Common use of Sources and Methods of Evaluation Clause in Contracts

Sources and Methods of Evaluation. ‌ In preparing the annual evaluation, the person(s) responsible for evaluating the Faculty Member may consider, where appropriate, information from the following sources: immediate Supervisor, peers, students, Faculty Member/self, other University officials who have responsibility for supervision of the Faculty Member, and individuals to whom the Faculty Member may be responsible in the course of a service assignment, including public school officials when a Faculty Member has a service assignment to the public schools. Student Evaluations. Section 11.2(b) (Sources and Methods of Evaluation) will go into effect on the first day of the Fall 2010 Semester. (1) Student evaluations are a regular part of faculty evaluation. Therefore, each Fall and Spring Semester, Faculty will ensure that student evaluations (using the standard University form) are administered for every course and every section taught. Such student evaluations, including narrative comments, will be provided to the Department Chair/Director so as to be included in the material considered for the Faculty Member’s annual evaluation. (2) Considerations for Fair and Equitable Treatment. a. Faculty Members will have the right to rebut student evaluation comments and feedback by preparing a written rebuttal. There will be no limit to the length of the rebuttal. The rebuttal will be attached to the student evaluations in the Faculty Member’s master evaluation file. The rebuttal should address extenuating circumstances and other factors that might clarify how comments and numerical ratings should be interpreted by Supervisors. b. No personnel action will be taken on the basis of student narrative comments that have not been corroborated by evidence other than student evaluations. c. Written comments from students will be considered in the context of other information submitted by the Faculty Member about teaching performance. d. Beginning with the 2018–2019 Academic Year, Faculty are required to submit at least one example of teaching quality in addition to the standard university teaching assessment material. Examples should be consistent with indicators identified in the Tenure and Promotion guidelines, such as outcome assessment data, peer review observations, syllabi, assessment samples, etc. Acceptable supplemental examples may also be outlined in Department/Unit bylaws. e. Summaries of student evaluations, including the narrative comments, will be provided to the Faculty Member at least fourteen (14) Days in advance of the Faculty Member’s due date for annual evaluation materials. In the event that a Faculty Member receives his or her student evaluation data less than fourteen

Sources and Methods of Evaluation. ‌ (a) In preparing the annual evaluation, the person(s) responsible for evaluating the Faculty Member faculty member may consider, where appropriate, information from the following sources: immediate Supervisorsupervisor, peers, students, Faculty Memberfaculty member/self, other University officials who have responsibility for supervision of the Faculty Memberfaculty member, and individuals to whom the Faculty Member faculty member may be responsible in the course of a service assignment, including public school officials when a Faculty Member faculty member has a service assignment to the public schools. . (b) Student Evaluations. Section 11.2(b) (Sources and Methods of Evaluationl 1.2(b) will go into effect on the first day of the Fall 2010 Semestersemester. (1) Student evaluations are a regular part of faculty evaluation. Therefore, each Fall and Spring Semestersemester, Faculty faculty will ensure that student evaluations (using the standard University form) are administered for every course and every section taught. Such student evaluations, including narrative comments, will be provided to the Department Chair/Director so as to be included in the material considered for the Faculty Memberfaculty member’s annual evaluation. (2) Considerations for Fair and Equitable Treatment. a. Faculty Members members will have the right to rebut student evaluation comments and feedback by preparing a written rebuttal. There will be no limit to the length of the rebuttal. The rebuttal will be attached to the student evaluations in the Faculty Member’s faculty member's master evaluation file. The rebuttal should address extenuating circumstances and other factors that might clarify how comments and numerical ratings should be interpreted by Supervisorssupervisors. b. No personnel action will be taken on the basis of student narrative comments that have not been corroborated by evidence other than student evaluations. c. Written comments from students will be considered in the context of other information submitted by the Faculty Member faculty member about teaching performance. d. Beginning with the 2018–2019 Academic Year2018-2019 academic year, Faculty faculty are required to submit at least one example exemplar of teaching quality in addition to the standard university teaching assessment material. Examples Exemplars should be consistent with indicators identified in the Tenure and Promotion guidelines, such as outcome assessment data, peer review observations, syllabi, assessment samples, etc. Acceptable supplemental examples exemplars may also be outlined in Departmentdepartmental/Unit unit bylaws. e. Summaries of student evaluations, including the narrative comments, will be provided to the Faculty Member faculty member at least fourteen (14) Days days in advance of the Faculty Memberfaculty member’s due date for annual evaluation materials. In the event that a Faculty Member faculty member receives his or her student evaluation data less than fourteen

