Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 21, 2011
TO: Faculty
Department of Mass Communication and Journalism
MF 10
FROM: William A. Covino
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I fully understand that the statistical standard chosen for student ratings is provisional, and may require further adjustment once we have obtained a sufficient amount of comparison data. However, the mean you have selected seems a reasonable initial benchmark.
I also want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate’s stated beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective, and considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a colleague’s teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc: Jose Diaz, Acting Dean, College of Arts & Humanities
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. link
Administrative Center
Henry Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. M/S ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF MASS COMMUNICATION & JOURNALISM
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
Each tenured faculty member shall have a minimum of one section rated by students each semester. All probationary faculty will have all teaching sections rated by students every semester. All full-time temporary and part-time faculty will have at least one section rated by students every semester.
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to use either the Diagnostic Form or Online version.
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the department standard 3.5 out of 5.0 using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher, on a regular basis; however, it is more important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a single course or narrow time frame.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and, thereafter, at least one section every year of employment regardless of a break in service.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two sections each academic year thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, two sections every semester (to include as many different courses as possible every semester). Per APM 322, III. C.
d. For tenured faculty, one section each academic year on a rotating basis such that during a five year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use the attached Departmentally approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional Design, Instructional Delivery and Assessment methods.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the appropriate School/College Dean and to the Provost for review and approval.
Last Updated: 9/10/11
California State University, Fresno
UNIVERSITY-WIDE PEER EVALUATION FORM
Department of Mass Communication & Journalism
Professor Evaluated:______________________________
Rank:________________ Course:____________________ Term/Year:__________
Date of Classroom Visitation:________________
Name of Evaluator_____________________ Signature:_____________________
Ratings Scale: 5 = superior | 4 = above average | 3 = average | 2 = below average | 1 = weak
| Category | Rating (1-5) |
|---|---|
| A. Course Content. The assessment of course content shall include a review of the
currency of the content of a course, the appropriateness of the level of the content
of a course, and the appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve
the learning objectives for the course. COMMENTS: |
|
| B. Instructional Design. The assessment of the instructional design of the course
shall include a review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials,
organization of lectures, and the use of technology appropriate to the class. COMMENTS: |
|
| C. Instructional Delivery. The assessment of delivery shall include a review of oral
presentation skills, written communication skills, skills using various forms of informational
technology, and the ability to create an overall environment conducive to student
learning. COMMENTS: |
|
| D. Assessment Methods. The evaluation of assessment methods shall consist of a review
of the tools, procedures, and strategies used for measuring student learning, and
providing timely and meaningful feedback to students. COMMENTS: |
Additional comments may be included on the reverse side of this form.
APM322c
This PDF is provided as a print-only reference document and may not be fully accessible to users of assistive technology. For more information, please visit Title II Rule on Digital Accessibility page.