'MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Africana Studies Program
M/S SB 69
FROM:
William A. Covin
Provost and Vice esi sent for Academic Affairs
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
tentatively approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I am, however, concerned about your department's use of a relatively low
statistical standard for student ratings—a standard that may render data used to
support AY12-13 RTP recommendations less than persuasive. Thus, it is my
hope that, once AY11-12 data becomes widely available, you may wish to adjust
the departmental standard upward to a more meaningful measure of relative
teaching performance.
In the meantime, I want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's
stated beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective,
and considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc:
Luz Gonzalez, Dean, College of Social Sciences
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak
Wrninistrative Center
Henri Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. M/S ML54
Fre n
s o, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY '
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
Africana Studies Program
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. The Program's policy is
designed to further define requirements at the Program's level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
Each tenure track and part time faculty member (including full-time lecturers) shall select a minimum
of two sections rated by students per semester, so as to have assessment of most of the courses taught by
each faculty member on an annual basis.
Each tenured faculty member (including FERP faculty) shall select a minimum of two sections rated by
students per year, so as to have assessment of most of the courses taught by each faculty member on an
annual basis.
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to use
either the Diagnostic Form or Online version.
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and
effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the Program standard of 3.0 out of
5.0, using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher for each course assessed, on a regular basis;
however, it is more important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a single
course or a single year.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and, thereafter, at
least one section every other year of employment regardless of a break in service.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two sections each
academic year thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, two sections every semester (to include as many different courses as
possible).
d. For tenured faculty, one section every year on a rotating basis such that during a five year period the
maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use the attached Program-approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional Design,
Instructional Delivery, Assessment Methods, and provide recommendations for improvement.
a. Peer evaluators are encouraged to meet individually with faculty being evaluated to discuss
recommendations and feedback.
OVERALL
The Program will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing committees
selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching. Participation in Program self studies (SOAP) will not
be used as part of the assessment of individual faculty teaching effectiveness. The Africana Studies
Program reserves the right to adjust this policy, including the student ratings standard, as deemed necessary
and will submit a revised policy for approval if and when such a change is made.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Program policies will be submitted to the Dean of the College of Social Sciences and to the Provost for
review and approval.
Last Updated: September 26, 2011
California State University, Fresno
Africana Studies Program
PEER EVALUATION FORM
Professor Evaluated:
Term/Year:
Course:
Evaluation Date:
/
/
Evaluator:
Category
A. Course Content. Includes a review of the contemporary literature used within the course content, the
appropriateness of the level of the content, and the appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best
achieve the learning objectives for the course.
COMMENTS:
B. Instructional Design. Includes a review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials,
organization of lectures, and the use of technology appropriate to the course.
COMMENTS:
C. Instructional Delivery. Includes a review of oral presentation skills, written communication skills, skills
using various forms of informational technology, and the ability to create an overall environment conducive
to student learning.
COMMENTS:
D. Assessment Methods. Does the syllabus include tools and methods appropriate for assessing student
learning and providing feedback to students?
COMMENTS:
E. Recommendations/Feedback.
COMMENTS:
APM322c
'MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Anthropology
M/S PB 20
FROM:
William A. Covi
Provost and Vice Presilent for Academic Affairs
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
tentatively approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I am, however, concerned about your department's use of a relatively low
statistical standard for student ratings—a standard that may render data used to
support AY12-13 RTP recommendations less than persuasive. Thus, it is my
hope that, once AY11-12 data becomes widely available, you may wish to adjust
the departmental standard upward to a more meaningful measure of relative
teaching performance.
In the meantime, I want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's
stated beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective,
and considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc:
Luz Gonzalez, Dean, College of Social Sciences
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak
tdministrative Center
Henry Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. M/S M154
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is
designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to
use either the Diagnostic Form or Online version.
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and
effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the department standard 3.0 out
of 5.0 using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher, on a regular basis; however, it is more
important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a single course or narrow
time frame.
Frequency
a. For part-time and full-time temporary faculty, each faculty member shall have all sections rated by
students every semester.
b. For probationary faculty, each faculty member should have a minimum of two sections rated (to
include as many different courses as possible) every semester.
c. For tenured faculty, each faculty shall have a minimum of two sections rated by students annually.
