The faculty of the Department
of Teacher Education (TED), in the College of Education and Human Services
(CEHS) at Wright State University (WSU), seeks to promote and sustain successful
performance in teaching, scholarship, and service, and to participate fully
in the governance of the department, college, and university. The bylaws
herein specify procedures for the participation of Bargaining Unit Faculty
in departmental governance. These bylaws:
Faculty are uniquely qualified
to participate in the governance of the department, particularly with respect
to academic matters. It is also recognized that faculty members can provide
valuable contributions to all levels of the department administration. Bargaining
Unit Faculty participation in governance consists of giving advice, making
recommendations, and contributing to the establishment of bylaws.
SECTION III. PROCEDURES FOR BARGAINING
UNIT FACULTY ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. FACULTY APPOINTMENT, REAPPOINTMENT AND
DISMISSAL
- Faculty
Appointment. A minimum of two
Bargaining Unit Faculty in the department will serve on search committees
for new faculty positions within the department. Whenever possible, at
least one will be in the same academic area as the posted position. Recommendations
for appointment of new faculty will be forwarded to the Dean.
- Faculty
Reappointment and Dismissal. The
Promotion and Tenure Committee will have the opportunity to make recommendations
in cases of faculty under consideration for reappointment or for termination
due to deficient performance.
B. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND MENTORING
OF NEW FACULTY
The department’s Professional
Development Committee (PDC) will recommend, design, and/or deliver professional
development opportunities for department faculty. The PDC will assign mentors
to new faculty.
C. TEACHING ASSIGNMENTS AND CLASS
SCHEDULES, INCLUDING SUMMER AND OVERLOADS
Bargaining Unit Faculty
will have the opportunity to provide input to the Department Chair before
teaching assignments and class schedules, including summer and overloads,
are finalized.
D. GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM
AND ACADEMIC STANDARDS
The Department Curriculum
Committee will review and make recommendations to the Department Chair on
all curricular and program issues affecting the department.
E. FACULTY INVOLVEMENT IN THE REVIEW
OF CHAIRS
All Bargaining Unit Faculty
in the department will have the opportunity to comment on and make recommendations
to the Dean on the review of, or the appointment of, a department chair.
F. ISSUES AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT
Issues affecting the department
will be presented to the faculty at regularly scheduled department meetings
for discussion and recommendations from the faculty.
SECTION IV. PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL EVALUATIONS OF BARGAINING UNIT FACULTY
The annual review process
consists of the following components: the Annual Peer Evaluation of Teaching
(APET), the Annual Review of Accomplishments (ARA), the Annual Chair Evaluation
(ACE), and the P&T Committee’s Annual Review.
A. ANNUAL PEER EVALUATION OF TEACHING
The peer evaluation of teaching
will be conducted annually for each untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Member
by a tenured Bargaining Unit Faculty Member in the Department selected by
the PDC. The intent of the annual peer evaluation of teaching (APET) in the
Teacher Education Department is to improve instruction throughout the department.
The peer evaluation is intended to be collaborative and to emphasize formative
growth. The process for peer evaluation, therefore, is not antithetical
but actually complementary to the process of mentoring. The APET will be
part of an ongoing, formative mentoring process.
The individual being evaluated
will be consulted prior to development of a plan for peer evaluation of teaching
effectiveness each year, which may or may not include a classroom visitation,
but is derived from the criteria for the evaluation of teaching delineated
in the Department Bylaws, Section V. The annual peer evaluation of teaching
effectiveness will be completed before the end of each calendar year and
will focus on the untenured faculty member’s strengths and/or areas needing
improvement. As described in the Annual Peer Evaluation of Teaching form
(attached as Appendix A), documentation of the APET will be submitted to
the individual, the Department Chair, and the Promotion and Tenure Committee.
It will be reflected in the Chair’s annual evaluation and the Promotion and
Tenure Committee’s annual statement summarizing the individual’s cumulative
progress toward obtaining tenure.
B.ANNUAL REVIEW OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS
At the end of each calendar
year, the faculty member will prepare a written document, entitled the Annual
Review of Accomplishments (ARA), which describes the faculty member’s teaching,
scholarship, and service activities during the preceding calendar year. In
addition, a faculty member is encouraged to submit a statement describing
his/her scholarly agenda and publication plans, as a way of placing in context
the performance for a given year. The faculty member will give a copy of
the ARA, along with a current vita, to the Department Chair and the Department
P&T Committee by January 31. In addition to the ARA and a current vita,
Bargaining Unit Faculty may submit whatever material will provide evidence
of successful teaching, scholarship, and/or service.
