Multiple Means of Teaching Evaluation

This policy provides requirements for the evaluation of faculty teaching, the results of which may be used for annual performance evaluation, tenure and promotion, mentoring of the faculty member, and professional development:

• Subsection (B) of Regent Policy 5.C.4 – Other Terms and Conditions of Faculty Appointments, which addresses the requirement of multiple measures of teaching evaluation for the annual evaluation of teaching.
   
• Subsection (B) of Regent Policy 5.D.2 - Standards for Tenure, which addresses the requirement of multiple measures of teaching evaluation for tenure purposes.

1. Faculty members, other than lecturers, teaching regular courses (excluding independent study, thesis, dissertation credits, and similar individual student courses) shall have their overall teaching evaluated annually using multiple means, including normed student feedback on each regular course, addressing behaviors and practices of which students have direct knowledge, using an instrument that attempts to mitigate potential bias in student evaluations of teaching.  See section IV of this APS for information on faculty teaching and course evaluation.
    
2. All personnel actions for tenured or tenure-track faculty shall be based, in part, on the evaluation of teaching.  Faculty members shall be evaluated annually to inform decisions regarding merit-based salary adjustments and evaluated in a summative manner for comprehensive review, tenure, and promotion.
   1. Annual evaluations of teaching are conducted as described in section II.A.
       
   2. Summative evaluations require more in-depth assessment and evaluation and shall also employ multiple measures of teaching effectiveness.  A minimum of three assessment components shall be used, one of which must be data from the Faculty Course Questionnaire (FCQ) or a similar, campus-approved mechanism. These components shall be addressed in primary unit criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion.
       
3. All personnel actions for instructional, research, and clinical faculty with teaching responsibilities shall be based, in part, on the evaluations of teaching.
   1. Annual evaluations of teaching are conducted as described in section II.A.
       
   2. Summative evaluations require more in-depth assessment and evaluation and shall also employ multiple measures of teaching effectiveness.  A minimum of three assessment components shall be used, one of which must be data from the FCQ or a similar, campus-approved mechanism.  These components shall be addressed in primary unit criteria for appointment, reappointment, and promotion.
4. Lecturers shall, at a minimum, participate in Faculty Course Questionnaires, which should be reviewed by the unit head. The use of multiple means of teaching evaluation is encouraged.
    
5. Professional development to improve teaching shall be informed by the results of teaching evaluation as defined in this policy.
    
6. In conducting annual performance evaluations, primary units can consider performance over multiple years to account for activities that may not yield meaningful results in a single year.  Units are encouraged to use this flexibility to give appropriate consideration to pedagogical innovation, recognizing that positive impact may not be immediately evident.

¹ At the Anschutz Medical Campus, faculty evaluation processes may vary from those described here. A peer evaluation process shall be used where appropriate, and normed student feedback shall be considered in the evaluation process whenever possible.

1. The voting faculty of each primary unit shall determine the goals and components for annual evaluations of teaching in the unit.  Primary unit components shall take into account any requirements from the campus or school/college.  Individual faculty members shall be evaluated based on components selected from the list approved by the primary unit.  Appendix A includes a non-exhaustive list of components that a unit might consider.
   1. The primary unit evaluation goals and components shall be available to each faculty member.
       
   2. The evaluation components selected for each faculty member for annual evaluations shall be appropriate to the teaching responsibilities of the faculty member.
       
   3. Faculty members shall be advised of any elimination/revision of existing approved components, or addition of new approved components, no later than April 1 for application in the next academic year.
       
   4. The primary unit shall gather the materials needed to evaluate an individual faculty member.  The faculty member shall cooperate with this process.  Failure to do so may be regarded as neglect of duty. 
       
   5. Components of annual teaching evaluations shall be reviewed when any primary unit criteria are reviewed and approved by the dean.
2. Summative components of teaching evaluations for tenured and tenure-track faculty shall be developed as part of the primary unit evaluation criteria for reappointment, tenure and promotion.
    
3. Summative evaluation components for IRC faculty are determined by the primary unit following a process similar to section III.A.
    
4. The provost/executive vice chancellor shall facilitate effective and efficient implementation of this policy with the deans and the chairs of the primary units.

A faculty member’s teaching shall be evaluated using multiple measures, including normed student feedback (such as FCQs or similar, campus-approved mechanisms), with actions to mitigate potential bias that evaluates the effectiveness of the course and the faculty member’s teaching of that course, or part of the course. The normalization process shall be defined by each primary unit. This information supports the faculty evaluation process and faculty rewards system.

1. FCQs or similar campus-approved mechanisms are used to provide a student-based evaluation of the course and the faculty member.
   1. Each campus shall have a process for determining common questions for the campus instrument in evaluating courses and individual faculty on the campus.
      