Sources and Methods of Evaluation. ‌ (a) In preparing the annual evaluation, the person(s) responsible for evaluating the Faculty Member faculty member may consider, where appropriate, information from the following sources: immediate Supervisorsupervisor, peers, students, Faculty Memberfaculty member/self, other University officials who have responsibility for supervision of the Faculty Memberfaculty member, and individuals to whom the Faculty Member faculty member may be responsible in the course of a service assignment, including public school officials when a Faculty Member faculty member has a service assignment to the public schools. . (b) Student Evaluations. Section 11.2(b) (Sources and Methods of Evaluation) will go into effect on the first day of the Fall 2010 Semestersemester. (1) Student evaluations are a regular part of faculty evaluation. Therefore, each Fall and Spring Semestersemester, Faculty faculty will ensure that student evaluations (using the standard University form) are administered for every course and every section taught. Such student evaluations, including narrative comments, will be provided to the Department Chair/Director so as to be included in the material considered for the Faculty Memberfaculty member’s annual evaluation. (2) Considerations for Fair and Equitable Treatment. a. Faculty Members members will have the right to rebut student evaluation comments and feedback by preparing a written rebuttal. There will be no limit to the length of the rebuttal. The rebuttal will be attached to the student evaluations in the Faculty Memberfaculty member’s master evaluation file. The rebuttal should address extenuating circumstances and other factors that might clarify how comments and numerical ratings should be interpreted by Supervisorssupervisors. b. No personnel action will be taken on the basis of student narrative comments that have not been corroborated by evidence other than student evaluations. c. Written comments from students will be considered in the context of other information submitted by the Faculty Member faculty member about teaching performance. d. Beginning with the 2018–2019 Academic Year, Faculty are required encouraged to submit at least one example other exemplars of teaching quality in addition to the standard university teaching assessment material. Examples should be quality, consistent with indicators identified in the Tenure and Promotion guidelines, such as outcome assessment data, peer review observations, syllabi, assessment samples, etc. Acceptable supplemental examples may also be outlined in Department/Unit bylaws. e. Summaries of student evaluations, including the narrative comments, will be provided to the Faculty Member faculty member at least fourteen (14) Days days in advance of the Faculty Memberfaculty member’s due date for annual evaluation materials. In the event that a Faculty Member faculty member receives his or her student evaluation data less than fourteen

Sources and Methods of Evaluation. ‌ (a) In preparing the annual evaluation, the person(s) responsible for evaluating the Faculty Member faculty member may consider, where appropriate, information from the following sources: immediate Supervisorsupervisor, peers, students, Faculty Memberfaculty member/self, other University officials who have responsibility for supervision of the Faculty Memberfaculty member, and individuals to whom the Faculty Member faculty member may be responsible in the course of a service assignment, including public school officials when a Faculty Member faculty member has a service assignment to the public schools. . (b) Student Evaluations. Section 11.2(b) (Sources and Methods of Evaluationl 1.2(b) will go into effect on the first day of the Fall 2010 Semestersemester. (1) Student evaluations are a regular part of faculty evaluation. Therefore, each Fall and Spring Semestersemester, Faculty faculty will ensure that student evaluations (using the standard University form) are administered for every course and every section taught. Such student evaluations, including narrative comments, will be provided to the Department Chair/Director so as to be included in the material considered for the Faculty Memberfaculty member’s annual evaluation. (2) Considerations for Fair and Equitable Treatment. a. Faculty Members members will have the right to rebut student evaluation comments and feedback by preparing a written rebuttal. There will be no limit to the length of the rebuttal. The rebuttal will be attached to the student evaluations in the Faculty Member’s faculty member's master evaluation file. The rebuttal should address extenuating circumstances and other factors that might clarify how comments and numerical ratings should be interpreted by Supervisorssupervisors. b. No personnel action will be taken on the basis of student narrative comments that have not been corroborated by evidence other than student evaluations. c. Written comments from students will be considered in the context of other information submitted by the Faculty Member faculty member about teaching performance. d. Beginning with the 2018–2019 Academic Year2018-2019 academic year, Faculty faculty are required to submit at least one example exemplar of teaching quality in addition to the standard university teaching assessment material. Examples Exemplars should be consistent with indicators identified in the Tenure and Promotion guidelines, such as outcome assessment data, peer review observations, syllabi, assessment samples, etc. Acceptable supplemental examples exemplars may also be outlined in Departmentdepartmental/Unit unit bylaws. e. Summaries of student evaluations, including the narrative comments, will be provided to the Faculty Member faculty member at least fourteen (14) Days days in advance of the Faculty Memberfaculty member’s due date for annual evaluation materials. In the event that a Faculty Member faculty member receives his or her student evaluation data less than fourteenfourteen (14) days prior to this due date, the deadline for faculty submission of materials will be moved forward proportionally. (c) Classroom Observation/Evaluation of Online Instruction. The faculty member, if assigned teaching duties, will be notified at least two (2) weeks in advance of the date, time, and place of any direct classroom observation or evaluation of online instruction made in connection with the faculty member's annual evaluation. Upon notification, a three stage process will begin. First, a meeting will be set for the faculty member to present context/stage setting for the observation and, in the case of online instruction, the scope of the evaluation. Stage two will consist of the actual observations(s)/evaluation(s). The final stage will be a feedback cycle which includes written comment to the faculty member. If agreement on a date for the observation/evaluation is not reached, the faculty member will be notified at least two (2) weeks in advance of two (2) dates when two (2) observations/evaluations will be made. (1) Nothing herein shall prohibit any chair/supervisor or Administration representative from visiting any classroom for investigative purposes when deemed appropriate by the University President or designee.