PEER EVALUATIONS
I.
Frequency
a. For part-time and full-time temporary faculty, one section each semester.
b. For probationary faculty, one section every semester.
d. For tenured faculty, one section each every semester.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing
committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the appropriate School/College Dean and to the Provost for
review and approval.
PEER EVALUATION FORM
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Professor Evaluated:
Rank:
Course:
Date of Classroom Visitation:
Signature:
Term/Year:
Name of Evaluator:
Category:
A. Course Content. The assessment of course content shall include a review of the currency of the
content of a course, the appropriateness of the level of the content of a course, and the
appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve the learning objectives for the
course.
B. Instructional Design. The assessment of the instructional design of the course shall include a
review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials, organization of lectures, and
the use of technology appropriate to the class.
The assessment of delivery shall include a review of oral presentation
skills, skills using various forms of informational technology, and the ability to create an overall
environment conducive to learning.
C. Instructional Delivery.
D. Assessment Methods. The evaluation of assessment methods shall consist of a review of the
tools, procedures, and strategies used for measuring student learning, and providing timely and
meaningful feedback to students.
OVERALL RANKING
Substantial Improvement Meets Departmental
Inadequate
Needed
Expectations
Exceeds Departmental
Standards
*MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Criminology
MIS ST 104
FROM:
William A. Covin
Provost and Vice resi ent for Academic Affairs
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
tentatively approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I am, however, concerned about your department's use of a relatively low
statistical standard for student ratings—a standard that may render data used to
support AY12-13 WIT recommendations less than persuasive. Thus, it is my
hope that, once AY11-12 data becomes widely available, you may wish to adjust
the departmental standard upward to a more meaningful measure of relative
teaching performance.
In the meantime, I want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's
stated beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective,
and considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc:
Luz Gonzalez, Dean, College of Social Sciences
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak
Administrative Center
Hemy Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. M/S ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is
designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
Each faculty member shall have a minimum of two sections rated by students annually.
The IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for Criminology.
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and
effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the department standard 3.0
out of 5.0 using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher, on a regular basis; however, it is
more important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a single course or
narrow time frame.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and,
thereafter, at least one section every other year of employment regardless of a break in service.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two
sections each academic year thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, two sections (to include as many different courses as possible)
every semester.
d. For tenured faculty, one section each academic year on a rotating basis such that during a five
year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use the attached Departmentally approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional
Design, Instructional Delivery and Assessment methods.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing
committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the appropriate School/College Dean and to the Provost for
review and approval.
Last Updated: September 2011.
APM 322b
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Peer Classroom Visitation Evaluation Sheet
Evaluator:
Professor Evaluated:
Rank/Title:
Rank/Title:
Department Chair Signature
Signature:
Term:
Course:
Visitation Date:
Hours:
Room:
Did evaluated professor know in advance if evaluation was to be made?
Yes
No
Comments should appear under each heading. Comments can vary from an adjective or two ("Satisfactory," "Good because. . . ,"
etc.) to an analysis of a paragraph or two. Unusual strengths and/or weaknesses should be described in detail. If the item is not
applicable in this situation, state this along with the reason(s). FINAL COPY MUST BE TYPED.
1.
INSTRUCTOR'S PREPARATION AND/OR ORGANIZATION:
2.
THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE CLASS PRESENTATION RELATED TO THE COURSE
CONTENT AS DESCRIBED IN THE SYLLABUS:
3.
ABILITY TO STIMULATE STUDENTS (INCLUDING VOCAL CHARACTERISTICS AND
MANNERISMS):
4.
CONSIDERATION FOR STUDENTS (INCLUDING OPEN-MINDEDNESS AND RESPONSE TO
QUESTIONS):
5.
OVERALL EVALUATION OF CONDUCTING CLASS AND/OR ARRANGING FOR STUDENT
PARTICIPATION:
6.
ASSESSMENT METHODS (E.G., TOOLS, PROCEDURES, STRATEGIES, AND FEEDBACK).
7.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
PEER CLASSROOM VISITATION APPRAISAL SCALE
SUMMARY
Semester
Instructor Evaluated
Lowest
Appraisal Scale:
2
1
3
4
Highest
Full-Time
Tenured:
5
Part-Time:
Probationary Year:
Fifteen Statements on Peer Classroom
Courses/Evaluators
Mean:
Arithmmetic
Average
Visitation Appraisal Scale
1.
