Skip to Content

Faculty Evaluation


The Department of Health and Human Performance

 

HHP Policy and Procedure Statement: 3.02                                            Annual Faculty Evaluation

Review Cycle: March 1, E3Y                                                                                     (62 paragraphs)

Review Date: March 1, 2012

Reviewer: The HHP Voting Faculty

 

DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this document, the following definitions apply:

1.       The Department Personnel Committee (PC) is made up of tenured faculty who are paid at a rate of fifty percent or more from faculty salary dollars budgeted to the Department (VPAA/PPS 8.10.4a).

2.      The Department’s recommendation includes the recommendations of both the PC and the Chair.

3.      A College recommendation includes the recommendation of the Dean.

4.      Annual Evaluations are used to provide:

4.01   Each faculty member with information about his/her strengths and growth areas that may be used for continuous professional development,

4.02   The Department Chair and the PC with information that can be used in making recommendations for tenure and promotion, in awarding performance and merit raises, and/or in making decisions regarding the retention of faculty (VPAA/PPS 8.09).

5.      Performance is defined as meeting departmental expectations as outlined in this document.  When funds are available, performance salary adjustments will, to the extent possible, reflect cost of living increases. Performance salary adjustments are based on a faculty member’s annual evaluation.

6.      Merit is defined as additional salary adjustments in recognition of performance that is clearly exceptional during the preceding merit evaluation period. Merit salary adjustments are made every two years when funds are available.  Merit salary adjustments are based on a faculty member’s annual evaluations for the period defined by the President.

 

PURPOSE AND CORRESPONDING POLICIES

7.      The Department of Health and Human Performance (HHP) Policy and Procedure Statement sets forth criteria and guidelines for annual evaluation in the Department of HHP.  These criteria are based on the following sources: 

7.01    VPAA/PPS 7.10

7.02    VPAA/PPS 7.22

7.03    VPAA/PPS 8.09

7.04    VPAA/PPS 8.10

7.05    Faculty Handbook, Texas State University-San Marcos

7.06 HHP PPS 3.03

8.     The primary method for awarding salary raises at Texas State is based upon the annual evaluation for performance and merit salary adjustments (VPAA/PPS 7.10).  In addition, reappointment decisions for faculty both non-tenure and tenure-track are based on the annual evaluation.

9.      Faculty are evaluated annually for the purposes of reappointment, tenure, promotion, and performance and merit salary adjustments.

 

CANDIDATES FOR ANNUAL EVALUATION

10.  All faculty employed as percentage-contract faculty are evaluated annually and are, thus, required to complete an annual evaluation.

11.   All faculty employed as percentage-contract faculty are eligible for performance and merit raises awarded through this process. 

12.  Because all per course faculty are hired for one semester at a time, they do not complete an annual evaluation. Instead, they are evaluated at the end of each semester (Refer to paragraph 62).

13.  Graduate Teaching Assistants do not complete an annual evaluation, as they are evaluated each semester.

 

ANNUAL ACTIVITY REPORT

14.  The Annual Activity Report is based on the previous calendar’s year performance in the areas of teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and leadership/service.

15.   The Annual Activity Report will be completed on-line. This form can be found at www.txstate.edu/annualreview.education.txstate.edu/index.php. Evidence of scholarship will be submitted to the Chair.

16.  The Annual Activity form follows the Texas State Vita format VPAA/PPS 8.10, Form 1A, which may be found at www.txstate.edu/academicaffairs/pps/pps_toc.htm. In addition to submitting the report, faculty will also be required to upload their current curriculum vitae and teaching portfolio.

17.   The Annual Activity report should document achievements that only apply to the time period of the annual evaluation.

18.  Faculty should provide documentation that supports quality of teaching, scholarly/creative activity and leadership/service.

 

REVIEW PROCESS

19.  Annually, in early January, the Chair will notify all faculty of the required electronic and hard copy materials to be submitted by February 1.

20. The PC and the Chair will make independent and separate recommendations on each faculty member for merit and performance salary adjustments.

21.  After the Annual Activity Reports are due, the PC will have two weeks to review each faculty member’s annual activity report, and to evaluate teaching, scholarship/creativity, and service, to make evaluative comments that provide a rationale for scoring and suggestions for professional growth and development.

