We use cookies on our site to analyze traffic, enhance your experience, and provide you with tailored content.

For more information visit our privacy policy.

Faculty Evaluation Process Sample Clauses

Faculty Evaluation Process. The Faculty Evaluation shall include the Faculty member’s: (a) self-evaluation; (b) classroom observation(s); (c) student evaluations of instruction; and, (d) Xxxx’x evaluation and narrative. A. Self-evaluations will be a substantive element of the annual review process. Faculty are asked to evaluate their professional performance using the criteria set forth in Article 11, section 4.E. B. Classroom observation(s) are required each year for annual contract Faculty in the first five (5) years of their employment and bi-annually thereafter. Classroom observations by the Xxxx shall be part of the evaluation process. These observations shall occur when the Faculty member is performing regular duties and shall be a minimum of thirty (30) minutes. The Xxxx shall set the time and date of the classroom observation associated with the evaluation process and will provide the Faculty member with at least one week’s notice. Classroom observations may also be made at other times of the academic year and outside of the evaluation process when determined necessary by the Xxxx or Director. C. When a classroom observation is requested by the Faculty member, the Faculty member and Xxxx shall determine a mutually agreed upon date. In every case, results of the observation shall be written in the evaluation and provided to the Faculty member. D. Each teaching Faculty member shall be evaluated each semester by his/her students, and the results will be discussed with the Faculty member by the Faculty member’s Xxxx or Director. The summary of these results will be distributed to the Faculty member in a timely manner. E. The Xxxx or Director shall evaluate each Faculty member per the guidelines, quantitative measures and factors stated in section 4.E., Article
Faculty Evaluation Process. Faculty evaluation is a holistic process Academic faculty evaluations involve a balance between the faculty member’s annual plan, the self-evaluation of the annual plan, classroom observations, student evaluations and the supervisor’s evaluation of the faculty member’s performance. Administrative faculty evaluations involve a balance between goal-setting, fulfillment of position responsibilities, and measurable achievements. Both processes consist of a written assessment and an assignment of an overall rating. Each faculty member and HR will receive copies of the evaluator’s written evaluation when the process is complete.
Faculty Evaluation Process. The Faculty Evaluation Process shall be on a three-year cycle, with the supervising administrator evaluating a course/ lab of the faculty member during the third year of the cycle. (Note: Faculty shall be divided into three groups using last names that begin with A-I, J-R, and S-Z). A collegial conference (which may either be verbal or written) shall occur during the first two years of the faculty evaluation process. The collegial conference shall include: a. A discussion of the Faculty Member's 3-5 goals and their progress/ attainment. b. A discussion of the Faculty Member’s efforts to improve student learning in his/her courses (including a review of student perception of instruction surveys). c. A discussion of the Faculty Member’s contributions as an "active citizen" to the overall support of the College over the past year. Such endeavors may include curriculum (re) development, recruitment of students, and/ or promotion of College-wide activities. d. A discussion of the Faculty Member’s participation in committee assignments. e. A discussion of Faculty Member’s contributions as a Department Chair or Program Chair, as applicable.
Faculty Evaluation Process. Because the new faculty member in the NEFDP will be on a tenure track during this funding period, the goal of the program is to aid in their retention by the Department of Nuclear Engineering. Our success in retaining our junior faculty depends greatly on how they perform in the evaluation process at the University of Tennessee. Junior faculty will be formally evaluated on an annual basis by the program administrator, Xx. Xxx Xxxxx. The evaluation includes a rubric designed to both rate and track the performance of the junior faculty member through the probationary period before tenure review. The goal of this evaluation is to provide feedback to junior faculty on their progress in meeting the high expectations for tenure in the College of Engineering. These expectations include consistent and demonstrated success in: teaching, measured by student evaluations and peer review; research and scholarship, measured by publications in highly respected peer reviewed journals, the ability of the faculty member to bring in external funded research projects; research administration, measured by the success in funding, mentoring, and graduating Masters and Ph.D. students; and service to the department, the university, the scientific community, and professional societies. Furthermore, awards in teaching, research, and service are also considered. The goal of the NEFDP is to ensure that high-quality, nuclear engineering faculty members are developed in such a way that they will be retained in the tenure process. As such, the evaluation criteria used in the NEFDP are the same as they are for the university’s promotion and tenure process. The entire text of the University of Tennessee’s “Guidelines for the Tenure and Promotion Review Process” is too long to include in this proposal, but for promotion of tenure-track faculty, the following areas are listed as “Essential” requirements: Service – Peer review of papers or proposals, professional societies, conference committees. In addition, there are several areas listed as Desirable or Beneficial for promotion. Some of those areas are: - Evidence of Teaching Innovation (course content /design/ breadth) - Undergraduate student advising, student organizations advising - Management of multiple contracts/grants - Refereed conference proceedings/ publications, Invited presentations, Other scholarly work (textbooks, monographs, patents, software, etc.) - University Citizenship (internal service to department, college, university...
Faculty Evaluation Process 

