University of Oregon Teaching Evaluation Standards

Evaluation of teaching will include available evidence from multiple sources (Student Experience Surveys, supervisor reviews, peer evaluations, and self-reflection) assessed, at a minimum, against the four standards of professional, inclusive, engaged, and research-informed teaching as described below. Evidence will be drawn from all parts of a course for which an instructor is responsible (including labs, discussion sections, etc.). The Teaching Evaluation Rubric will be used to guide teaching evaluation for individual faculty.  

[Units may organize the rubric to be consistent with the unit’s pedagogical values. The rubric must name the standards, sources of evidence, and criteria for not meeting, meeting and exceeding expectations. Units may insert additional standards or criteria as long as these additions are consistent with the standards and criteria below, and then reflect those in the updated rubric; they should not delete standards or criteria in this template.]

1. Professional Teaching 

  1. Readily available, coherently organized, and high-quality course materials; syllabi that establish student workload, learning objectives, grading, and class policy expectations  

  1. Students’ activities in and out of class designed and organized to maximize student learning

  2. Respectful and timely communication with students. Respectful teaching does not mean that the professor cannot give appropriate critical feedback.  

2. Inclusive Teaching 

  1. Instruction designed to ensure every student can participate fully and that their presence and participation are valued  

  1. The content of the course reflects the diversity of the field’s practitioners, the contested and evolving status of knowledge, the value of academic questions beyond the academy and of lived experience as evidence, and/or other efforts to help students see themselves in the work of the course.  

3. Engaged Teaching 

  1. Demonstrated reflective teaching practice, including through the regular revision of courses in content and pedagogy  

4. Research-informed Teaching 

  1. Instruction models a process or culture of inquiry characteristic of disciplinary or professional expertise  

  1. Instruction engages, challenges, and supports students.  

  2. Timely, useful feedback on activities and assignments, including indicating students’ progress in course  

  3. Evaluation of student performance linked to explicit goals for student learning established by faculty member, unit, and, for core education, university; these goals and criteria for meeting them are made clear to students  

Other Positive Factors in the Evaluation of Teaching:  

  1. Participation in professional teaching development, and/or engagement in campus or national discussions about quality pedagogy and curricula;  

  2. Development of new courses;  

  3. Facilitation of productive student interaction and peer learning;  

  4. Contribution to student learning outside the classroom as demonstrated by, for example, the development of co-curricular activities or community engaged projects, or a coherent approach to academic coaching and skill building in office hours;  

  5. Contribution of teaching to the Clark Honors College, departmental honors, first-year experiences, or other educational excellence and student success initiatives;  

  6. Grants, fellowships or other awards for teaching excellence and innovation;  

  7. Supervision of research/creative activity of graduate and undergraduate students beyond the mentoring expected as part of one's professional responsibilities such as joint conference presentations, co-authorship of research articles, creative production and other work, and teaching independent study, research, and readings courses;  

  8. Serving effectively on a higher-than-average number of graduate student committees.  

Unit-level personnel Committees, Unit Heads, College-level Personnel Committees and Deans will offer a summary evaluation of the faculty member’s teaching based on the aforementioned standards and criteria:  

  • Does not meet expectations: [Describe unit standards for determining “does not meet expectations”]  

  • Meets expectations: [Describe unit standards for determining “meets expectations”]  

  • Exceeds expectations: [Describe unit standards for determining “exceeds expectations”]