C.ANNUAL CHAIR EVALUATION OF
BARGAINING UNIT FACULTY
After reviewing each faculty
member’s ARA, the Department Chair will prepare a written Annual Chair Evaluation
(ACE) document that evaluates each faculty member’s professional activity
in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service and assigns an integer
to each area, based on the criteria as delineated in Section V. Included
in the Chair’s annual evaluation of each untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty
member will be a statement reflecting peer evaluation of the individual’s
teaching effectiveness. The Annual Chair Evaluation will be completed and
discussed with each faculty member not later than March 31.
Each faculty member will
review the integers assigned for his or her annual evaluation and the reasons
given for the assignment. If the faculty member agrees with the evaluation,
he/she will sign a copy of the evaluation and return it to the Department
Chair. If the faculty member disagrees with the evaluation, he/she will sign
on a second line, indicating that he/she has received his/her evaluation
and that a written rebuttal may be forthcoming. This rebuttal is to be submitted
to the Department Chair, attached to the original evaluation, and forwarded
as provided for in the contract.
After the chair has completed
the annual evaluation and assigned an integer from 0 to 4 for each individual’s
teaching, scholarship, and service, percentages will be assigned by an algorithm
that gives each individual the maximum possible overall average within the
following ranges:
Teaching: 40%
- 60%
Scholarship: 20%
- 40%
Service: 20%
- 40%
This system will apply to
all Bargaining Unit Faculty Members in the department unless the chair assigns
a different weighting to allow for unique work assignments that differ from
those of other Bargaining Unit Faculty Members, discipline pursuant to Article
14 of the CBA, or correction of a pattern of substandard performance extending
more than one year.
D.ANNUAL REVIEW OF BARGAINING UNIT FACULTY BY P&T COMMITTEE
After reviewing each untenured
faculty member’s ARA and APET, and independent of the Chair’s annual evaluation,
the Department P&T Committee will provide him/her with a statement summarizing
his/her cumulative progress toward obtaining promotion and/or tenure by March
31. The Department P&T Committee will also provide each tenured Assistant
and tenured Associate Professor with an annual statement summarizing the
individual Member’s progress toward promotion to the next rank, unless the
individual requests that the evaluation be conducted once every three years.
In addition to the ARA and a current vita, Bargaining Unit Faculty may submit
whatever material will provide evidence of successful teaching, scholarship,
and/or service.
SECTION V. CRITERIA FOR ANNUAL EVALUATIONS
The Department Chair will
evaluate each Bargaining Unit Faculty Member in the areas of teaching, scholarship,
and service annually according to the following criteria.
A. EVALUATION OF TEACHING
Teaching takes many forms,
including lectures, seminar discussions, individual tutorial sessions, field
supervision, and other types of instruction. In addition, teaching involves
designing, organizing, and refining courses; monitoring and evaluating student
performance; guiding and advising students in the educational process; and
continuous professional development. Hence, categories for the evaluation
of teaching quality and effectiveness include:
- Impact
of teaching on developing professionals.
- Impact
of teaching on P-12 student learning.
- Relationship
of teaching to CEHS conceptual framework.
- Engagement
in student-related professional responsibilities.
- Engagement
in course-related professional responsibilities.
- Criteria
for the Evaluation of Teaching
A score of 0 (Unsatisfactory)
will be given to any faculty member who does not satisfy the requirements
for an adequate evaluation.
To receive a score of 1
(Adequate) in teaching, a faculty member must consistently:
- Teach
assigned course load satisfactorily.
- Meet
all classes on a regular basis.
- Prepare
and distribute syllabi which meet the requirements of the standard college
syllabi.
- Incorporate
strands of the CEHS conceptual framework (content knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, professionalism, diversity, technology, emotional intelligence)
in course design as reflected in syllabus and in class.
- Maintain
at least six office hours per week and fulfill advising responsibilities.
- Provide
regular and timely feedback to students.
- Conduct
student evaluations of instruction as required by contract.
- Participate
in peer evaluation as appropriate.
To receive a score
of 2 (Meritorious) in teaching, a faculty member, in addition to satisfying
criteria in the “Adequate” category, must consistently:
- Demonstrate
teaching effectiveness.
- Revise
syllabi to reflect changes in content and or process.
- Serve
as an advisor and/or mentor to students.