22. After the individual PC comments have been submitted, the Program Coordinators will have one week to summarize the individual written comments and recommendations for each of the faculty within their division.

23. Each Program Coordinator will be assigned by the Chair to summarize the individual written comments and recommendations for a different Program Coordinator.

24. After the summary comments have been written by the Program Coordinators, the PC will have one week to review the summarized comments and recommendations. At the end of that week, the PC will meet to discuss and finalize each recommendation.

25.  The faculty will be given an opportunity to review the recommendations made by both the Chair and the PC prior to the recommendations being forwarded to the Dean. At that time, they have the opportunity to add written comments to their own annual evaluation. Specifically, before making final merit recommendations, the Chair shall be required to indicate to each faculty member whether the Chair intends to recommend that specific faculty member for merit and the approximate level of merit determined for that specific faculty member (refer to paragraphs 56-61 for more information about merit). After receiving the Chair's preliminary recommendations, faculty who believe their accomplishments have been overlooked or undervalued may, within five working days, request a meeting with the Chair. At this meeting, the Chair shall explain the reasons for denying merit, and the faculty member may ask the Chair to reconsider the preliminary decision on the basis of accomplishments or achievements that may have been initially overlooked or undervalued. After reconsidering the accomplishments of all faculty who have requested a review of their activities, the Chair will make final merit recommendations to the Dean.   

26. If a faculty member on a tenure-track or extended-term contract fails to meet departmental expectations, the PC and the Chair will consider whether reappointment is warranted.  If the Chair, in consultation with the PC, determines that a non-tenured faculty member is not to be retained, the Chair will give appropriate notice to the faculty member. If the faculty member is to be retained, the chair will provide the faculty member with specific written suggestions for improvement.

27.  If a faculty member is tenured and fails to meet departmental expectations, the Chair will inform the faculty member in writing and invite the faculty member to meet and discuss the evaluation. This notice should be given within three class days from completion of the annual evaluation. If the faculty member would like to meet with the Chair, the faculty member has six class days (after the receipt of the Chair’s written notification). If the faculty member chooses not to meet with the Chair, the faculty member should notify the Chair in writing within the six-day period. The faculty member’s failure to respond does not prevent the process from moving forward.

27.01      After discussing the evaluation with the faculty member, if the Chair still finds that the faculty member may have failed to meet departmental expectations, the Chair will notify the PC of this finding and call a special hearing of the PC. This hearing should take place no earlier than three and no later than six class days after the Chair’s meeting with the faculty member. 

27.02      The Chair will present the evaluation and supporting documentation to the PC. The affected faculty member is allowed to be present, address the PC, and provide additional evidence related to his or her performance.

27.03      The PC will discuss the evidence provided by the Chair and the faculty member. The faculty member will not be present during this discussion, and the Chair will preside in a non-voting capacity. The PC will choose a recorder who is responsible for minutes of the deliberations.

27.04      The PC may decide to gather additional information before making a judgment on the faculty member's performance. Such additional information, if required by the PC, should be provided and the PC should reconvene and make its decision within ten class days after the first PC meeting regarding the issue.

27.05      When it has gathered relevant information, the PC will vote by secret ballot as to whether the faculty member has performed to departmental standards. The affected faculty member will not be present for the vote. A finding of nonperformance requires the vote of a majority (fifty-one percent or greater) of the members of the PC present at the meeting excluding the Chair and affected faculty member. The Chair must concur in a finding of nonperformance.

27.06      If the faculty member is judged to have performed below expectations, the Chair and faculty member, in consultation with the PC, will design a Professional Development Plan to help the faculty member meet departmental expectations in the future. The PC recorder will utilize VPAA/PPS 8.09, Form No. 1, which includes a record of the vote and a list of the faculty voting for documentation. The PC will forward the form to the Chair upon completion. The Chair will forward the tracking form, the record of the vote, list of voters, the Chair's recommendation, and a copy of the Professional Development Plan to the Dean of the COE within ten class days of the vote.

27.07      The Professional Development Plan will follow timelines and procedures prescribed in VPAA/PPS 8.09.

28. The Dean also makes an independent and separate recommendation on each annual evaluation.

 

Criteria for Evaluation

29. Faculty performance in the Department of HPER is evaluated on documentation of teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and service.  Collegial contributions to the University community by the candidates are also important.  Collegial faculty members are expected to contribute to the positive functioning of their respective program, department and the university.

