We have the shared responsibility to improve our evaluation procedures of teaching.  Our goal should be to investigate and evaluate all aspects of an individual's teaching--large class, small group, graduate seminar, curriculum development, Ph.D., Master's, or professional student supervision, academic advising, etc. Therefore, information on all such activities should be sought.

Summaries of student evaluations should be included in each folder, including a list of all courses taught, a sample of the evaluation forms, class size, percentage responding, data for comparison with the rest of the departmental staff, and departmental policies on administering the surveys.  These materials must not be prepared by the candidate.

Evaluations of teaching should also include:

(i) Statistical analysis of student evaluations.  Faculty legislation of May 1996, requires that “The statistical analysis of course evaluations shall include the mean raw scores for all questions relevant to teaching and learning. The reports shall include raw mean scores for the faculty member and the department.  It shall also include other valid mechanisms which compare each course and/or instructor to composite scores of the entire department. Where feasible, departments are strongly encouraged to include raw scores and comparators to course offerings of a similar size and level, and/or to the same or similar courses in recent years”. The recent legislation does not define or proscribe the “valid mechanisms” used to compare the faculty member with the mean for the department.  Such comparators should, where feasible, provide an indication of the statistical uncertainty (e.g., standard deviation) of the mean raw scores.  Submission of z-scores is not prohibited by this legislation.

(ii) An evaluative summary of teaching prepared by the department head, the review committee chairperson, or senior faculty members, and never by the candidate.

(iii) Especially in tenure cases, more teaching data are often needed.  The May 1996 legislation requires that quantitative student questionnaires be used to evaluate all courses taught by tenure-track faculty with enrollments greater than 10 students, and written comments shall be solicited from students in ALL courses.  All available teaching data and summaries should be part of the file, not just a selection of the material. Until evaluations for all courses taught by a candidate for promotion and/or tenure are available, some discussion of why the department chose the courses for evaluation also would be instructive.

(iv) Detailed reports of classroom visitations, and peer evaluations of teaching, are especially informative. Faculty legislation of May 1996 requires at least one peer evaluation for each assistant professor during each of the three years preceding the promotion/tenure review.  Associate professors are to have peer evaluations conducted for at least one course every other year.  Reports of all available peer observations and evaluations should be included in the file.

(v) A thorough evaluation of examinations and assessment of course syllabi, comments on expectations of students and the nature of feedback provided can enhance the presentation of teaching and should be included in the dossier.

(vi) A list of all post-doctoral Fellows, Ph.D., Master's, and undergraduate students who have carried out independent research/scholarship with the candidate. Indicate the years in which degrees were received and current place/status of employment if available.  Add commentary that gives perspective on the candidate in guiding these types of Fellows or students and compare with typical pattern of such education in the field.