This is a second copy of a message just posted on Raven. I noticed after
it went out that key part of the formatting was left out. So this is the
corrected copy.


You will find in this document criteria for the evaluation of teaching
that the Committee on Student Rating of Faculty Instruction recently
formulated.  Our hope is that departments might find the list helpful in
arriving at methods for evaluating which are equitable for all involved.
The Student Rating committee consists of eight faculty members, two
students, and the Directors of Institutional Research and the Walker
Teaching Resource Center; it adopted the recommendations below by a
unanimous vote.

Mike Russell, Committee Chair

Additional Criteria for
Evaluation of Teaching

Below are criteria other than median scores on the current student
evaluations that the University Committee on Student Rating of Faculty
Instruction suggests for evaluating the quality of instruction at UTC.
These suggestions are intended to supplement not replace the quantitative
data generated by the university-mandated evaluations.  For years there
have been complaints from both faculty and administrators that there has
been too much emphasis placed on the numerical data when there are other
useful standards and means available to judge the quality of instruction.
There is a long-standing fear that too much--tenure decisions, salary
raises, and promotion--rides especially on the magic bullet statement on
the student evaluations, "My instructor is an effective teacher."

The committee would therefore suggest to departments that they might draw
from the suggestions on the list below one or more additional criteria to
use in judging teaching.  It should be up to departments to decide how
often and for what purposes (e.g., tenure or post-tenure review
consideration) they use these and other criteria.  They might well decide
that they wish to devise other means that what is on our list to evaluate
teaching.  The point is to devise a system that both provides a broader
picture of faculty instruction than student evaluations alone and which is
equitable for both faculty and administrators alike.

1.  Careful examination of data generated by current evaluation forms.
E.g., what are the frequency distributions of the median scores by
classes?  How many 5.0s, how many 6.0s?  And how do those frequency
distributions compare to other similar level courses?  In other words, it
is best not to compare the results of 200 and 400 level courses.

2.  Peer visitation.  This could involve a member/ or members of a
Promotion and Tenure Committee or possibly an instructor from another
discipline.

3.  Videotapes of a class.  If used, the camera should view the students
as well as the instructor.  An advantage of this method is that the tape
might be viewed by all the members of a P & T committee.

4.  Review of course materials--syllabi, tests, instructions for writing
assignments, and any other related material submitted by an instructor.

5.  Professor Self-Assessments and/or Teaching Philosophy statements.  New
faculty are required to submit teaching philosophy statements; older
faculty might profit from doing the same.

6.  Questions on the general reasoning tests (not the disciplinary field
exit tests demanded by SACS) required of graduating seniors.  According to
Institutional Research, there is space on the form to add questions about
the quality of instruction in individual departments.  One could ask
students, e.g., to name the instructors who were most important to their
education.

7.  Questionnaires administered to alumni.  These might be administered at
the time of a departments five year program review.

8.  Voluntary recommendations by current students or alumni.  While these
would obviously be few and selective in nature, they could carry some
weight, depending especially on the quality of the students making them.