Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
MEMORANDUM
FROM: William A. Covin Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
DATE: November 21, 2011
TO: Faculty Department of Nursing M/S MH 25
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 tentatively approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I am, however, concerned about your department’s use of a relatively low statistical standard for student ratings—a standard that may render data used to support AY12-13 RTP recommendations less than persuasive. Thus, it is my hope that, once AY11-12 data becomes widely available, you may wish to adjust the departmental standard upward to a more meaningful measure of relative teaching performance.
In the meantime, I 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: Andrew Hoff, Dean, College of Health and Human Services Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic
Personnel
DEPARTMENT OF NURSING 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 faculty member shall have all classes rated by students annually as per BRN requirements.
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 3.0 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
- Frequency
- For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two sections each academic year thereafter.
- 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 break in service.
- For probationary faculty, two sections (to include as many different courses as possible) each semester
- For tenured faculty, one class each academic year on a rotating basis such that during a five year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
- 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: 11.03.11
APM 322b
UNIVERSITY-WIDE PEER EVALUATION FORM
Department of Nursing
Instructor Evaluated:_________________________________
Rank:__________________ Course:______________________ Term/Year:__________
Date of Classroom Visitation:__________ Date Discussed with Instructor:__________
Name of Evaluator_______________________ Signature:_____________________
Ratings Scale 5 = superior I 4 = above average I 3 = average I 2 = below average I
1 = weak
Category Rating (1-5)
| Category | Rating (1-5) |
|---|---|
| A. Course Content. The assessment of course content shall include a re,view 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, or anization of lectures,
and the use of technolo a • oroiriate 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
Approved for use by Department 9/16/11
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.