University Policy
Title
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Policy on Evaluating Faculty Teaching Effectiveness
Introduction
Purpose
This policy is intended to define, encourage, and measure teaching in a way that is consistent with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s ("UNC-Chapel Hill" or "University") mission and complies with UNC System Policy 400.3.1 and its implementing regulation 400.3.1.1[R]. This policy also provides recommendations for Units to establish their own guidelines for teaching effectiveness.
Effective teaching is critical to the student learning experience and student academic success. Additionally, North Carolina state law § 116-1(b) states that "teaching and learning constitute the primary service that the university renders to society. Teaching, or instruction, is the primary responsibility of each of the constituent institutions" of the UNC System.
Evaluating teaching in higher education emphasizes using three voices that provide distinct types of evidence: students, peers, and self. The systematic collection of evidence from these three voices helps improve teaching over time and ensures that teaching evaluation is systematic and equitable. This policy avoids prescribing a single approach while establishing guidelines on teaching evaluation processes that improve the balance and representativeness of information about teaching effectiveness and, thus, reduce the potential for bias that can occur when only one source of evidence is used.
Scope
This policy applies to all UNC-Chapel Hill faculty whose Faculty Workload Plans include teaching responsibilities.
Definitions
Teaching involves a variety of activities that communicate knowledge and values to a learner and impart the skills necessary for individuals to lead responsible, productive, and personally satisfying lives. Such activities include, but are not limited to, the instruction of organized courses, evaluating students, developing materials for new courses, updating materials for existing courses, developing courseware or other materials for technology-based instruction, supervising undergraduate research, masters’ theses and/or doctoral dissertations, directing students in co-curricular activities such as plays, preparing and equipping new laboratories, supervision of teaching assistants, consulting with and supporting other instructors, supervision of internships and other experiential learning, academic advising, mentoring, providing students with accommodations for their mental health or physical needs, and other activities that support student success.
Students are broadly defined as actively engaged in acquiring knowledge or skills, whether through formal education or self-directed learning. This may include but is not limited to those enrolled undergraduate students, graduate and professional students, post-docs, professional development participants, residents, and fellows.
Teaching Effectiveness means providing student-centered learning and assessment experiences aligned with clearly articulated learning objectives relevant to the discipline and the course. It models and fosters critical, analytical, and creative thinking while engaging and supporting students cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally. Effective teaching ensures all students can participate fully and the instructor implements continuous course improvement over time.
Annual Evaluations, as defined in UNC System Policy 400.3.4, Policy on Faculty Workload, Section III.B., are a review of a faculty member's work by the Unit chair/head or equivalent relative to the faculty member’s approved work plan as defined in UNC Policy 400.3.4, Section III.C., and the faculty member’s self-assessment.
Student Voice includes, but is not limited to, instruments used to gather anonymous responses regarding a student’s experience in a course, including items such as course organization, course materials, teaching methods, and interaction with the instructor of record.
Peer Voice is a process conducted by faculty peers to continue to develop a faculty member’s instructional skills and practice. This process uses elements such as observation of instruction, review of teaching portfolios, and discussions regarding pedagogical goals and methods.
Instructor Voice is a process of deliberative review and critical evaluation of one’s own work while identifying specific strategies for improvement. Instructor voice, via self-assessment, is designed to provide a comprehensive review of the faculty member’s teaching and identify formative strategies to continue developing teaching skills.
Unit includes College/School departments, sub-departments, and programs.
Post Tenure Review, according to UNC System Policy 400.3.3, Performance Review of Tenured Faculty, is a comprehensive, periodic, cumulative review of the performance of tenured faculty members that must encompass and include annual evaluations.
Policy
I. Criteria the University Uses to Evaluate Teaching Effectiveness
UNC-Chapel Hill and its Units must use multiple criteria to assess a faculty member’s teaching effectiveness and further develop that faculty member’s instructional practice. The University and its Units must use the following criteria:
- student voice,
- peer voice, and
- instructor voice.
A. Student Voice
Student Voice: Student feedback. Units must establish a transparent process for collecting and using student feedback for those faculty whose Faculty Workload Plans include teaching responsibilities. The Unit is expected to consider student feedback on instruction fairly and equitably. Feedback and feedback methods should be individualized for faculty based on their teaching roles and types of students.
