Instructions: The university minimum benchmarks must be met in evaluating the performance of the faculty member over the last four years. Ratings of "Needs Improvement" and "Unsatisfactory" requires a plan for improvement, a follow up review, and/or possible sanctions. All areas of evaluation should reflect the faculty member's performance expected at their academic rank. Exceeds Expectations (3) Meets Expectations (2) Needs Improvement (1) Unsatisfactory (0)

Evidence of Quality and Effectiveness in Teaching

Evaluations from students

Evaluation by school/unit administrator

Direct observation of faculty by peers and/or school/unit administrator

Use of teaching portfolios as developed by schools/units

Accessibility to, and rapport with students

Innovative teaching methodology and the use of research in instruction

Evidence of contributions to student career development

Quality and standards as developed through consultation with colleagues to meet the objectives set forth in the course syllabus

Initiative in developing or experimenting with media and materials

Additional evidence of effective teaching

Performance of students on course outcomes with rubric provided

Documented faculty member attendance and subsequently developed and implemented new approaches in pedagogy

Is faculty member engaged in the scholarship of teaching and learning

Innovative teaching methodology and the use of research in instruction

Curriculum is aligned with Industry Practices and Requirements

Faculty advising and mentoring student in career pursuits

Evidence of contributions to student career development

Sub-totals

Total Quality and Effectiveness in Teaching Score

Performance Teaching Quality and Effectiveness Standard (Total points 34) Performance Criteria (Unsatisfactory <70%, Needs Improvement 70-75%, Meets Expectations 76-85%, Exceeds Expectations >85%)