Table 1: Ratings Criteria of Teaching for Tenure at the Kent Campus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent |
Exemplar Course Design |
Very good student and peer evaluations. |
Very active dissertation committee participation. Very active participation in Ph.D. research mentorship program. Significant value added in programmatic curricular matters. |
|
Very Good |
Effective Course Design |
Good student and peer evaluations. |
Active dissertation committee participation. Active participation in Ph.D. research mentorship program. Value added in programmatic curricular matters. |
|
Good |
Effective Course Design |
Good student and peer evaluations. |
Some participation in Ph.D. research mentorship program or programmatic curricular matters. |
|
Fair |
Ineffective Course Design |
Consistently below average student and peer evaluations. |
Little, if any, participation in dissertation committees, Ph.D. mentorship, and programmatic curricular matters. |
|
Poor |
Ineffective Course Design |
Consistently well below average student and peer evaluations. |
Persistent pattern of complaints. Little, if any, participation in dissertation committees, Ph.D. mentorship, and programmatic curricular matters. |