- Participate
in professional development opportunities.
To receive a score of 3
(Outstanding) in teaching, a faculty member, in addition to satisfying criteria
in the “Meritorious” category, must consistently:
- Demonstrate
exceptional teaching effectiveness to include documentation of positive impact
on developing professionals and/or P-12 student learning.
- Participate
in program review and development.
- Demonstrate
involvement in public schools or similar agencies in line with CEHS mission.
To receive a score of 4
(Extraordinary) in teaching, a faculty member, in addition to satisfying
criteria in the “Outstanding” category, must achieve at least two of the
following:
-
Receive formal recognition
of expertise in teaching from outside the department.
-
Lead program review and development.
- Demonstrate
leadership in public schools or similar agencies in line with CEHS mission.
- Be
readily available to students at times over and above posted office hours
for discussion, advising, mentoring, etc.
- Evidence
for the Evaluation of Teaching
Acceptable evidence includes,
but is not limited to, the following:
- Impact
of Teaching on Developing Professionals
Peer
evaluations
Student
evaluations
Unsolicited
testimonials
Sample
artifacts/demonstrations of student learning as related to course objectives
- Impact
of Teaching on P-12 Student Learning
Sample
artifacts/demonstrations of P-12 student learning
Clinical
faculty/cooperating teachers’ evaluation
- Relationship
of Teaching to CEHS Conceptual Framework
Syllabi
and course materials
Sample
artifacts/demonstrations of student learning
Engagement in Student-Related
Professional Responsibilities
Documents reflecting
Advising
Maintaining office hours
Supervision of student research
Engagement in Course-Related
Professional Responsibilities
Documents reflecting
Attendance at professional
development opportunities
Course and program development
Effective use of technology
and multi-media
B.EVALUATION OF SCHOLARSHIP
TED honors the full scope
of quality and excellence in academic work. Scholarship for annual evaluations
is considered using Boyer’s four categories: Scholarship of Teaching, Scholarship
of Discovery, Scholarship of Integration, and Scholarship of Application.
While not required to engage in all four categories of scholarship, each
faculty member should engage in scholarship that is shared with the wider
academic community and provide evidence of scholarly activities in the Annual
Review of Accomplishments.
- Definition
of Scholarship
- Scholarship
of Teaching
Scholarship of teaching
involves an examination of teaching. It requires faculty members to be widely
read and intellectually engaged in their fields of expertise. Projects in
this area may include but are not limited to designing and leading faculty
development workshops; coordinating mentoring activities; engaging in reflective
examination of teaching effectiveness; carrying out programmatic curricular
revision; developing effective teaching methods, laboratory experiments,
or other pedagogical innovations. Scholarly activity should reach a level
of excellence sufficient to develop materials that are disseminated through
publications, reports, colloquia, conference presentations, or other normally
accepted venues for such presentations.
- Scholarship
of Discovery
Scholarship of discovery
adds to the body of human knowledge. Projects in this area may include but
are not limited to generating original research; exploring new ideas; expanding
the boundaries of current knowledge. Scholarly activity should reach a level
of excellence sufficient to develop materials that are submitted for presentation
and peer reviewed publication.
- Scholarship
of Integration
Scholarship of integration
interprets and connects existing ideas within and/or across disciplines,
and provides new insight and understandings on original research. Projects
in this area should reach a level of excellence sufficient to develop materials
that are selected for dissemination through publications, reports, colloquia,
conference presentations, or other normally accepted venues for such presentations.
- Scholarship
of Application
Scholarship of application
presents new, useful, and meaningful ways to apply knowledge and involves
the application of knowledge to issues of contemporary social concern. Projects
in this area should reach a level of excellence sufficient to develop materials
that are selected for dissemination through publications, reports, colloquia,
conference presentations, or other normally accepted venues for such presentations.
- Criteria
for the Evaluation of Scholarship
In evaluating scholarship,
the Chair should not only assess publications, but also the time and effort
of preparation. Collaborative scholarship, for example, normally requires
as much effort as individual scholarship and should be evaluated accordingly.
A score of 0 (Unsatisfactory)
in scholarship will be given to any faculty member who does not satisfy the
requirements for an adequate evaluation.
To receive a score of 1
(Adequate) in scholarship, a faculty member must:
- Pursue
a clearly defined scholarly agenda and present a clear blueprint or outline
for publication and/or communication of scholarship.
- Attend
at least one professional conference.
