Excerpts from the 1993-94 Teaching Work Group Report
Guidelines for Evaluating and Rewarding Teaching at the University of Oregon
[Members of the Teaching Workgroup: Chris Bolton, Jerry Diethelm,
Susan Lesyk, Steven Owen, Stephen Ponder, Richard Rankin, Karen Sprague,
Russ Tomlin]
Purpose:
... to set forth a policy structure that assists in the systematic and
equitable evaluation of teaching and in the encouragement and reward of
good teaching at the University of Oregon.
Implementation:
On-going, Post Tenure
This committee believes there to be no good reason for Departments and
faculty not to continue with regular support, encouragement, and evaluation
of teaching after tenure. Continued Departmental concern with teaching
seem essential for at least three reasons:
-
Systematic review is needed to make cases for merit, promotion to Full,
or other Institutional rewards.
-
Some senior faculty do experience difficulties in teaching which can be
best and most fairly addressed if regular information is developed.
-
Firmly established and continuing excellence in teaching encourages junior
faculty by example and helps validate and ground their evaluation by their
senior colleagues.
Thus:
-
Faculty members should continue to update yearly their teaching vitae and
teaching portfolios.
-
Student evaluations should continue to be conducted routinely.
-
Within the Department, a review and discussion of teaching should be included
as a routine component of faculty evaluation and review on par with the
review and discussion of research.
-
Every six years (this being the normal period for other academic reviews)
the updated Record of Teaching is submitted to the department for review.
This information is to be treated and taken into account just as information
on research is treated and taken into account.
-
Any faculty member whose teaching was rated as unacceptable or who wishes
to develop teaching abilities further, should establish with the department
head new expectations and guidelines for evaluating and improving teaching.
This might require further peer review or participation in teaching improvement
activities.
We recognize that post-tenure reviews vary considerably among departments
in the seriousness with which they are conducted and taken. These
recommendations are offered under the assumption that such reviews are
valuable both for the individual faculty member and for the institution
and with the knowledge that the post-tenure review is currently a topic
for discussion by the Udovic commission on promotion and tenure.