Departmental
Standard
The class presentation was planned and organized.
3
2. The professor exhibited mastery of the course content in
the materials presented.
3. Class time was well-used.
4. Important ideas covered during the visit were clearly
explained.
5. The instructor encouraged critical thinking and analysis.
3
3
3
3
6. The instructor encouraged relevant student involvement
in the class.
7. The instructor was able to react well to student
viewpoints different from the instructor's.
8. The attitude of the students in the class reflected
acceptance of the instructor's materials and methods used
in the presentation.
9. Materials used in the presentation reflected acceptable
authorities as well as new views and evidence in the subject
area. .
3
3
3
3
3
10. Students appeared interested in the subject area.
11. Students were made to feel they were members of the
class as a whole.
12. The students in the class seemed to have a challenging
and meaningful experience.
13. The instructor's method and style of teaching fit in well
with the subject matter being covered.
14. The overall atmosphere, including materials and
student participation, was conducive to the learning
situation.
15. Assessment methods (e.g., tools, procedures, strategies,
and feedback.)
16. As a visitor, the overall reaction to the presentation
reviewed.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean (Arithmetic Average)
3
Median
Evaluators Signature
Evaluation Date:
Department Chair Signature
"MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Chicano & Latin American Studies
M/S SS 97
FROM:
William A. Covino
Provost and Vice PrsideM or Academic Affairs
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
tentatively approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I am, however, concerned about your department's use of a relatively low
statistical standard for student ratings—a standard that may render data used to
support AY12-13 RTP recommendations less than persuasive. Thus, it is my
hope that, once AY11-12 data becomes widely available, you may wish to adjust
the departmental standard upward to a more meaningful measure of relative
teaching performance.
In the meantime, I want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's
stated beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective,
and considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc:
Luz Gonzalez, Dean, College of Social Sciences
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak
Administrative Center
Hemy Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. M/S ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
DEPARTMENT OF CHICANO AND LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy
is designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
Each tenure track and full-time lecturers shall select a minimum of two sections rated by students per
semester, so as to assess as many different courses as possible taught by each faculty member on an
annual basis.
Each part-time faculty member shall have every course rated by students per semester.
Each tenured faculty member (including FERP faculty) shall select a minimum of two sections rated by
students per year, so as to have assessment of most of the courses taught by each faculty member on an
annual basis.
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to
use either the Diagnostic Form or Online version.
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance
and effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the Department
standard of 3.0 out of 5.0, using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher for each course
assessed, on a regular basis; however, it is more important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends
rather than focusing on a single course or a single year.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, all courses every semester
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester.
c. For probationary faculty, two sections every semester (to include as many different courses as
possible).
d. For tenured faculty, one section every year on a rotating basis such that during a five-year period
the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use a departmentally approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional
Design, Instructional Delivery and Assessment methods.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing
committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching. Participation in departmental selfstudies (SOAP) will not be used as part of the assessment of individual faculty teaching effectiveness.
The Department of CLAS reserves the right to adjust this policy, including the student ratings
standard, as deemed necessary and will submit a revised policy for approval if and when such a change
is made.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the Dean of the College of Social Sciences and to the Provost
for review and approval.
* MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Geography
M/S SB 69
FROM:
William A. Covin
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
(ff
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
tentatively approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I am, however, concerned about your department's use of a relatively low
statistical standard for student ratings—a standard that may render data used to
support AY12-13 RTP recommendations less than persuasive. Thus, it is my
hope that, once AY11-12 data becomes widely available, you may wish to adjust
the departmental standard upward to a more meaningful measure of relative
teaching performance.
In the meantime, I want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's
stated beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective,
and considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc:
Luz Gonzalez, Dean, College of Social Sciences
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak
Administrative Center
Henry Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. MS ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is
designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
Each part-time, full-time, and probationary faculty shall have all sections rated every semester while
each tenured faculty shall have a minimum of two sections rated every semester.
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to
use either the Diagnostic Form or Online version.