To receive a score of 2
(Meritorious) in scholarship, in addition to satisfying criteria in the “Adequate” category,
a faculty member must accomplish at least one of the following:
- Present
scholarship at two or more professional conferences, one of which is at the
national level.
- Submit
a proposal for an external grant.
- Submit
a scholarly article to an external refereed publication.
- Publish
a scholarly article in an internal refereed publication.
- Have
internal grant funding of at least $5,000 total costs.
- Provide
other comparable examples of scholarly activity (e.g., have published more
than one external refereed scholarly article in the previous year).
To receive a score of 3
(Outstanding) in scholarship, in addition to satisfying criteria in the “Meritorious” category,
a faculty member must accomplish at least one of the following:
-
Have
a scholarly article published (or accepted for publication) in an external
refereed publication.
-
Have
external grant funding of at least $25,000 total costs.
-
Have
a refereed book chapter published (or accepted for publication).
-
Submit
a scholarly book manuscript for consideration at a scholarly press.
To receive a score of 4
(Extraordinary) in scholarship, in addition to satisfying criteria in the “Outstanding” category,
a faculty member must accomplish at least one of the following:
- Publish
a scholarly article in an external refereed journal.
- Publish
or have in press a scholarly book.
- Have
external grant funding of at least $75,000 total costs.
C. Evidence for the Evaluation of
Scholarship
Evidence for the annual
evaluation of scholarship may include documentation of any combination of
scholarship activities and should be reflective of one or more of the four
categories of scholarship designated above: Scholarship of Teaching, Scholarship
of Discovery, Scholarship of Integration, and Scholarship of Application.
Citations of scholarship
activities should follow APA guidelines. Examples of acceptable scholarship
activities include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Published
Scholarship
Publications that have been
accepted for publication are equivalent to publications that are already
in print and should be listed as “in press.” “In Press” is defined
as documents that were accepted for publication and are in queue for printing.
Citations of articles and papers should indicate whether the work was an
external refereed publication (ER), an internal refereed publication (IR),
not refereed (N), or invited (I).
- Books
- Refereed
journal articles
- Chapters
in books
- Papers
published in full in official proceedings
- Research
monographs
- Other
journal articles
- Book
reviews
- Technical
reports
- Other
published work (e.g., ERIC documents, software)
- Unpublished
Papers and Professional Presentations
- Presentations
at national or international meetings/conferences that were accepted for
the program via a peer review process
- Presentations
at local or state meetings that were accepted for the program via a peer
review process
- Invited
symposium papers
- Invited
keynote addresses
- Invited
presentations at external institutions, corporations, federal agencies
- Scholarship
under Review
- Journal
articles
- Book
manuscripts
- Book
chapters
- Other
manuscripts
- Grants
- External
grants funded
- External
grants pending
- Internal
grants funded
- Internal
grants pending
- Other
Scholarly Activities
- Referee
or editor of a book or journal
- Reviewer
of a textbook or curriculum
- Original
Research (e.g., works in progress)
- Publication
of curriculum materials
- Development
of archival materials (e.g., film, bibliographies, databases, and newsletters)
- Video
productions
C.EVALUATION OF SERVICE
Faculty service should contribute
to the overall mission of the department. Service to community schools as
well as service to Wright State University, the College of Education and
Human Services, the Teacher Education Department, and local, state, and national
organizations is expected from each faculty member within the Teacher Education
Department.
- Criteria
for the Evaluation of Service
A score of 0 (Unsatisfactory)
will be given to any faculty member who does not satisfy the requirements
for an adequate evaluation.
To receive a score of 1
(Adequate) in service, a faculty member must:
- Attend
department and college meetings.
- Respond
to requests for activity reports, workload plans, etc.
- Serve
on at least one departmental committee.
- Perform
some community or professional service.
To receive a score of 2
(Meritorious) in service, a faculty member, in addition to satisfying criteria
in the “Adequate” category, must accomplish two or more of the following:
- Serve
on an additional departmental and/or college committee.
- Take
an active role with P-12 school/facility.
- Serve
as a mentor for the purposes of peer evaluation of teaching.
- Take
an active role in community or professional service.
To receive a score of 3
(Outstanding) in service, a faculty member, in addition to satisfying criteria
in the “Meritorious” category, must accomplish two or more of the following:
- Take
a leadership role in P-12 schools/facilities.
- Take
a leadership role in department governance and academic life; for example,
directing a departmental program, leading a search, chairing a committee,
or participating proactively on ad hoc committees.
