Academic Faculty Evaluation

Purpose: Academic Faculty members are evaluated by students at the conclusion of each semester, during which they have taught a course to assess whether they are teaching the content area specified, and that the methods used are effective for student learning.

Standards for evaluation of Academic Faculty by students address the following areas, utilizing a 1 - 5 Likert Scale:

1. Materials presented clearly.
2. Tested on material covered in the course.
3. Was accessible for questions.
4. Communicated learning expectations.
5. Provided professional support to students by encouraging a climate of mutual respect
6. Conveyed enthusiasm and interest in teaching.
7. Demonstrated high professional standards.

In addition, the student is requested to give an evaluation of any guest lecturer who participated in this course, as well as any other constructive comments about the course.

PROCEDURE:

Procedure for Evaluating Full-Time and Part-Time Academic Faculty:

• The Executive Vice President supervises the collection of all course outlines of all academic faculty members.
• The Executive Vice President supervises the collection of samples of all tests given by each instructor in each course.
• The Executive Vice President directs the preparation and distribution of grades as indicated.
• The Executive Vice President directs the distribution and collection of the faculty self-evaluations.
• The Executive Vice President directs the distribution and collection of the results of the student evaluations of the academic courses/instructors.
• The Executive Vice President oversees scheduling of classes and may visit the classroom of any instructor.
• The Executive Vice President and the Evaluation Committee review the above material on at least an annual basis.
• An evaluation of faculty members by the Executive Vice President is made on an annual basis, utilizing the collected materials.

Frequency:

• Full-time and Part-time Faculty evaluation, notification, and contract renewal is on an annual basis.
• Faculty members teaching in multiple quarters will have evaluations by students at the termination of each quarter, which are reviewed by the Evaluation Committee. However, notification per letter is done on an annual basis.

Review:

The quarterly Evaluation Committee meeting provides a report to and makes recommendations regarding faculty status to the Nurse Anesthesia Program Council via the Executive Vice President. Evaluation Committee members will have access to composites of faculty evaluations by students. Any academic faculty member may see his/her own composite of student evaluations, which are kept in the office of the Registrar.

Access to records: To protect student anonymity, academic instructors have no access to student academic evaluations directly. However, they may have access to the Medatrax-compiled summary of the students' evaluations. No faculty member (exclusive of full-time faculty who are members of the Evaluation Committee) or clinical faculty member (exclusive of Clinical Coordinators), may inspect the records or evaluations of another faculty member without the other faculty member's written consent.

Faculty Self-Evaluation

Faculty members in MTSA’s DNAP Programs will complete self-evaluations annually. These evaluations will be characterized by the six standards of excellence in scholarship, listed below, as defined by Boyer:

• Clear goals
• Adequate preparation
• Appropriate methods
• Outstanding results
• Effective communication
• Reflective critique

Additionally, the curriculum of MTSA’s CRNA DNAP Completion Program (and, therefore, the work of the faculty) naturally reflects Boyer’s four “separate yet overlapping”* meanings of scholarship: the scholarship of discovery [including research], the scholarship of integration [including using an interdisciplinary extension of current practice beyond the boundaries of the present], the scholarship of application [including service], and the scholarship of teaching [including a reflection on one’s teaching methods and student outcomes, comparing them to a study of the literature about teaching, and a willingness to try new things.]

^{*Boyer, EL. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NH: Carnegie Foundation for the Advance of Teaching, 1990.}