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and
effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the department standard of 3 out
of 5.0 using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher, on a regular basis; however, it is more
important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a single course or narrow
time frame.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and,
thereafter, at least one section every year of employment regardless of a break in service.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester.
c. For probationary faculty, two sections every semester to include as many different courses as
possible.
d. For tenured faculty, a minimum of one section each academic year on a rotating basis such that
during a five-year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use the attached departmentally approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional
Design, Instructional Delivery, and Assessment methods.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing
committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching. The Department of Geography
reserves the right to adjust this policy, including the student ratings standard, as deemed necessary and will
submit a revised policy for approval if and when such a change is made.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the appropriate School/College Dean and to the Provost for
review and approval.
Last Updated: October 01, 2011
California State University, Fresno
Department of Geography
PEER EVALUATION FORM
Professor Evaluated:
Term/Year:
Course:
Evaluation Date:
/
/
Evaluator:
Category
A. Course Content. Includes a review of the currency of the course content, the appropriateness of the
level of the content, and the appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve the learning
objectives for the course.
COMMENTS:
B. Instructional Design. Includes a review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials,
organization of lectures, and the use of technology appropriate to the course.
COMMENTS:
C. Instructional Delivery. Includes a review of oral presentation skills, written communication skills, skills
using various forms of informational technology, and the ability to create an overall environment conducive
to student learning.
COMMENTS:
D. Assessment Methods. Does the syllabus include tools and methods appropriate for assessing student
learning and providing feedback to students?
COMMENTS:
E. Recommendations/Feedback.
COMMENTS:
APM322c
' MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of History
M/S SS 21
FROM:
William A. Covino
Provost and Vice re i sent for Academic Affairs
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
tentatively approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I am, however, concerned about your department's use of a relatively low
statistical standard for student ratings—a standard that may render data used to
support AY12-13 RTP recommendations less than persuasive. Thus, it is my
hope that, once AY11-12 data becomes widely available, you may wish to adjust
the departmental standard upward to a more meaningful measure of relative
teaching performance.
In the meantime, I want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's
stated beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective,
and considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc:
Luz Gonzalez, Dean, College of Social Sciences
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak
Administrative Center
Henry Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. M/S ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This departmental policy is
designed to further define requirements at the departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, all sections will be evaluated by students.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester will be evaluated by students.
c. For probationary faculty, a minimum of two sections will be evaluated by students every
semester.
d. For tenured faculty, a minimum of two sections will be evaluated by students annually.
2. Faculty will use the IDEA Short Form for student evaluations.
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and
effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the department standard of 3.0
out of 5.0 using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher, on a regular basis; however, it is
more important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a single course or
narrow time frame.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and,
thereafter, at least one section every semester must be evaluated.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and at least one
section every semester thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, two sections (to include as many different courses as possible)
every semester.
d. For tenured faculty, one section each academic year must be evaluated on a rotating basis,
such that during a five year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use the attached departmentally-approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional
Design, Instructional Delivery and Assessment methods.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing
committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching.
Last updated: 9/28/11
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the appropriate School/College Dean and to the Provost for
review and approval.
Last updated: 9/28/11
California State University, Fresno
PEER EVALUATION FORM
Department of History
Professor Evaluated:
Rank:
Term/Year:
Course:
Date of Classroom Visitation:
Name of Evaluator
Signature:
Additional comments may be included on the reverse side of this form or as an
attachment.
A. Course Content. The assessment of course content shall include a review of the currency of the
content of a course, the appropriateness of the level of the content of a course, and the
appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve the learning objectives for the course.
COMMENTS:
B.
Instructional Design. The assessment of the instructional design of the course shall include a
review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials, organization of lectures, and the
use of technology appropriate to the class.
COMMENTS:
C. Instructional Delivery. The assessment of delivery shall include a review of oral presentation skills,
written communication skills, skills using various forms of informational technology, and the ability to
create an overall environment conducive to student learning.
COMMENTS:
D. Assessment Methods. The evaluation of assessment methods shall consist of a review of the tools,
procedures, and strategies used for measuring student learning, and providing timely and meaningful
feedback to students.