- Take
a leadership role in college governance and academic life.
- Take
a leadership role in university governance and academic life.
- Take
a leadership role in a state professional organization.
- Take
a leadership role in a national professional organization
- Take
a leadership role in a professional function in central capacity in the publication
of a professional journal, or the equivalent.
- Serve
on dissertation/thesis committee, or the equivalent.
- Take
a leadership role in service related to professional expertise.
- Take
a leadership role in some aspect of student life.
- Consult
and/or provide expert testimony in field of expertise
- Develop
and present of workshops, seminars, or clinical programs
- Deliver
presentations in WSU departments outside TED or CEHS
- Produce
international or national documents or reports (e.g., NCATE reports)
- Produce
state or local documents or reports (e.g., ODE or task force reports)
To receive a score of 4
(extraordinary) in service, a faculty member, in addition to satisfying criteria
in the “Meritorious” category, must accomplish four or more of the criteria
listed in the “Outstanding” category or the equivalent.
- Evidence
for the Evaluation of Service
Acceptable evidence includes,
but is not limited to, the following:
- Description
or documentation of level and/or quality of contribution to, or role in,
all service activities performed during the year.
- Testimonial
letters, memos, or certificates acknowledging service activity.
- Any
other materials that support service activities.
Note: The faculty member
must build a case for the quality of service performed. Taking an “active “ or “leadership” role
in a service activity implies an acceptable level of quality.
SECTION VI. CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES
FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
The information in this
section describes the departmental process for recommending promotion and
tenure, the documentation to be included in the candidate’s promotion and
tenure document, and the criteria to be used to evaluate the candidate.
A.PROCESS FOR RECOMMENDING PROMOTION
AND TENURE
The process for recommending
promotion and/or tenure for a Bargaining Unit Faculty Member may be initiated
at the departmental level by the Bargaining Unit Faculty Member. The
Member must submit a written request for consideration for promotion and/or
tenure to the Department Chair, with a copy to the Department Promotion and
Tenure Committee and the Dean by May 15 of the calendar year in which the
candidate will begin the P&T process. The candidate must then submit
a complete promotion and tenure document to the Department Promotion and
Tenure Committee by the deadline established by the Department P&T Committee.
The candidate and the Department
Promotion and Tenure Committee shall agree on a list of individuals from
whom letters of evaluation will be solicited, and the Committee is responsible
for soliciting the evaluations from that list. At least three letters of
evaluation from peers external to the University are required for all promotion
and/or tenure decisions. All letters from external reviewers shall be included
in the file. The external evaluators should be experts in the field of the
candidate, must be faculty members at academic institutions, and hold at
least the rank to which the candidate aspires. These letters should evaluate
the candidate’s scholarly and service activities. They should not be testimonial
in character, and they should not relate to promotion and tenure at the writer’s
institutions. The letters used to solicit the letters and the criteria used
to evaluate the candidate must be included in the file.
Upon request, the candidate
will be granted an opportunity to appear before the committee to present
his/her promotion and tenure document in person. In addition, the P&T
Committee may request that the candidate respond in person to clarify questions
that emerge upon examination of his/her promotion and tenure document. The
P&T Committee will set the parameters for these opportunities.
B.PROMOTION AND TENURE DOCUMENT
The candidate’s promotion
and tenure document shall contain all items required by the collective bargaining
agreement.
C.CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND/OR
TENURE
Candidates for promotion
and/or tenure are expected to demonstrate productivity in teaching, scholarship,
and service. Evidence of scholarship activities may fall into any of the
scholarship areas identified and defined in Section V: Scholarship of Teaching,
Scholarship of Discovery, Scholarship of Integration, and Scholarship of
Application.
Candidates may present accomplishments
dating from before their hiring at Wright State University. Scholarly work
completed prior to the candidate’s appointment at Wright State University
will be considered on an equal level to scholarly work done while at this
institution, but in no case shall all of the scholarship assessed be done
prior to arrival at Wright State. A record of ongoing scholarship at Wright
State must be demonstrated.
In support of scholarship,
the faculty member must submit the following:
- For
all published works: a copy of the publication.
- For
all works listed as accepted but not yet published: a copy of the official
letter from the publisher and/or editor along with a printed copy of the
accepted manuscript or galley proofs of the printed publication.
- For
all unpublished papers: a printed copy of the manuscript.
- For
all conference papers: a printed copy of the manuscript.
- For
all grants funded or pending: a copy of the grant proposal and grant funding
notice.
