Kansas State University

Teaching faculty should be rated by students at least once a year, on a form that is controlled for student motivation and other possible bias. The form should contain directions which indicate how the information is used, and the forms should be administered and collected under controlled conditions that assure students' anonymity. Each academic unit should determine the student rating form to be used by its faculty that conform to the above guidelines.

Multiple sources of information should be gathered to evaluate teaching. Sources of information might include the content of the course, its design and presentation. For example, (a) syllabi examinations and examples of graded exams, textbooks, etc. might be evaluated by peers for their suitability and coherence, (b) videos of class presentations might be viewed by peers or the department chair to evaluate presentation of material, etc.

Units should be encouraged to develop a comprehensive, flexible approach to teaching evaluation that includes several types of evidence that can be collected, presented and evaluated as a Portfolio. Student ratings of teaching should be an important part of this Portfolio; they are nevertheless only one part. Peer evaluation, defined as a comprehensive, critical review by knowledgeable colleagues of each faculty member's entire range of teaching activities, should be the foundation of the university's teaching evaluation program. No single source of information, including ratings by students, should be taken at face value, but rather should be interpreted by those peers who are in the best position to understand this evidence and to place it in the appropriate academic context. Departments should be encouraged to use additional tools such as exit interviews and graduate interviews and surveys to obtain information about teaching effectiveness.

All department chairs should participate in the evaluation of faculty and meet with faculty individually as needed to discuss the evaluation. Institutions should enhance opportunities for the preparation of department chairs for work in departmental administration, particularly as that relates to the evaluation of faculty and the allocation of faculty effort as in (4).

At the beginning of each academic year, representatives from Student Governance on each campus should have the opportunity to meet with campus representatives from Academic Affairs or their designees to discuss the operation of student ratings of teaching. Ratings of individual faculty are not an appropriate subject in such discussions.

There should be no standardized student rating scale. Printed directions on the rating scale should indicate how the information is used, and the forms should be administered and collected under controlled conditions that assure students' anonymity.

Based upon institutional and departmental goals, tenured and tenure track faculty should meet with their department chair individually to allocate the amount of effort the faculty member will devote to teaching, research and service. A reduction of effort in one area should be made up by augmentation in another. Merit evaluation of faculty should follow this agreement. These agreements should reflect varying emphases at different times within a faculty member's career. Teaching should be evaluated as rigorously as research.

All campuses should insure that each school/college develops a plan to financially recognize faculty who are promoted.

In FY 1995, data should be provided on the number and percentage of faculty who received 0% to 1% for the past three consecutive years, and the percentage of all faculty who received a 5% and 1% raise in each of the three past years. This information must be viewed in the context of the total dollars available for merit raises; therefore, the amount of General Fund increase for merit raises should also be given for each of the past three years.

Each campus should i) provide assistance for faculty renewal and development, ii) define chronic low performance, and iii) examine dismissal policies to include chronic low performance, despite all assistance, as an indicator of incompetence.

Each institution should provide information to the Board on efforts to improve teaching.