COMMENTS:
Last updated: 9/14/11
"MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Political Science
M/S MF 19
FROM:
William A. Covin
Provost and Vice Pr sident for Academic Affairs
STATE
IJNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
tentatively approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I am, however, concerned about your department's use of a relatively low
statistical standard for student ratings—a standard that may render data used to
support AY12-13 RTP recommendations less than persuasive. Thus, it is my
hope that, once AY11-12 data becomes widely available, you may wish to adjust
the departmental standard upward to a more meaningful measure of relative
teaching performance.
In the meantime, I want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's
stated beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective,
and considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
c:
Luz Gonzalez, Dean, College of Social Sciences
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak
Administrative Center
Henry Madden Library
5200 N. Barton Ave. MIS ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is
designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
Each tenure track and part time faculty member (including full-time lecturers) shall select a minimum
of two sections rated by students per semester, so as to have assessment of most of the courses taught by
each faculty member on an annual basis.
Each tenured faculty member (including FERP faculty) shall select a minimum of two sections rated by
students per year, so as to have assessment of most of the courses taught by each faculty member on an
annual basis.
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to use
either the Diagnostic Form or Online version.
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and
effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the Department standard of 3.0
out of 5.0, using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher for each course assessed, on a regular
basis; however, it is more important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a
single course or a single year.
PEER EVALUATIONS
I. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and, thereafter, at
least one section every other year of employment regardless of a break in service.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two sections each
academic year thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, two sections every semester (to include as many different courses as
possible).
d. For tenured faculty, one section every year on a rotating basis such that during a five year period the
maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty may use the attached Departmentally-approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional
Design, Instructional Delivery, Assessment Methods, and provide recommendations for improvement. If
faculty choose an alternate method for evaluation besides the form, that method must at least include a
discussion of the 4 areas listed above. Peer evaluators are encouraged to meet individually with faculty
being evaluated to discuss recommendations and feedback.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing committees
selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching. Participation in departmental self studies (SOAP) will
not be used as part of the assessment of individual faculty teaching effectiveness. The Department of
Political Science reserves the right to adjust this policy, including the student ratings standard, as deemed
necessary and will submit a revised policy for approval if and when such a change is made.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the Dean of the College of Social Sciences and to the Provost for
review and approval.
Effective date: Fall 2011
California State University, Fresno
Department of Political Science
PEER EVALUATION FORM
Professor Evaluated:
Term/Year:
Course:
Evaluation Date:
/
/
Evaluator:
Category
A. Course Content. Includes a review of the currency of the course content, the appropriateness of the
level of the content, and the appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve the learning
objectives for the course.
COMMENTS:
B. Instructional Design. Includes a review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials,
organization of lectures, and the use of technology appropriate to the course.
COMMENTS:
C. Instructional Delivery. Includes a review of oral presentation skills, written communication skills, skills
using various forms of informational technology, and the ability to create an overall environment conducive
to student learning.
COMMENTS:
D. Assessment Methods. Does the syllabus include tools and methods appropriate for assessing student
learning and providing feedback to students?
COMMENTS:
E. Recommendations/Feedback.
COMMENTS:
APM322c
*MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
DATE:
November 21, 2011
TO:
Faculty
Department of Sociology
M/S SS 97
FROM:
William A. Covinioe
Provost and Vice e ident for Academic Affairs
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
tentatively approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I am, however, concerned about your department's use of a relatively low
statistical standard for student ratings—a standard that may render data used to
support AY12-13 RTP recommendations less than persuasive. Thus, it is my
hope that, once AY11-12 data becomes widely available, you may wish to adjust
the departmental standard upward to a more meaningful measure of relative
teaching performance.
In the meantime, I want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's
stated beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective,
and considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc:
Luz Gonzalez, Dean, College of Social Sciences
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Haak
kdrninistrative Center
glenry Madden library
5200 N. Barton Ave. M/S ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
APM 322 is the official policy on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. This Departmental policy is
designed to further define requirements at the Departmental level as specified in APM 322.
STUDENT RATINGS OF INSTRUCTION
Each tenure track and part time faculty member (including full-time lecturers) shall select a minimum
of two sections rated by students per semester, so as to have assessment of most of the courses taught by
each faculty member on an annual basis.
Each tenured faculty member (including FERP faculty) shall select a minimum of two sections rated by
students per year, so as to have assessment of most of the courses taught by each faculty member on an
annual basis.
While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the campus, faculty may elect to use
either the Diagnostic Form or Online version.