30. Faculty are assigned different workloads based on a number of factors, including their year of employment, their scholarly productivity, and their administrative responsibilities (for more information, refer to HPER PPS 2.02), In light of the fact that faculty are assigned different workloads, the workload should be considered when evaluating teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and service.

31.  For each area (teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and service), points will be awarded.

1 point = Below Expectations

2 points = Meets Expectations

3 points = Exceeds Expectations

4 points = Exemplary

 

Teaching

32. Documentation of Teaching Performance. Effective teachers bring the challenge of new, innovative, and/or stimulating ideas to students to help them increase their critical thinking skills and motivate them toward independent scholarly/creative activity. Evidence of teaching performance can be established through careful consideration of formative and summative teaching documentation. Teaching effectiveness will be established through multiple summative student evaluations. Teaching quality will be established through evidence presented in a teaching narrative.

33. Teaching Effectiveness. Evidence of effective teaching and student mentorship will be established through careful consideration of the quantitative scores obtained from student evaluations. Faculty will enter the quantitative scores for each class per semester in section 2J of FARS.   

34. Teaching Quality.   Evidence of teaching quality will be obtained by the evaluation of a teaching narrative  and other evidence.

34.01      The teaching narrative:

·         Will be inserted in section 2(I) of FARS;

·         Should be no longer than 2 pages in length; and

·         Should address the instructor’s: 1)  teaching goals and how the goals are consistent with the aims of his/her academic program, the HPER Department, and the University; 2) teaching methods; 3) professional development activities to enhance his/her teaching; and 4) goals for continued development (see Appendix A for more information).

34.02      Additional evidence of teaching quality will be entered into section 2 (A through J) of FARS. The Chair may also require examples of additional evidence of quality to be submitted in hard copy form. These may include but are not limited to:

·         Class artifacts including a minimum of two but not to exceed four. Examples of class artifacts include course materials such as power point presentations, class assignments, classroom activities and discussion prompts.

·         Evidence of efforts to enhance teaching excellence. An example may include the participation in Office of Professional Development sponsored events focused on teaching enhancement.

·         College, university, or professional teaching awards.

·         Completed doctoral dissertations, master’s theses, independent studies, and supervised research projects.

·         The development and/or revision of programs, courses, seminars, and assessments.

·         Accolades from students or colleagues including written comments from student end-of-semester evaluations.

·         Acquisition of instructional grant(s) (e.g., instructional technology grants and academic computing committee grants).

·         Peer evaluation: Peer evaluator(s) can include, but are not limited to, professionals from the office of instructional technology, a division coordinator or fellow HPER teaching faculty member from the Faculty Evaluation Committee.

 

35.  Criteria for Teaching Assessment†. The dimensions of the teaching performance are weighted as follows: 50% for student evaluations and 50% for the teaching narrative (see appendix B for example). Each dimension is scored on a 1-5 scale. The quantitative portion of student evaluation is averaged for the year while the peer evaluation and teaching narrative are assessed using a rubric. All faculty, regardless of rank, are assessed on the same criteria.

 

DIMENSIONS

VALUE RANGES

Student Evaluation

Teaching Narrative

Meets Expectations

Average score above a  4.0 on the quantitative portion of the student evaluations

Earns a narrative score between 3.0-4.0.

3.5-4.0

Exceeds Expectations

Average score above 4.5 on the quantitative portion of the student evaluations

Earns a narrative score between 4.1-4.5.

4.1-4.5

Exemplary

Average score above 4.7 on the quantitative portion of the student evaluations

Earns a narrative score between 4.6-5.0.

4.6-4.85

 

Scholarly/Creative Activity Criteria

36. Scholarly/creative activity is among the primary functions of the university. A faculty member’s contribution will vary from one academic or professional field to another, but the general test to be applied is that the faculty member is engaged consistently and effectively in scholarly/creative activity of quality and distinction. Evidence of high quality and distinction can be established through careful consideration of productivity and quality. Collaboration with colleagues is viewed as a means of enhancing scholarly/creative activity. The quality of the results and the relative contributions of the participants must be weighed, and documentation of the role and contribution of the individual should be annotated in FARS system.

