Summary of History of Peer In-Class Evaluation

Minutes November 26, 2007

               2. b. Announcements: President Craine

             “ Senate President Tim Craine also thanked the Elections Committee, and read his          correspondence to the university regarding the December 3, 2007 town meeting.  He      announced that President Miller approved the final P&T guidelines, and therefore two     committees need to be formed to carry on the work outlined in that document: a) a committee             to develop practices for evaluating teaching, and b) a committee to develop the P&T guidelines for counselors, librarians and coaches.”

 Minutes February 11, 2008

                1.  b. Announcements: President Craine

“Senate President Tim Craine reported on the timeline for the upcoming elections of all three Senate officers.  The timeline is posted on the Faculty Senate homepage.  He reminded department chairs to send to the Senate the criteria each department develops for promotion and tenure.  He announced the committee members he appointed to develop student evaluations of instructors and peer evaluation of teaching: Stephen Cohen (English), Nidal Al-Masoud (Engineering), Kathleen Wall (Management and Organization), Catherine Kurkjian (Reading&Language Arts), Carol Jones (Chemistry), Charles Menoche (Music), Philip Halloran (Math), Elizabeth Kaminski (Sociology)

 Promotion & Tenure Guidelines

             Summary Dossier III.A

            III. A. Summary Dossier. Each candidate for promotion, tenure or sexennial evaluation shall       complete in a single dossier a succinct, comprehensive, uniformly formatted summary of his or  her accomplishments.  It is recommended that each dossier contain the following:

            1. a current curriculum vitae;

            2. at least the previous five years' (or as many years as the candidate has been at

                        CCSU if fewer than five years) evaluative letters from Department

                        Evaluation Committees, Chairs, and Deans at CCSU;

            3. a narrative statement that should be limited to the recommended maximum of

                        2000 words (i.e., approximately 4 single-spaced pages);

            4. a section labeled "Load Credit Activity" containing

                        a. a brief introductory narrative (if desired),

                        b. a summary of distribution of load credit for the period under evaluation,

                        c. statistical summaries of student opinion survey data for the period

                                    concerning the evaluation, and

                        d. original peer teaching evaluations;

              Supporting Documents III B 1.

             Supporting material for load credit activity.  Supporting materials for load credit activity should           include a summary of distribution of load credit (including courses taught, reassigned time, etc.),   a statistical summary of student opinion surveys, a reproduction of written comments from student opinion surveys, and original peer teaching evaluation letters.  The list in the appendix to this policy includes potential additional categories of material for inclusion.

                   The Evaluation Process. IV

            C.  Department Evaluation Committees.  All Department Evaluation Committee letters should     be evaluative and shall demonstrate internal consistency within the Department. Department           Evaluation Committee letters evaluating candidates shall refer to Departmental guidelines and     shall be organized according to the evaluative categories (load credit activity, creative activity,            productive service to the Department and University, and professional activity).  Department  Evaluation Committees should normally evaluate classroom teaching through peer evaluations.    Department Evaluation Committees shall evaluate each candidate in each evaluative category as exceeds expectations, meets expectations, or does not meet expectations, and shall give each  candidate an overall evaluation of recommend or do not recommend.

Summarized: 10/7/08

Donna Sims,

Senate Secretary