Student ratings of instruction shall be assessed to identify patterns and trends of teaching performance and
effectiveness. It is expected that the faculty member shall meet or exceed the Department standard of 3.0
out of 5.0, using adjusted or unadjusted scores, whichever are higher for each course assessed, on a regular
basis; however, it is more important to evaluate on the basis of multi-year trends rather than focusing on a
single course or a single year.
PEER EVALUATIONS
1. Frequency
a. For part-time temporary faculty, the first time a course is taught by the instructor and, thereafter, at
least one section every other year of employment regardless of a break in service.
b. For full-time temporary faculty, two sections each semester for the first year and two sections each
academic year thereafter.
c. For probationary faculty, two sections every semester (to include as many different courses as
possible).
d. For tenured faculty, one section every year on a rotating basis such that during a five year period the
maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
2. Faculty will use the attached Departmentally-approved form to evaluate Course Content, Instructional
Design, Instructional Delivery, Assessment Methods, and provide recommendations for improvement.
a. Peer evaluators are encouraged to meet individually with faculty being evaluated to discuss
recommendations and feedback.
OVERALL
The Department will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327 and APM 328 when electing committees
selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching. Participation in departmental self studies (SOAP) will
not be used as part of the assessment of individual faculty teaching effectiveness. The Department of
Sociology reserves the right to adjust this policy, including the student ratings standard, as deemed
necessary and will submit a revised policy for approval if and when such a change is made.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Departmental policies will be submitted to the Dean of the College of Social Sciences and to the Provost for
review and approval.
Last Updated: September 26, 2011
California State University, Fresno
Department of Sociology
PEER EVALUATION FORM
Professor Evaluated:
Term/Year:
Course:
Evaluation Date:
/
/
Evaluator:
Category
A. Course Content. Includes a review of the currency of the course content, the appropriateness of the
level of the content, and the appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve the learning
objectives for the course.
COMMENTS:
B. Instructional Design. Includes a review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials,
organization of lectures, and the use of technology appropriate to the course.
COMMENTS:
C. Instructional Delivery. Includes a review of oral presentation skills, written communication skills, skills
using various forms of informational technology, and the ability to create an overall environment conducive
to student learning.
COMMENTS:
D. Assessment Methods. Does the syllabus include tools and methods appropriate for assessing student
learning and providing feedback to students?
COMMENTS:
E. Recommendations/Feedback.
COMMENTS:
APM322c
'MEMORANDUM
CALIFORNIA
DATE:
November 21, 2011
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
TO:
Faculty
Women's Studies Program
M/S MF 19
FROM:
William A. Covino
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
SUBJECT: Approval of your Department Policy on Peer Evaluations
and Student Course Evaluations (RE: APM 322)
I have received and reviewed your departmental documents, and they are
tentatively approved for implementation during the remainder of AY11-12.
I am, however, concerned about your department's use of a relatively low
statistical standard for student ratings—a standard that may render data used to
support AY12-13 RTP recommendations less than persuasive. Thus, it is my
hope that, once AY11-12 data becomes widely available, you may wish to adjust
the departmental standard upward to a more meaningful measure of relative
teaching performance.
In the meantime, I want to reiterate my commitment to our Academic Senate's
stated beliefs that student feedback is best viewed from a multi-year perspective,
and considered within the larger context of all evidence presented in support of a
colleague's teaching effectiveness.
WAC:kyp
cc:
Luz Gonzalez, Dean, College of Social Sciences
Ted Wendt, AVP for Academic Personnel
Office of the Provost
and Vice President
for Academic Affairs
Harold H. Hank
Administrative Center
Henry Madden library
5200 N. Barton Ave. M/S ML54
Fresno, CA 93740-8014
559.278.2636
Fax 559.278.7987
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
THE WOMEN'S STUDIES PROGRAM
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
This policy establishes the framework for the assessment of teaching effectiveness,
including procedures for the two major components of the assessment: (a) peer
evaluation of instruction; (b) student ratings of instruction. Student ratings, based on the
university-wide standardized form, account for 40% of the assessment of teaching effectiveness
of an instructor. Peer evaluations and responses to department-specific questions on student
ratings of instruction, "along with other appropriate information in the Open Personnel File"
account for 60% of the assessment of teaching performance and effectiveness. Taken together
these measures of teaching effectiveness will be used to identify pattern and trends in teaching
practices. The Women's Studies Program will review the policy during the 2013 spring
semester, and we reserve the right to amend the policy as necessary.