37.  The HPER Department recognizes that faculty scholarly/creative activity enhances teaching and vice versa; therefore, an inclusive view of scholarly/creative activity is held that recognizes the importance of discipline-based (theoretical), application-oriented (action), and pedagogical (instructional) research and scholarship, among others.

38. Even though faculty members may publish in many venues, peer-reviewed works will receive greater emphasis when decisions are made related to appointment, tenure, promotion and merit. Venues should be sought that will result in the greatest recognition by colleagues; therefore as an example, more emphasis will be given to national/international works than to others.

39. Documentation of Criteria for Research and Scholarly Activity. 

39.01  Greater emphasis will be placed on Scholarly Products, which include (but are not limited to) the following:

·         Research-based articles published in high quality peer-reviewed publications*

·         Successful external grant proposals that support research*

·         Refereed books published;

·         Refereed edited books published;

·         Editor of edited books (chapters written by range of authors) published;

·         Refereed book chapters published; and

·         Refereed monographs published;

·         Refereed, full-manuscript articles published in proceedings of professional presentations at national/state/regional meetings.

39.02   While still important, Scholarly Activities (including, but not limited to the following) will be assigned less weight:

·         Manuscripts in review or in-press;

·         Unsuccessful submission of external grant proposals ;*

·         Successful internal grant proposals;*

·         Juried and invited presentations at national/international levels;

·         Development of tests and/or assessment instruments;

·         Development of software and/or multimedia products;

·         Development of internet products;

·         Technical reports published;

·         Abstracts in proceedings of professional presentations published; and

·         Book reviews published.

39.03   Scholarly products and activities will be included in section 3 of FARS. In addition, evidence of scholarship (e.g., photocopies of articles) will be submitted to the Chair.

40. Quality.  The quantity of published material is not sufficient evidence of scholarly/creative activity. The quality of each endeavor must be carefully documented and is often more important than quantity. Quality refers to the implications to the field, significance, and importance of the work to a degree indicated by the venue. When determining quality, such factors as journal impact factor, acceptance rate, index distribution, and readership should be considered. Documentation of the quality of venues is expected. In short, all peer-reviewed works are not considered equal.

41.  Criteria Based on Research Releasea,b,c:

 

Research Release

0:0

1:1

2:1

 

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers/Tenured

Tenured and Tenure-Track

Meets Expectations

 

Engages in, at least, one Professional Development Activityc that supports maintenance and/or enhancement of academic qualifications.

At least two Scholarly Activities (refer to paragraph 39.02)

At least two Scholarly Activities (refer to paragraph 39.02) AND one Scholarly Product (refer to paragraph 39.02).

Exceeds Expectations

Engages in, at least, one Professional Development Activityc that supports maintenance and facilitation of academic qualifications.

Completes one Scholarly Activity as defined in paragraph 39.02 or engages in two Professional Development Activities.c

One Scholarly Product as defined in paragraph 39.01.

Two Scholarly Products as defined in paragraph 39.01.

Exemplary

Attends one state, regional, and/or national conference OR one Departmental, College, or University research-related workshop AND completes one scholarly activity as defined in paragraph 39.02.

At least two Scholarly Activities as defined in paragraph 39.02 OR At least one Scholarly Product as defined in paragraph 39.01

OR Engages in at least 3 Professional Development Activities.c

More than one Scholarly Product as defined in paragraph 39.01.

 

 

More than two Scholarly Products as defined in paragraph 39.01.

 

aModification of these criteria will be considered for new tenure-track faculty members who have been on staff less than a year at the time of culmination of the first annual evaluation cycle since their hire.

bResearch criteria for clinical faculty shall be based on the terms of their contract.

cProfessional Development Activity (e.g., attend a state, regional, or nation conference, or one department, college, or university workshop) support maintenance and/or enhancement of academic qualifications.

 

Leadership/Service

42. In addition to demonstrated excellence in teaching and scholarly/creative activity, faculty should have a commitment to the University and their professions through participation in leadership/service activities.  Such participation may take several different forms, including:  leadership/service to the University (leadership/service on committees charged by the TxState Faculty Senate or by an administrator at the Dean level or higher); leadership/service to the College (service on a committee charged by the Dean of the COE); leadership/service to the Department (service on a committee charged by the Chair of the Department); and leadership/service to the profession or to higher education in general (leadership/service appointments made by officials representing professional organizations, public schools, cities, states, or the nation).