Faculty will work with their Unit to determine the best assessment of students appropriate to their roles outlined in their Faculty Workload Plan. Faculty should be encouraged to provide a variety of assessment points in their evaluation of teaching. For example, student voice collection processes could include:
- end of course feedback for students enrolled in organized classes. At the end of each term, students will have an opportunity to provide feedback on their courses and faculty instruction; and/or
- feedback surveys from participants in professional development settings, learners in clinical and research settings, or from learners in other teaching contexts.
Each School must ensure that data collection systems for student feedback on faculty instruction are transparent, effective, and efficient.
1. How the University Gathers Student Feedback
The Provost and Chief Academic Officer delegates authority to the deans, in consultation with their faculty, to approve the following:
- the methods to be used within their Units to collect feedback from students about their courses and instructors,
- how often this feedback will be collected,
- the instruments or other methods that may be used,
- how the evaluation data collection process will be administered and managed, and
- how the feedback is reported and maintained.
Deans must ensure these procedures are transparent and regularly communicate them to their School. Additionally, Units or faculty may wish to develop their own instruments (for example, mid-semester) for formative purposes.
2. How Often Student Feedback is Required
Students in organized classes will be provided with an opportunity to provide feedback on their courses and instruction at the end of each term. However, the frequency of student feedback data collection for individual courses should be flexible to take into account how the courses and their contents are organized for delivery across time periods (such as in modules as opposed to traditional 15-week terms) and the instructional activities (didactic vs experiential). Unit policies may allow instructors to use additional, informal means of collecting feedback during the course to make adjustments that improve student learning outcomes.
3. How the University Reports on Student Feedback
Units should have a transparent process for how student feedback is reported and reviewed by designated supervisors to monitor the quality of instruction.
4. How the University Ensures Its Student Feedback Data Collection Systems are Transparent, Effective, and Efficient
Units should publish their procedures for collecting and disseminating student feedback on courses and instruction for faculty, staff, and students. Units should particularly ensure that students are advised whether their feedback will be anonymous or otherwise protected and how it will be used.
Within each Unit, deans and their faculty are encouraged to choose feedback data collection methods appropriate for the course type (e.g., organized class, small seminar, independent study) and the mode of delivery. Units should examine instruments, whether designed to collect feedback data in quantitative or qualitative form, for reliability, validity, and the possibility that results might be biased in ways that unfairly disadvantage individual instructors based on demographic or other personal factors.
Schools can use the University’s centrally administered course evaluation platform at no additional cost or invest in other commercial or homegrown systems that best meet their evaluation needs. In any case, student feedback systems should be managed by appropriately trained staff and reviewed periodically for effectiveness, security, and efficiency of use.
B. Peer Voice
Peer Voice: Feedback on teaching and teaching materials. Units must establish a transparent peer evaluation process for faculty whose Faculty Workload Plans include teaching responsibilities. This peer evaluation process is intended to support teaching improvement over time and document teaching effectiveness. Peer evaluators can be selected from within or outside the Unit and are expected to give feedback on peer evaluations of instruction fairly and equitably.
Peer evaluation processes could include:
- a review of multiple sources of evidence to maximize the trustworthiness of the evaluation and reduce the potential for bias of the peer reviewer. Examples of sources of evidence include but are not limited to syllabi, instructional and assessment materials, and/or observations of instruction; and/or
- a brief pre-observation meeting with the instructor to discuss goals for the observation followed by a brief post-observation meeting with the instructor to discuss findings, answer questions, and discuss possible approaches for teaching development.
Units are encouraged to support training for peer evaluators and to determine a method for using feedback from peers to review teaching effectiveness consistently across evaluators.
1. Frequency of Peer Assessment
For all faculty with a workload plan that includes teaching, peer assessments must occur at least once per appointment period, promotion, or post-tenure review interval.
Per UNC System Regulation 400.3.1.1[R], Section II.A.1.a., full-time, tenured faculty, peer assessments should occur during the third year after being granted tenure. Similarly, peer assessments should occur during the third year after a post-tenure review.