The assessment of teaching effectiveness shall address four basic elements of instruction:
course content, instructional design, instructional delivery, and assessment methods.
1. Course Content. The assessment of course content shall include a review of the
currency of the content of a course, the appropriateness of the level of the content of a
course, and the appropriateness of the sequencing of the content to best achieve the
learning objectives for the course. The Women's studies Program recognizes that peer
evaluations most accurately judge course content.
2. Instructional Design. The assessment of the instructional design of the course shall
include a review of learning objectives, syllabi, instructional support materials,
organization of lectures, and the use of technology appropriate to the class. Both student
ratings and peer evaluations provide meaningful assessments of instructional design.
3. Instructional Delivery. The assessment of delivery shall include a review of oral
presentation skills, written communication skills, skills using various forms of
informational technology, and the ability to create an overall environment conducive to
student learning. Both student ratings and peer evaluations provide meaningful
assessments of instructional delivery.
4. Assessment Methods. The evaluation of assessment methods shall consist of a review
of the tools, procedures, and strategies used for measuring student learning, and
providing timely and meaningful feedback to students. Both student ratings and peer
evaluations provide meaningful assessments of these methods.
General Description of Peer Evaluation Forms and Student Ratings Questionnaires
The Women's Studies Program uses a standardized peer evaluation form (attachment 1) to
evaluate course content, instructional design, instructional delivery, and assessment methods.
The Women's Studies Program uses student ratings questionnaires approved by the Academic
Senate and Provost. While the IDEA Short Form will be the standard paper instrument for the
campus, faculty may elect to use either the Diagnostic Form or online version. As mandated by
the Academic Senate, the Women's Studies Program will only use the Short Form or online
version during the 2011-2012 Academic Year. Thereafter, faculty may elect to use the
Diagnostic form. In addition, in subsequent years the Women's Studies Program Student ratings
form will expand to include questions particular to the field and programmatic objectives.
Frequency of Evaluations
Peer Evaluations
Peer reviews for part-time temporary faculty shall be conducted the first time a course is taught
by the instructor and, thereafter, at least one section every semester of employment, on a
rotating basis such that during a five- year period the maximum number of different courses is
evaluated.
Peer review for full-time temporary faculty shall be conducted for two sections each semester
during the first year of employment, on a rotating basis such that during a five- year period the
maximum number of different courses is evaluated. Thereafter, one section per semester shall
be evaluated.
For probationary faculty, peer reviews shall be conducted for two sections every semester, on a
rotating basis such that during a five- year period the maximum number of different courses is
evaluated.
For tenured faculty, one section each academic year, on a rotating basis such that during a fiveyear period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
Additional peer evaluation reports may be requested by the instructor or required by the
College/School Personnel Committee, Dean or Provost.
Student Ratings of Instruction
For part-time temporary faculty student ratings of instruction must be issued each time a new
course is taught, and one course every semester of instruction, on a rotating basis such that
during a five- year period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
For full-time temporary faculty student ratings of instruction must be issued each time a new
course is taught, and two courses every semester,on a rotating basis such that during a fiveyear period the maximum number of different courses is evaluated.
Probationary faculty must issue student ratings of instruction to all sections taught each
semester.
Tenured faculty must issue student ratings of instruction to at least two sections per semester,
on a rotating basis such that during a five- year period the maximum number of different
courses is evaluated, including General Education courses and Core courses.
Evaluation of Teaching Performance
The Women's Studies Program standard for General Education and Topics courses is an
overall average of 3.0. The Women's Studies Program standard for core courses in the major is
3.25. Individual faculty should choose the higher of the adjusted or unadjusted scores when
evaluating teaching performance.
The program recognizes that patterns and trends over courses and over semesters is a more
relevant measure of teaching performance than ratings from a single course or narrow timeperiod.
Scheduling
The Women's Studies Program will follow the mandates for scheduling student ratings of
instruction as identified in APM 322-4.
Overall
The Women's Studies Program will follow the guidelines in APM 325, APM 327, and APM 328
when electing committees selected to prepare the overall evaluation of teaching.