A.    Teacher
B.    Students
C.    Faculty Peers
D.    Departmental Administrators (Chairs, Directors, etc.)

A.      Teacher’s self-appraisal: In addition to the revised CV included with his/her renewal dossier, each faculty member will submit a one-page self-appraisal which will reflect on teaching progress made since the last renewal and which will identify goals for the subsequent reappointment period.  In keeping with our College-wide commitment to teaching and our realization that honest self-reflection is a pre-requisite for teaching excellence, the chairpersons, directors, and deans encourage honesty and candor in these statements.  [Although beyond its charge, the Task Force recommends that such brief appraisals also be prepared for scholarship and for service.]

B.    Students: Course Evaluations prepared by students provide another perspective of the instructor’s teaching.  In all evaluations, we recommend that students be provided opportunities to indicate ratings for teaching effectiveness and to write comments that provide a necessary context for the ratings.  In addition, students should be asked to assess their own performance in the course as well as the degree to which they have benefited from the course.  Students may also be asked to evaluate any and/or all of the following: teaching skills, organization of the course, course materials and/or texts, course assignments, work load, teacher-student interaction, opportunities for conferences with the instructor, and interest in taking another course from the instructor.

The decision about what form(s) to use is to be made by the instructor within his/her departmental guidelines for Evaluation of Teaching.  Each department will be free to use the College form and/or to create others for its members.  Each dean will then review the forms to be certain they ask appropriate questions.

C.    Faculty Peers: As a statement of minimal requirements involving collegial review, we recommend the following:

1.    During a faculty member’s first year of teaching at Fredonia, he/she is to be observed twice by the same senior faculty member (a tenured associate or full professor) in the department.  One of those observations should be conducted early in the first semester and the observation report formally submitted before the chairperson writes the initial letter of renewal (often by November 1st).  Another observation of a different course will be done during the second semester, and the observation report is to be included in the subsequent renewal dossier.  The frequency of future observations will be at the department’s discretion.

2.     As preparation for classroom observations, we recommend that during AY 2002-2003, departments discuss the elements of a successful discipline-specific observation, and that guidelines for peer observations be distributed to all members of the department. As a starting point for these discussions, chairpersons might consider Appendices 12.4 and 12.5 in Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching (1999).

3.    Additional peer reviews may be submitted by a senior faculty member, perhaps the instructor’s mentor, who will review an instructor’s teaching materials, student work submitted, interest in teaching, and/or mastery of content knowledge.

4.    In the candidate’s 6th year (or in the year of the candidate’s tenure decision, should that happen before the 6th year), we recommend that departments encourage at least one peer observation before the chairperson’s letter of recommendation. 

D.     Administrators (Chairs, Directors, etc.).  Although departmental administrators write the renewal letters to the dean and hence will include information from A, B, and C above, their comments also provide a fourth and perhaps wider perspective on the instructor’s teaching effectiveness since the previous renewal.  The Task Force has focused most significantly on clarifying the expectations for the chairperson’s portion of the process with the hope that increased clarity at this stage will have a positive impact on all earlier and subsequent parts of the evaluation process.  While standardizing the process has not been our primary goal, some needed measure of consistency will undoubtedly result.  We recommend that chairpersons consider Joan DeGuire North’s essay, “Administrative Courage to Evaluate the Complexities of Teaching,” in Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching (183-193).

We also recommend that the chairperson’s letter to the dean include the following:

1.  Paragraph One – Introduction

a)   First person recommendation indicating appropriate consultation as defined by departmental guidelines for renewal, the vote of the department, and whether or not the chair supports this recommendation

b)   Present rank of the candidate, an indication of the candidate’s years of service within the department, and the intended term of reappointment.  (“We recommend that Assistant Professor X, a third year faculty member in the department, be renewed for her 5th year reappointment.”)

c)   Clarification of prior service credit, if applicable.  It might be useful to include the specific date for consideration for continuing appointment.  (“Dr. DuPont is scheduled to be considered for continuing appointment in the Spring 2006 semester.”)

2.  Paragraph Two – Assessment of Teaching

     a)   Identification of courses taught since candidate’s last renewal, student      enrollment, other teaching duties.

      b)  Discussion of the candidate’s teaching self-appraisal and/or an invitation to see the attached teaching statement.

      c)  Discussion of the results of student evaluations, including specific enough numerical information to indicate clearly the level of student satisfaction.

      d)  Concise summary of peer observation(s), and/or an invitation to see those attached.

      e)  Summary of chair’s or peer review of syllabi, handouts, assignments, tests, and other teaching materials.

      f)  Brief discussion of any other teaching documentation provided by the candidate.

      g)  If there are concerns about teaching effectiveness, a statement should be included to indicate expectations for improvement, suggestions/advice on how improvement might be accomplished, and a supportive statement indicating resources (such as peer observations and conferences, consultation with mentor or other faculty & staff, workshop attendance, etc.) that would be available to the faculty member to improve his/her teaching; indication of an appropriate time frame for progress toward these improvements.

E.     At the conclusion of the evaluation/renewal process, we recommend that chairpersons   and candidates hold annual conferences to discuss the instructor’s self-appraisal, teaching plans for the next reappointment period, and any teaching problems either would like to address.