Appendix 3: Guide to the Documentation of Effective Teaching

The following is based on a summary originally prepared by the UCLA Council on Academic Personnel as a guide to the kinds of evidence sought in the review process.

Evidence of Teaching Ability may be Obtained from the Following Sources:

I. Students

On June 5, 1972, the Legislative Assembly, on the recommendation of the Senate Committee on Teaching, passed the following resolution pertaining to the solicitation of student opinion:

"It is essential to the evaluation of instructional quality and impact that candid, non-selected and reasonably complete student opinion on teaching effectiveness be obtained for all courses and instructors. Student opinion, in writing, should be regularly solicited for all course offerings, and each department or school should devise its own procedures to this end. Reasonable uniformity and consistency in procedures within each department should be maintained, but it is recognized that differences in subject matter and methodology between departments make it unreasonable to specify a University-wide format."

In addition to these more general solicitations of student views, departments should consider more selective evidence drawn from the following sources:

  1. Former students who hold degrees under the principal guidance of the faculty member.
  2. Graduate students (particularly those who have served as Readers or instructional assistants for the faculty member under review).
  3. Other students who have had contact with the faculty member, including alumni, Extension students, etc.
  4. The "Professor Evaluation Survey" published by ASUCLA.

When such evidence is presented, it should be accompanied by a statement describing the method used in the selection of students asked to comment. A broad spectrum of student opinion is often more useful than isolated individual evaluations. When individual assessments are sought, the Council on Academic Personnel suggests that the request for comment be framed as follows:

"Please evaluate this course and the instructor with regard to (a) quality of instruction, (b) the relationship of the instruction to the student, and (c) the conduct of the course."

In addition, it is suggested that copies of the letter of solicitation be included along with a brief statement of the student’s status.

II. Peer Evaluation

Peer evaluations of teaching are required and should be included in the dossier in a form which conforms to the established departmental specifications regarding peer review filed with the Council on Academic Personnel. Peer evaluation of teaching is required in all cases of formal review for merit advancement or promotion. The specification of the meaning of "peer review" varies by department, each department having established its own guidelines for developing the requisite peer review of teaching.

A. The Department (Chair’s Observations)

  1. The value of the candidate to the department’s teaching program; the contribution to the departmental responsibilities to majors, service courses, graduate students, etc.

  2. Supervision of graduate students. (Who are the degree-holders? Where are they now?)

  3. Effectiveness of the faculty member at the tasks of advising and counseling students.

B. Faculty Colleagues

Who of the faculty member’s colleagues has direct experience with the candidate’s teaching? What are the observations of other faculty about the teaching of the person under review?

C. Other Evidence

  1. Instructional materials prepared by the instructor, including such things as syllabi, course reading lists, sample examinations, slides, films, demonstrations. These should be cited and referred to in the departmental letter of recommendation and transmitted along with research publications when submission of the latter are required by policy.

  2. Formal awards and honors for teaching.

 

 


Revised 10/13/99

Web page updated 04/22/2010