Memo

From: HSS Teaching Effectiveness Taskforce

To: Dean Richard Vengroff

Subject: Faculty Evaluation Instrument

The following is the taskforce’s recommendation for a new faculty evaluation form. With your initial charge as a guide, this form was developed during a process that included an extensive review of the literature, two faculty surveys, and numerous meetings including work over the summer. This form represents our best efforts, and we submit it for your review along with some suggestions, questions, and concerns that grew out of our work.

Jim Cope, Chair

Philip Aust

Beth Daniell

Kristin Hoyt

Hugh Hunt

Rebecca Petersen

Tom Pusateri

Tom Scott

Howard Shealy

Susan Kirkpatrick Smith

Harold Wingfield

Faculty Evaluation Form

Student feedback on teaching and learning can improve the effectiveness of faculty performance at Kennesaw State University.

  1. Using the scale below, please rate the frequency with which the instructor does each of the following:

A=Almost Always / B=Frequently / C=Sometimes / D=Rarely / E=Not Applicable
  1. The instructor is knowledgeable about the course material.
  2. The instructor has an effective style of presentation.
  3. The instructor is available for consultation.
  4. The instructor challenges me to think.
  5. The instructor is respectful.
  6. The instructor makes course objectives clear.
  7. The instructor effectively uses appropriate technology to communicate with students and to facilitate learning.
  1. Using the scale below, please respond to each of the following questions:

A=Strongly Agree / B=Agree / C=Disagree / D=Strongly Disagree / E=Not Applicable
  1. The instructor shows enthusiasm about the subject matter and the teaching of the course.
  2. The instructor provides useful comments on returned work or makes other suggestions for improvement.
  3. The instructor is prepared for class.
  4. The instructor facilitates discussion related to course content.
  5. The instructor presents course material in engaging and challenging ways.
  6. The instructor clearly explains the grading system.
  7. The instructor responds appropriately when differing viewpoints are expressed in class.

Questions:

  1. In the near term, how will the new evaluation form be administered and computed? How will it be used for online and hybrid courses and for students in internships, student teaching, and other field-based courses?
  2. How will this form be converted into an online evaluation and who will do this work and then administer it?
  3. How will the data collected from this form be used? Formatively, how will it be used for faculty growth? Summatively, what data will the chairs and dean use for faculty evaluation? How will this be done and toward what purpose?

Concerns/Recommendations:

  1. When the new form is used, we recommend that the student responses for each item be coded in the following way: A response of “A” for any item = 4, “B” = 3, “C” = 2, “D” = 1, and “E” = 0. We also recommend that if a certain percentage of responses for a particular item equals “E” or are left blank that the item in question not be used for evaluative purposes.
  1. The taskforce suggests that the form not used to generate a composite number as each item is not of equal value. Instead, we recommend that each item be tracked for the percentage of the time that the faculty member either exceeds, meets, or doesn’t meet expectations for that item based on all faculty’s scores for that item. Faculty rankings for each item would be based on one standard deviation from the mean of all faculty scores for each item.