- Promotion
from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor with Tenure
- There
is no minimum time in rank requirement for promotion and tenure. However,
an Assistant Professor must meet the following criteria.
- Teaching.
Candidates should have compiled a record of effective teaching and advising
at Wright State University. A statistical summary and frequency distributions
of all student evaluations of teaching are required as evidence of teaching
effectiveness and are to be included in the promotion and tenure document.
Additional selected evidence, that includes but is not limited to peer evaluations
of teaching, should demonstrate that the faculty member is consistently effective
in the classroom.
- Scholarship.
Candidates must show that they have pursued a successful program of continuous
and ongoing scholarship at Wright State University. In addition, success
in scholarship sufficient for promotion and tenure will include a minimum
of five (5) external refereed journal articles, two of which may have equivalent
substitutions. An equivalent substitution may be (but is not limited
to) a book, an edited volume, a book chapter, a monograph, or a funded external
grant totaling at least $50,000. Letters from external reviewers will be
used to affirm the quality of a candidate’s scholarship.
- Service. Probationary
faculty are expected to participate in and render departmental, college,
and/or university service and perform some external professional service.
The candidate must demonstrate that he/she has been a contributing participant
on committees and in activities necessary for the proper functioning of the
Department and the College. Candidates will list service accomplishments
on the curriculum vita included in the promotion and tenure document. Candidates
must also include evidence of effective service performance (e.g., any testimonials,
solicited or unsolicited) as part of an appendix to the promotion and tenure
document.
- Application
for Tenure in Rank
To be eligible for tenure,
a faculty member already at the Associate Professor or Professor rank must
demonstrate the level of accomplishments defined for promotion to those respective
ranks.
- Promotion
from Associate Professor to Professor
Promotion to Full Professor
requires productivity beyond that required for promotion to Associate Professor
and demonstration of excellence in all three areas of faculty activity. The
candidate’s entire work will be evaluated and should demonstrate a reputation
for excellence at a regional/national level.
- Teaching.
A high level of teaching effectiveness must be demonstrated using multiple
measures; e.g., student evaluations, peer evaluations, syllabi, course materials,
use of technology, letters, and samples of student work. Full professors
should not only be excellent teachers, but should also be role models for
others in the department.
- Scholarship.
The candidate must have a minimum of seven (7) external refereed journal
articles beyond those required for promotion to Associate Professor rank,
three of which may have equivalent substitutions. An equivalent
substitution may be (but is not limited to) a book, an edited volume, a book
chapter, a monograph, or a funded external grant totaling at least $50,000.
Letters from external reviewers will be used to affirm the quality of a candidate’s
scholarship demonstrating a reputation at the regional and national level.
- Service. The
candidate must provide significant evidence to document active participation
and effective leadership performance in Department, College, and/or University
service, as well as in external service to the profession and/or the community.
Appendix A
Annual
Peer Evaluation of Teaching
Faculty Member Being Reviewed:
Peer Evaluator:
Year of Evaluation – Beginning: Ending:
In accordance with the Teacher
Education Department Bylaws, the Annual Peer Evaluation of Teaching should
be part of an ongoing, formative mentoring process that takes place during
the calendar year from January through December. The Annual Peer Evaluation
of Teaching document will include this form as a cover page with attached
narrative addressing each of the evaluation categories listed below. The
Annual Peer Evaluation of Teaching will reflect teaching criteria established
in the TED Bylaws. The Department Chair’s annual evaluation of untenured
faculty will reflect the Annual Peer Evaluation of Teaching.
Instructions: The peer evaluator will write a narrative addressing each of the evaluation
categories listed below. The peer evaluator and the untenured faculty member
will discuss the evaluation narrative. The untenured faculty member and the
peer evaluator must sign this form and initial each page of the attached
narrative. The peer evaluator will submit copies of this documentation
of the Annual Peer Evaluation of Teaching to the Department Chair, the Promotion
and Tenure Committee, and the untenured faculty member. Signature indicates
completion of the process, not necessarily agreement. The untenured faculty
member who disagrees may submit a written rebuttal that will be attached
to the APET document.
Evaluation Categories:
i. Untenured
Faculty Member’s Strengths
ii. Untenured
Faculty Member’s Areas Needing Improvement
iii. Additional
Comments (Optional)
___________________________________________ / ________________
Untenured Faculty Member
Signature / Date
___________________________________________ / ________________
Peer Evaluator Signature / Date
