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%)