Teaching Evaluations in the P&T File

The Office of the Provost and the University Senate are currently working together to critique and revise all aspects of teaching evaluation. For more information, please see Revising UO's Teaching Evaluations.

The review of teaching is expected to address instructional activities across classroom instruction and larger efforts in curriculum design and improvement, graduate and undergraduate mentoring, and other activities and accomplishments that contribute to the instructional mission of the department and university.  

To that end the promotion and tenure review considers all aspects of an individual’s teaching: classroom instruction, including large and small classes; small group courses or activities and individual tutorials; graduate seminars; curriculum and program development; PhD, master’s, or professional student supervision; academic advising; etc. Materials on teaching should be placed in either the primary P&T file or in the supplementary file as indicated on the checklist. 

These materials must not be prepared by the candidate. 

Documentation for the Dossier

Please provide in the primary dossier the following documentation, in the listed order. 

1. Checklist for the evaluation of teaching

The checklist should be placed at the front of this section.

2. List of all courses taught

Beginning in the winter term of 2008, student evaluations of teaching have been carried out through an on-line submission process. The Office of the Registrar provides a table containing a term-by-term listing of course number, student enrollment, percentage of enrolled students providing evaluations, and quantitative scores for the instructor and the department. The electronic evaluation system is currently configured to provide evaluation data for the prior five years, meaning that most candidates for tenure will have complete electronic evaluation records. If the period of review includes teaching prior to winter term 2008, create an analogous table from the hard-copy data available for those courses. It is likely that future submissions will focus only on the five years of teaching preceding the promotion review, but current requirements call for inclusion of all evaluations since the time of hire or last promotion. 

3. List of any/all teaching awards

The candidate, or the candidate’s CV, may be consulted to ensure all appropriate awards are listed here. Teaching awards from the department, the school or college, the university, or external sources should be included; research awards or grants or awards for service should not be included. Include the date and the basis for the award if that is not clearly identified by the name of the award. If no awards have been received, include a page with the simple notation, “None.” 

4. List of all supervised dissertations, theses, and undergraduate honors papers

List each type of project separately, and for each project, identify the student, the year, and the candidate’s role (e.g. committee chair, committee member, etc.). A separate listing for exam committees should be provided, if appropriate. 

5. Sample course evaluation questions

Include a sample of each version of questions used by the department for the candidate. Date each version for its period of use. 

6. Statistical summary page for each course taught

The electronic system provides these automatically. Evaluations carried out prior to winter term, 2008, were documented by quantitative summary sheets in print form that should be included here. Please ensure that written student comments are not included in the primary dossier. 

7. Peer evaluations of teaching

Faculty legislation calls for at least one peer evaluation of pre-tenure faculty during each of the three years preceding the year of the evaluation for tenure and peer evaluation of associate professors for at least one course every other year. Detailed reports of classroom visitations and review of course documents (e.g. syllabi, exams, online course materials, etc.) can be very useful to both the candidate and the colleague carrying out the peer evaluation. Ensure that each peer evaluation includes the faculty member’s name, the course number and name, and the date(s) of the review. Ideally, both the reviewer and the faculty member should sign and date the review, providing a clear record that the evaluation was shared with the faculty member. Note that additional peer evaluations can be added to the file as it progresses, if needed, so evaluations can be carried out during spring term of the year preceding the tenure and/or promotion review and even during the fall or winter terms of the tenure and/or promotion review year, but do not overdo these last minute peer evaluations—it is unfair to the candidate and to your colleagues. 

8. Letters from students

Include both solicited and unsolicited letters from students here, but only if they are signed and dated. A copy of an email message of transmittal is acceptable for any letters that are not otherwise signed. Note that such letters are not required, and that orchestrated “campaigns” to sway review committees are both inappropriate and rarely persuasive.