43. Faculty members are expected to participate in the conduct of their department, college, and university; in appropriate professional organizations in their field; and in professional leadership/service to schools, colleges, universities, and other agencies in the community.  Evidence of superior leadership/service may be established through careful consideration in the areas of productivity and quality. While leadership/service activity is expected of each faculty member, leadership/service shall not substitute for expectations in teaching or in scholarly/creative activity.

44. Service expectations will vary among ranks (See paragraph 48 for more information).

44.01      Lecturers are expected to perform limited service.

44.02      Seniors lectures are expected to perform expanded service.

44.03   Tenure track faculty are expected to perform targeted service.

44.04   Tenured faculty are expected to assume leadership roles and perform extensive service activities.

45.  Documentation of Effective Leadership/Service.  Service activities will be entered into section 4 of FARS. However, documentation of service may also be required by the Chair. Lists and descriptions of activities, copies of materials produced, letters from groups served, and any forms of recognition will be examples of supporting data for effective leadership/service. Examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:

·         Letters of recognition from the chair of a committee

·         Examples of projects undertaken by the committees

·         College, University, or Professional Awards for Service

46. Productivity.  Evidence of a faculty member’s productivity is manifested by the extent of participation on departmental, college, and university committees; in professional organizations at the local, state, or national levels; in outreach activities related to student settings; and in service to scholarly/creative activity, such as serving as editor, reviewer, consultant, speaker, and panel member. 

47.  Quality.  Leadership/service involves working creatively with others so that professional knowledge has an impact on the primary and secondary schools, colleges, professional organizations, community agencies, and other institutions.  The impact of leadership/service on the group served is of critical importance in evaluating quality of leadership/service.  Added value should be given for committees with significant impact and/or significant time commitments.

48.  Criteria:a,b

 

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Tenure-Track

Tenured

Meet Expectations

Participate in a departmental, college, or university function, e.g., Awards Day, Alumni Banquet, or Bobcat Day.

Participate in a departmental or professional committee.

Participate in a departmental or professional committee.

Demonstrate active participation in at least four of the following:  University, College, or Department Committees or Professional and Community Organizations.

Exceeds Expectations

Participate in one departmental committee.

Participate in two departmental or professional committees, OR co-sponsor a student organization, OR chair a departmental committee

Chair one departmental committee

Hold one chair/leadership position AND be an active participant in at least three more of the following:  University, College, or Department Committees or Professional and Community Organizations.  Recipient of service awards/honors.

Exemplary

Co-sponsor a student organization, chair a departmental committee, participate on or chair a college, university, or professional committee.

Participate in three departmental or professional committees, OR Chair a state committee 

Chair one professional committee

Hold two chair/leadership positions AND be an active participant/member in at least two of the following: University, College, or Department committees or Professional and Community Organizations.   Recipient of service awards/honors.

aModification of these criteria will be considered for new tenure-track faculty members who have been on staff less than a year at the time of culmination of the first annual evaluation cycle since their hire.

bResearch criteria for clinical faculty shall be based on the terms of their contract.

 

Faculty with Release

49.  Faculty on 100% release for research and grant supervisors will be evaluated as meeting expectations based on fulfillment of the terms of the release contract.  Evaluation will be made in consultation with the office in charge of or charged with overseeing the contract.  Judgment on the criteria for research, exceeds expectations and exemplary, will be made on a case-by-case basis in accordance with interpretation of the contract. Judgment on the criteria for service will be based on criteria stated in paragraph 48.

50. Faculty on administrative release will be evaluated pro-rata on [proportion of] outstanding work load (as determined by department policy or contract) dedicated to research.  Based on stated proration, equal merit will be awarded as is awarded to other tenure/tenure-track faculty.

 

Self-Evaluation

51.   In the final section (i.e., section 5) of FARS, faculty will have the opportunity/option to self-evaluate. Specifically, they may identify whether (and explain why) they believe they were below expectations, met expectations, exceeded expectations, or were outstanding for teaching, scholarship, and service.

52.  In their review of the faculty, the PC will explain why they agree or do not agree with the faculty member.

 

Relationship between Annual Review and Tenure/Promotion Review

53.  While these two processes are not necessarily related, successful candidates for consideration of tenure and promotion typically have exceeded expectations during annual reviews.

