Activity Report for the period being evaluated
3. Student Evaluation Summaries for the period being evaluated
4. The Teaching Assessment Form
5. An initial draft of the Faculty Expectations Form for the upcoming evaluation period
Until the school year 2005-2006, items 3 and 4 in the list above will be the only required elements in any A&S faculty member’s Teaching Evaluation Packet.
Starting in 2005-2006, all regular faculty in the School of Arts and Sciences will be required to participate in the peer observation process described in the document titled “Guidelines Governing Classroom and Laboratory Peer Observations.” That peer observation process will generate at least two letters reporting the observations of the classroom/laboratory visits and the collegial dialogue about teaching within which the visits were carried out. Those letters will become part of each faculty member’s Teaching Evaluation Packet beginning in March 2006.
In addition to the data from student evaluations and the letters from peer observations, the Teaching Evaluation Packet may contain additional evidence to support the evaluation of a faculty member with regard to teaching.
The maximum length of the Teaching Evaluation Packet, not including the SIR II summaries, will be 10 pages.
Ideally, the evaluation of faculty teaching should be triangulated so that there is input from each of three areas:
1. Student evaluations of teaching: At a minimum, this includes the data from SIR II forms and other student evaluation of teaching forms approved by the faculty member’s Department Chair and by the Dean.
2. Peer observations: At a minimum, this includes the letters generated by the peer-observation process (voluntary at present but slated to be mandatory in 2005-2006)
3. Self-assessment: At a minimum, this includes the Teaching Assessment Form, which is already in use.
When faculty members consider what additional evidence, if any, to include in their Teaching Evaluation Packets, they should keep in mind that everything included in the packet should clearly demonstrate the faculty member’s ability to achieve one or more of the following instructional goals:
1. Enable students to learn the course content
2.
Enable students to learn information relevant to their prospective
profession
(i.e., the requirements for a licensed professional engineer)
3. Enable students to learn “high order” intellectual skills, such as analytical and critical thinking, verbal and written expression, and creativity
4. Enable students to link their SPSU experience to the larger community through work or volunteer opportunities
5. Enable students to develop an appreciation for broader social goals, such as ethics and civic responsibility
6. Enable the University in general and the students in particular to achieve the specific goals listed in the SPSU Mission Statement
In consultation with the Department Chair, each faculty member should select from the following list of options when planning to submit additional evidence as part of a Teaching Evaluation Packet. The options are organized by the three categories of Section 2 above: student evaluation, peer evaluation, and self evaluation. Items marked with an asterisk (*) are to be included in an appendix to the packet, which is exempt from the 10-page limit on packet length.
· SIR II summaries for courses taught during the evaluation period (required, not included in TEP length)
· Individually or departmentally generated open-ended evaluations*
· Individually or departmentally generated evaluations that focus specifically on the achievement of instructional goals*
· Progressively graded work (i.e., using a series of assignments from the same small group of students, with all personal information deleted) to illustrate how students have improved over the semester
· Alumni evaluations or interviews
· Information on student performance after graduation (most useful for upper-division courses that prepare graduates for a particular career path)
· Peer observations from SPSU faculty (required)
· Peer observations from non-SPSU faculty
· Observations by individuals outside the academic community (i.e., a practicing professional engineer might observe an engineering professor in the classroom to evaluate the extent to which he or she is exposing students to the skills and requirements of the profession)
· Review of course content, assignments, website, etc. by any of the above individuals
· Acknowledgment (in the form of letters of recommendation, certificates of completion, listing in a conference program, etc.) that the faculty member has been involved in continuing education or training programs that advance instructional goals
· Honors and awards related to teaching
· Teaching Assessment Form (required)
· Statement of teaching philosophy, linked to instructional goals
· Description of new courses developed to meet department’s instructional goals
· Description of modifications to existing courses made to better fulfill instructional goals
· Excerpts from course syllabi to illustrate specific instructional goals
· Assignments, tests, projects, group work, class presentations, etc., but only if they provide information associated with instructional goals
· Graded papers, exams, etc. (with all personal student information deleted), provided that the faculty member’s comments provide information associated with instructional goals
· Videotapes of the faculty member’s class*
· Hard copies of information on the faculty member’s website*
1. Evaluators are obliged to review all submitted materials.
2. Evaluators will assess the accuracy and relevance of submitted materials.
3. Evaluators will consider data from all components of the SIR II, not merely data from the Overall Evaluation or from that plus a subset of sections.
4. Evaluators will pay particular attention to significant discrepancies among various components of the evaluation packet (as, for example, when data from the SIRs are significantly different from student written comments, peer observation letters, etc.).
5. Department Chairs will briefly summarize in writing the conclusions they reached after reviewing all evidence from the three evaluation sources (student data, peer observations, and self-assessment).
6. Department Chairs will discuss their conclusions with the faculty member, solicit written responses from the faculty member, and incorporate those responses into the final evaluation report forwarded to the dean.
7. The Dean, at his/her discretion, will discuss the Chair’s evaluation report with the faculty member, solicit written responses from the faculty member, and incorporate those responses into his/her evaluation summary. The Dean’s evaluation summary will then be included with the faculty member’s annual review package.