Related to Faculty Evaluation Process

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order. (b) The technical evaluation committee may call the responsive bidders for discussion or presentation to facilitate and assess their understanding of the scope of work and its execution. However, the committee shall have sole discretion to call for discussion / presentation. (c) Financial bids of only those bidders who qualify the technical criteria will be opened provided all other requirements are fulfilled. (d) AIIMS Jodhpur shall have right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof.

  • Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.

  • PROGRESS EVALUATION Engineer shall, from time to time during the progress of the Engineering Services, confer with County at County’s election. Engineer shall prepare and present such information as may be pertinent and necessary, or as may be reasonably requested by County, in order for County to evaluate features of the Engineering Services. At the request of County or Engineer, conferences shall be provided at Engineer's office, the offices of County, or at other locations designated by County. When requested by County, such conferences shall also include evaluation of the Engineering Services. County may, from time to time, require Engineer to appear and provide information to the Williamson County Commissioners Court. Should County determine that the progress in Engineering Services does not satisfy an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, then County shall review same with Engineer to determine corrective action required. Engineer shall promptly advise County in writing of events which have or may have a significant impact upon the progress of the Engineering Services, including but not limited to the following: A. Problems, delays, adverse conditions which may materially affect the ability to meet the objectives of an applicable Work Authorization or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto, or preclude the attainment of Project Engineering Services units by established time periods; and such disclosure shall be accompanied by statement of actions taken or contemplated, and County assistance needed to resolve the situation, if any; and B. Favorable developments or events which enable meeting goals sooner than anticipated in relation to an applicable Work Authorization’s or any Supplemental Work Authorization related thereto.

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP 00-00-000, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. The Choate Team will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.

  • MANAGEMENT OF EVALUATION OUTCOMES 12.1 Where the Employer is, any time during the Employee’s employment, not satisfied with the Employee’s performance with respect to any matter dealt with in this Agreement, the Employer will give notice to the Employee to attend a meeting; 12.2 The Employee will have the opportunity at the meeting to satisfy the Employer of the measures being taken to ensure that his performance becomes satisfactory and any programme, including any dates, for implementing these measures; 12.3 Where there is a dispute or difference as to the performance of the Employee under this Agreement, the Parties will confer with a view to resolving the dispute or difference; and 12.4 In the case of unacceptable performance, the Employer shall – 12.4.1 Provide systematic remedial or developmental support to assist the Employee to improve his performance; and 12.4.2 After appropriate performance counselling and having provided the necessary guidance and/or support as well as reasonable time for improvement in performance, the Employer may consider steps to terminate the contract of employment of the Employee on grounds of unfitness or incapacity to carry out his or her duties.

  • Formal Evaluation All formal evaluations of personnel shall be conducted openly and with full knowledge of the employee concerned by an administrator or supervisor of the District.

  • Student Evaluation a. The President of the College or the President’s designee shall be responsible for administering the student evaluation process. b. Student evaluation packets for each class containing instruments and instructions shall be distributed to each faculty member by the first week of December during the fall semester and by the last week in April during the spring semester. c. It is expressly agreed that the faculty member being evaluated shall not be present in the classroom when the student evaluation is being administered and that all instruction to students with regard to such student evaluation shall be included in writing on the instrument, provided further that the designated unit or non-unit professional shall return the student evaluation directly to the President of the College or the President’s designee. The administering of the student evaluation shall be the responsibility of the President of the College or the President’s designee who shall determine who among unit or non-unit professionals shall administer such student evaluation. Student evaluations shall be valid only if signed by the student; provided, however, that faculty members shall not be entitled to the identity of the student responding unless such student evaluation is used as a basis for dismissal or other disciplinary action and such will be communicated to the students. d. The data from the student evaluation shall be tabulated and copies sent to the President of the College or the President’s designee. The raw data shall be retained by the College for a period of one (1) year during which time the faculty member shall have access thereto upon written request. e. The President of the College or the President’s designee shall review the tabulated data and shall forward a data summary to the faculty member by January 23 for the fall semester and by June 15 for the spring semester. f. The faculty member shall have seven (7) working days in which to respond to such data.