Approval of the Revised Public Health Department Policy on Peer Evaluations and Student Course Evaluations (APM 322)

California State University, Fresno
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak Administrative Center
Henry Madden Library, Suite 4116
5200 North Barton Avenue, M/S ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/

Memorandum letterhead and approval notice from California State University, Fresno

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: May 2, 2022

TO: Faculty Department of Public Health M/S MH 30

FROM: Xuanning Fu Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

SUBJECT: Approval of the Revised Public Health Department Policy on Peer Evaluations and Student Course Evaluations (APM 322)

I have received and reviewed the documentation regarding the modification of items in both the student ratings of instruction and peer evaluations sections, dated April 27, 2022. They are approved for implementation effective immediately.

XF:dd

cc: Denise Seabert, Dean, College of Health and Human Services James Schmidtke, Interim AVP for Faculty Affairs

University-wide peer evaluation form for the Department of Public Health

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS

APM 233 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is designed to further define requirements at the Department level as specified in APM 322.

STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION

The FSSRI instrument will be the standard instrument for the campus.

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 of 3.5 out of 5 using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever is 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 timeframe.

  1. Minimum Frequency
    1. For temporary faculty, full-time or part-time, each section, each semester.
    2. For probationary faculty, each section, each semester.
    3. For tenured faculty, two sections each academic year, on a rotating basis such that during a five-year period the maximum number of different courses are evaluated.

PEER EVALUATIONS

  1. Minimum Frequency
    1. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and, thereafter, at least one section every other year of employment regardless of a break in service.
    2. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two sections each academic year thereafter.
    3. For probationary faculty, two sections (to include as many different courses as possible) every semester.
    4. 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.
  3. Notification: At the discretion of the evaluator, the evaluatee can be notified in advance of the classroom visit but it is not required.

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

This departmental policy will be submitted to the Dean of the College of Health and Human Services and to the Provost for review and approval.

Last Updated: April 27, 2022 APM

322b

California State University, Fresno
UNIVERSITY-WIDE PEER EVALUATION FORM
Department of Public Health

Professor Evaluated: _________________________ Signature: __________________________
Rank: _____________________ Course: ________________________ Term/Year____________
Date of Classroom Visitation: ______________________________________________________
Name of Evaluator ___________________________ Signature: __________________________
Did the evaluated instructor know in advance evaluation was to be this hour? Yes No
Category Rating (1-5)

  1. 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:
  2. 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:
  3. 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:
  4. 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:

Rating Scale: 5 = Superior | 4 = Above Average | 3 = Average | 2 = Below Average | 1 = Weak

Additional comments may be included on the reverse side of this

form.APM322c

Download the PDF

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.