 

Eligibility for Performance

54.  A performance raise shall be defined as a salary awarded to faculty whose overall performance during the identified evaluation period meets or exceeds departmental expectations (VPAA/PPS 7.10).

55.  Awarding faculty performance is a two step process at the departmental level. Each faculty member is evaluated by the PC. The chair will then carefully review the PC’s evaluations as well as any other documents deemed necessary by the chair and nominate faculty members for performance salary increases (when performance resources are available).  The chair will follow the same guidelines as the PC when making these decisions.

 

Eligibility For Merit

56.  A merit raise shall be defined as additional salary to be awarded to faculty whose performance exceeds departmental expectations during the preceding merit evaluation period. 

57.  Each faculty member is evaluated by at least 5 members of the PC. The assigned PC members will: a) score teaching, service, and scholarship based on the criteria stated in paragraphs 35, 41, and 48; and b) draft evaluative comments that provide a rationale for scoring and suggestions for professional growth and development. The scores in each category will be used to create a frequency distribution.

58. The Coordinator of each program is in charge of summarizing the individual PC evaluations for their program faculty. Specifically, the Coordinator will: a) determine an overall score for each category based on the frequency distribution; and b) summarize evaluative comments[1].

59.  The Chair will then carefully review the summary scores and comments provided by the Coordinator as well as the documents provided by each faculty member for annual evaluation. The Chair will provide his/her own scores and evaluative comments.

60. The scores provided by the Coordinator and the Chair will be averaged across the three categories and used in the calculation of merit.

61.  A faculty member will be considered for merit based upon the evaluation period of the previous three years for the areas of teaching, creative/scholarship, and service. For tenure-track and tenured faculty, the scores for these three areas for each of the previous three years will be summed and compared to the departmental average. For senior lecturers and tenured faculty teaching a 4:4, more weight will be given to teaching (1.5) and less weight will be given to service (1.0) and research (.50). The scores will be summed and compared to the departmental average. Merit will be awarded using the following formula: Percent salary increase = [% of eligible salaries allocated for merit raises x (faculty member’s score/departmental average)] x 100. See Appendix C for an example.

61.01      Faculty with a high score (i.e., an overall score that is above average) will receive a salary adjustment that is greater than the % of eligible salaries allocated for merit.

61.02      Faculty with a medium score (i.e., an overall score that is average) will receive a salary adjustment that is equal to the % of eligible salaries allocated for merit.

61.03      Faculty with a low score (i.e., an overall score that is below average) will receive a salary adjustment that is below the% of eligible salaries allocated for merit raises.

61.04      Faculty who meet expectations or fail to meet expectations in all areas are not eligible for merit.

 

Evaluation of Per Course Faculty

62. The Department of HPER currently employs many per-course faculty, in large part, to broaden the range and increase the number of course offerings. Also, per-course faculty often bring a particular expertise to the classroom not possessed by full-time faculty. With this in mind, HPER realizes the importance of per-course faculty and will continue to employ the highest quality per-course faculty. To ensure that the teaching performances of the per-course faculty conform to the Department’s standards of teaching quality, per-course faculty will be evaluated by the Department Chair, the appropriate Program Coordinator, and students. By the end of the first week of classes, per-course faculty should submit their course syllabi for review to both the Chair and the appropriate Program Coordinator. At the end of the semester, students of per-course faculty will complete course evaluations on the faculty member’s teaching. These evaluations will be reviewed by both the Department Chair and the appropriate Program Coordinator. The Chair will draft a formal report. The report is based on a review of the course syllabus, feedback from the Program Coordinator, and review of both the qualitative and quantitative portions of the student evaluations. The per course faculty member will sign the evaluation, indicating that he/she has read the report, and may, if desired, add his/her own written comments. The evaluation will be entered into the per-course faculty member’s permanent file and should be considered when determining whether the per-course faculty should be re-hired.

 

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

This HHP PPS has been approved by the reviewers listed below and represents the HHP policy and procedure from the date of the document until superseded.

