Policy on Unit Evaluation of Teaching

We expect that our faculty’s teaching will be evaluated with intention and attention that reflects the importance of teaching to our mission and the relative percentage of time assigned to this activity in faculty workloads. To this end, the College of Arts and Sciences establishes the following policy for evaluation of teaching.

This policy applies to unit evaluation of teaching and instruction for promotion and tenure, annual evaluation, reappointment, mid-probationary review, post-tenure review, and related processes. Units are responsible for the evaluation of faculty teaching, research, and service. This policy provides the framework within which Arts and Science units must work for their evaluation of teaching. Units are responsible for determining their own discipline-specific policies for evaluating teaching and for incorporating these policies into their department documents.

Unit policies for evaluation of teaching must:  

  • reflect the Arts and Sciences Teaching Values and Commitments. This may be accomplished via explicit alignment of rubrics to the commitments plus any additional criteria aligned to the general college values or unit-specific goals. It may instead be accomplished more holistically, as long as it is clear how the holistic evaluation reflects the Values and Commitments.
  • require candidates to submit a set of clearly defined teaching-related artifacts in addition to TEVALs as part of all processes that require evaluation of teaching. Annual processes such as reappointment and evaluation may require subsets of the artifacts required for promotion and tenure. Note: Artifacts for promotion and tenure should be included as an Appendix in Section X in the K-State Promotion and Tenure Template.
  • articulate the process for making the overall evaluation of teaching.
  • incorporate the evaluation of teaching into the faculty member’s overall assessment or evaluation in alignment with the faculty member’s workload for the evaluation period. This may be done through either a direct numeric weighting or some other method, with the following exceptions:
    • In no case where teaching is 20% or greater of a faculty member’s workload should an individual receive “meets expectations” (or the equivalent) or above in overall evaluation if they fail to meet minimum expectations in teaching.    

In addition, unit policies for evaluation of teaching may:

  • require evidence of student learning as part of any of the above evaluation or review processes. The evaluation of such evidence must recognize that student learning depends on a number of factors beyond quality of instruction. 
  • allow additional questions related to the Arts and Sciences Teaching Values and Commitments to be added to TEVALs to provide supporting evidence from students for the evaluation of teaching.
  • include peer observations of teaching.

Units have flexibility in how they evaluate teaching within these guidelines and in accordance with their own specific disciplinary expectations. To support units in their implementation, this policy is accompanied by examples of arfacts units might collect as evidence for the Teaching Values and Commitments.

Example Artifacts and Questions for Unit Evaluation of Teaching

The College of Arts and Sciences Policy on Unit Evaluation of Teaching requires that standards and policies for evaluation of teaching should reflect the college's Teaching Values and Commitments. Here we provide examples of artifacts and questions that departments could use as part of their evaluation process. Units are not required to use these examples but are encouraged to review these suggestions as guidance and support as they work to modify their policies and Departmental Documents. The general values articulated in the College of Arts and Sciences Teaching Values and Commitments are broad; only some general suggestions are provided for those. For each of the five specific Teaching Commitments, we include the following:

  • Suggested artifacts that units could collect to gather evidence related to that commitment.
  • Suggested questions that units could ask candidates as part of their submission. The answers would then qualify as artifacts for the purpose of the policy.

It is up to the unit to decide what artifacts to collect, which questions to ask (if any), or any other form of evidence they determine is relevant. Units should also determine and articulate how the evidence they collect will be evaluated. This could be a holistic evaluation of all the Teaching Values and Commitments, an evaluation of each specific Value and Commitment individually, or anywhere in between. Some of the artifacts and questions may be useful for multiple Teaching Values and Commitments.

Values

Evaluation of how teaching reflects the broad values articulated in the College of Arts & Sciences Teaching Values & Commitments may occur in a variety of ways and may include (but is not limited to):

  • how teaching aligns with university, college, program, or disciplinary goals;
  • how disciplinary expertise is brought into teaching;
  • evidence of student learning;
  • evidence of other positive student outcomes such as impact on interest or career readiness.

Commitments

Commitment 1: Clearly articulates and communicates student learning objectives and expectations

Suggested Artifacts
  • Syllabus
  • Course learning goals or learning objectives at the:
    • Course level
    • Unit level
    • Week level
    • Lesson level
Suggested Questions
  • What process did you use to determine the learning objectives for your course?
  • With whom did you discuss your learning goals/objectives for your course?
  • How did you determine the learning goals/objectives?

Commitment 2: employs student-centered, accessible instruction and materials to foster student success

Suggested Artifacts
  • Instruction Materials:
    • Lecture Notes
    • Presentations
    • Lesson Plans
  • Feedback from peer observations
  • Evidence of a positive classroom climate
  • TEVALs
Suggested Questions
  • What process did you use to develop the instructional materials for your course?
  • How does your course design support your course being student-centered?
  • How do you determine what to do with students in the classroom vs outside of the classroom?
  • What assignments, assessments, and learning activities are implemented to help students learn?
  • How do you determine if the students are engaged in the learning process?
  • How does your course design promote a classroom that is engaging, supportive, accessible, and inclusive?
  • How do you design your instructional materials to prepare your students to be successful on your assessments and meet your learning goals/objectives?

Commitment 3: implements fair and transparent assessment practices that provide constructive feedback to students

Suggested Artifacts
  • Course assignments:
    • Summative
    • Formative
  • Course exams
  • Course calendar
  • Anonymized examples of student work
  • Commitment
Suggested Questions
  • What process did you use to develop the assessments for your course?
  • What types of assessments did you use to support students’ learning and how did you determine if the students met your learning goals/objectives?
  • How did you provide feedback to your students about their learning?

Commitment 4: aligns student learning objectives, instruction and materials, and assessment across the course

Suggested Artifacts
  • Learning goals or learning objectives at the:
    • Course level
    • Unit level
    • Week level
    • Lesson level
  • Course assignments:
    • Summative
    • Formative
  • Instruction Materials:
    • Lecture Notes
    • Presentations
    • Lesson Plans
  • Aligned course assignments, instructional materials, and learning goals
Suggested Questions
  • How do you design your assessments to collect evidence of student learning towards the learning goal(s) you’ve chosen?
  • How do your instructional materials prepare your students to succeed on your assessments?
  • How do you ensure that your course supports students to achieve the learning goals you’ve set for the course?

Commitment 5: is regularly refined based on disciplinary best practices and reflection on student outcomes

Suggested Artifacts
  • List of professional development activities the faculty member has engaged with and used.
  • Statement of how course design has been modified in response to student or course assessments
Suggested Questions
  • What is your process for reflecting on and continuously improving/innovating your courses?
  • Summarize how you interpreted your TEVALs and what you plan to change in the future because of them?
  • How have you used results of assessments, professional development experiences, and feedback to modify and improve your course, both within the same course and in future semesters?
  • How do you handle situations where students are not meeting your learning goals/objectives?