For fixed-term faculty with multi-year contracts, the peer assessment should occur at least once per contract term.
For fixed-term faculty with one-year contracts, the peer assessment should occur at regular intervals at the Unit's discretion.
2. Peer Assessment Format and Opportunity to Respond
All peer assessments at UNC-Chapel Hill must generate a written report and allow the faculty member to provide a written response to the report if the faculty member chooses to do so.
C. Self-Assessment
Instructor Voice: Self-evaluations. All faculty members are encouraged to reflect regularly on their teaching efforts, with the goal of improving teaching effectiveness over time. Self-evaluations provide a venue for instructors to explain their thinking about their teaching and how they make teaching decisions over time based on evidence gathered from student course feedback surveys, peer evaluations, or other sources of knowledge about teaching effectiveness. Faculty may include self-evaluations in annual progress reports and summative teaching evaluations, such as promotion dossiers, as a complement to and context for student and peer evaluations. Units may establish their own processes and formats for documenting and using written self-evaluations.
II. When the University Uses These Criteria to Evaluate Faculty Teaching Performance
Per UNC System Policy 400.3.1., Section IV.B., Units must use student voice, peer voice, and self-assessment in annual evaluations and comprehensive reviews, including reviews for promotion and post-tenure reviews or once per contract term.
A. Rewarding Teaching Excellence
UNC-Chapel Hill broadly recognizes teaching excellence formally through University Teaching Awards and other Faculty Awards. In addition, the University of North Carolina Board of Governors annually presents the Board of Governors’ Award for Teaching Excellence to a faculty member at each campus. Individual Units are also encouraged to reward teaching excellence.
B. Training and Professional Development
1. Training to Use These Criteria Effectively
Per UNC System Policy 400.3.1, Section IV.C., Schools are responsible for training faculty members, department chairs, academic Unit heads, deans, and other administrators to use these criteria effectively to support instructor growth and enhance the following:
- pedagogy,
- the student learning experience, and
- student academic success.
Schools may consult the Center for Faculty Excellence or adapt materials provided to conduct training.
2. Training for Units to Support Teaching
UNC-Chapel Hill may also support Units in establishing best practices for performing peer assessments of teaching.
Units are encouraged to support training for collecting and interpreting these criteria (student voice, peer voice, and self-assessment) to ensure that Units consistently and equitably evaluate teaching effectiveness.
Schools may consult the Center for Faculty Excellence or adapt materials provided to conduct training.
3. Training for Instructors to Support Teaching
UNC-Chapel Hill offers and encourages professional development opportunities for all faculty members focused on teaching effectiveness, including those offered by the Center for Faculty Excellence and other University Units.
III. Evaluation Process
A. Annual Evaluation
Units should refer to UNC System Policy 400.3.4 and the UNC-Chapel Hill Faculty Workload Policy for detailed guidance on the annual faculty evaluation process for faculty with teaching responsibilities.
The annual evaluation process for faculty involves the assessment of the faculty member’s performance, contributions, and accomplishments for the academic year based on that faculty member’s established work plan.
B. Reappointment, Tenure, and Post-Tenure Review
Each faculty member must have a cumulative reappointment, promotion, tenure, or post-tenure review that follows the University’s and respective Unit’s relevant policies. This review must rely on the following criteria to evaluate teaching effectiveness:
- annual evaluations;
- peer assessments;
- student feedback that meets the requirements of UNC System Regulation 400.3.1.1[R]; and
- any other criteria (e.g., faculty teaching awards) available to the review committee.
IV. Reviewing and Updating this Policy
The Provost must work with faculty via the University’s Faculty Council to review and, as needed, update this policy and related procedures on a regular timeline per appropriate University policies.
Additionally, UNC-Chapel Hill must review this policy at least every five years and submit a copy of that review and any changes made to the UNC System President.
Exceptions
None.
Related Requirements
External Regulations
University Policies, Standards, and Procedures
Contact Information
Policy Contact
Name: Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Telephone: 919-962-4511
Other Contacts
Name: Office of Faculty Affairs
Telephone: 919-962-1092
Email: facultyaffairs@unc.edu
Name: Center for Faculty Excellence
Email: cfe@unc.edu