 

Faculty Representative:____________________      Date:   __________

 

Approver:  ______________________                      Date:   __________

                  Chair of the HHP Department

 


 

                                                                                                                                                                Appendix A

Instructor: ____________________

 

TEACHING EVALUATION RUBRIC

Professional Reflection and Professional Development

 

Statement of Teaching Philosophy, Roles, Responsibilities, Methods (Source: Teaching Narrative)

·         Are teaching goals consistent with the aims of the program, the Department, and the University?

Poor

Fair

Satisfactory

Strong

Exceptional

1

2

3

4

5

 

Feedback:

 

 

·         Does the teacher use a large repertoire of teaching methods?

Poor

Fair

Satisfactory

Strong

Exceptional

1

2

3

4

5

 

Feedback:

 

Professional Development (Source: FARS and Teaching Narrative)

·         Did the instructor thoroughly describe his/her strengths and weaknesses?

Poor

Fair

Satisfactory

Strong

Exceptional

1

2

3

4

5

 

·         During the previous year, did the instructor participate in meaningful professional development activities to enhance teaching?

Poor

Fair

Satisfactory

Strong

Exceptional

1

2

3

4

5

 

·         Has the teacher identified meaningful and effective goals for continued development?

Poor

Fair

Satisfactory

Strong

Exceptional

1

2

3

4

5

 

Feedback:

 

·         Valued Added factors include but are not limited to recipient of external or internal teaching-related grants  and evidence of effort to develop professionally (e.g., integrated new teaching methods; attended conferences, participated in teaching workshops, acquired new professional certifications, maintained certifications, obtained continuing education credits, etc.), to participation in thesis or dissertation, recipient of Honors/Awards related to their teaching activities, developed and proposed new courses or degree programs , and innovative other teaching activities (1 point will be added to the average score for professional reflection).

 

Average Score: _____

 

Teaching Scoring System

Dimension

Rating

Weight

Score

Student Evaluations

_____

50%

_____ X .50 = _____

Portfolio

_____

50%

_____ X .50 = _____

TOTAL

 

 

_____

Each dimension is rated on a 1-5 scale with 1 being the lowest score and 5 being the highest score.

 

 

 

Categories

 

 

DIMENSIONS

VALUE RANGES

Student Evaluation

Portfolio

Meets Expectations “2”

Average score above a  4.0 on the quantitative portion of the student evaluations

Earns a portfolio score between 3.0-4.0.

3.5-4.0

Exceeds Expectations “3”

Average score above 4.5 on the quantitative portion of the student evaluations

Earns a portfolio score between 4.1-4.5.

4.25-4.5

Exemplary “4”

Average score above 4.7 on the quantitative portion of the student evaluations

Earns a portfolio score between 4.6-5.0.

4.6-5.0

 


Appendix B

 

Teaching Sample Scoring System

 

Dimension

Rating

Weight

Score

Student Evaluations

4.0

50%

4.0 X .50 = 2.0

Portfolio

3.8

50%

3.8 X .50 =1.9

TOTAL

 

 

3.9

Each dimension is rated on a 1-5 scale with 1 being the lowest score and 5 being the highest score.

 


Appendix C

 

Example of Merit Scoring System

 

Academic Year 2008/2009 For Faculty Member 1

 

Evaluative Scores from the Assigned PC Members

 

 

Teaching

Service

Scholarship

PC Member 1

3

1

3

PC Member 2

2

2

3

PC Member 3

3

3

3

PC Member 4

3

3

4

PC Member 5

4

2

3

 

Overall Evaluative Score

 

 

Teaching

Service

Scholarship

 

Coordinator

3

2

3

 

Chair

3

3

4

Total

Average

3

2.5

3.5

8

 

Average Scores for the Three Most Recent Years

 

 

2006/2007

2007/2008

2008/2009

Average

Faculty Member 1

9

8

8

8.33

Faculty Member 2 

 

 

 

 

Etc.

 

 

 

 

Departmental Average

9.35

 

Calculation of Merit[2]

 

Faculty Member 1’s % Merit Raise = .027 x (8.33/9.35) x 100 = 2.41%

 



[1] The Chair will assign a member of the PC to summarize the Coordinator’s individual review comments and scores for scholarship, service, and teaching.

 

[2] Assuming that 3% of eligible salaries is allocated for merit raises and the Dean holds back 10%, then the Department’s % of eligible salaries allocated for merit raises given at the Departmental level is 2.7%.