      The campus process for determining common questions for the campus instrument shall include faculty and students representing each school or college.  When possible, these faculty and student representatives shall be members of the school or college from the appropriate shared governance body.
       
   2. Schools/colleges, primary units, and individual faculty members shall have the option of adding additional questions to the campus instrument, but any additions are subject to approval by the faculty of the primary unit and the dean.
       
   3. Each student in a course/course section shall have the opportunity to participate in a faculty teaching and course evaluation that evaluates the effectiveness of the course and the faculty member’s teaching of that course or part of the course.
       
   4. The implementation and information distribution associated with faculty and course evaluations shall be funded by the chancellor.
       
   5. Faculty teaching and course evaluation numerical summary data shall be available to the public. Other data collected with FCQs are available to select individuals specified by each campus.
2. Other measures of evaluating teaching are used to provide additional insights into faculty members’ teaching effectiveness and evidence of their teaching practices.  Additional means to be included as multiple measures of evaluation shall be selected from those approved by the primary unit, using a process approved by the primary unit as described in section III of this APS.
    
3. Faculty are encouraged to develop and use diagnostic (formative) evaluation tools during the course to assist in mid-course pedagogical corrections for the purpose of improving instruction and student learning.

² The process for administering and reporting faculty and course evaluations may differ on the Anschutz Medical Campus.  Details will be made available in the dean’s offices.

Institutional evaluations other than FCQs and multiple means approved by the primary unit are subject to the following:

1. These evaluations shall measure the effectiveness of institutional affordances in supporting instruction and student learning.
    
2. They shall not be used for the purposes of evaluating the teaching of a faculty member.


3. nstructors of record shall be informed about any other course evaluation tool prior to its administration and shall receive the results of the evaluation tool.

Classroom instruction (online or face-to-face, undergraduate or graduate) and laboratory instruction are considered teaching and are subject to faculty teaching and course evaluation.  In addition, individual instruction, working with students in clinical or studio settings, and directing the work of honors students, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows can be considered in any teaching evaluation, but are not subject to faculty course evaluations.

For the definition of Primary Unit, refer to regent policy 11.B.

1. Regent Laws and Policies
   1. Subsection (B) of Regent Policy 5.C.4 – Other Terms and Conditions of Faculty Appointments
       
   2. Subsection (B) of Regent Policy 5.D.2 – Standards for Tenure
       
   3. Regent Policy 11.B – Faculty Salary (see Glossary of Terms for the University of Colorado’s Salary Policy for Faculty)
2. Administrative Policy Statements
   1. APS 1022 – Standards, Processes, and Procedures for Reappointment, Tenure, Promotion, and Post-Tenure Review
       
   2. APS 5008 – Faculty Performance Evaluation
       
   3. APS 5053 – Multi-Year Contracts for Instructional, Research and Clinical Faculty with Teaching Responsibilities or Librarian Appointments

• Adopted:  AY 1994-95.
• Revised:
  • July 1, 2009 (renamed to Multiple Means of Teaching Evaluation);
  • July 1, 2013;
  • July 1, 2020
    • APS 1009 was revised on March 18, 2020, but did not become effective until July 1, 2020, with the rollout of the revised regent article and policy 5.  The revisions of APS 1009 incorporated portions of regent policy 4.B which was rescinded effective January 1, 2018. 
    • NOTE – The full history of regent policy 4.B includes the following:  adopted April 17, 1986 (pp. 445-453); amended August 3, 2000 (Appendix A); revised September 23, 2004; rescinded January 1, 2018.
• Last Reviewed:  June 1, 2022.

As provided in section III.A, the voting faculty of each primary unit shall determine the goals and components for evaluating teaching in the unit.  This appendix lists some example components suggested by the Faculty Council Education, Policy and University Standards Committee that might be used in the evaluation of teaching.  Except for the campus-approved student evaluation (e.g., FCQs), primary units are responsible for developing their own criteria, which need not contain any item from this list.

• Student evaluations
  - Student evaluations as reported on Faculty Course Questionnaires (FCQ's) or a similar, campus-approved mechanism (required)
  - Student mid-term evaluations (including steps taken in response to feedback)
  - Student focus groups, interviews, or surveys
• Instructional materials
• Course syllabi and examinations
• Curriculum development efforts
• Course improvement efforts
  - Evidence of continuous improvement in teaching and learning
  - Department and curricular work, including participation in curriculum revision and departmental efforts on teaching
• Professional development and innovations relating to teaching
  - Participation in training in teaching effectiveness and new education-related technology
  - Evidence of effective utilization of contemporary teaching modalities, e.g., enhanced student learning
  - Engagement in peer assessment processes
• Professional awards related to the education process
• Receipt of grants for teaching and education improvements
• Alumni surveys or opinions on teaching
• Philosophy and self-assessment of teaching
• Oversight of independent studies, e.g., honors theses, preliminary exams, dissertations
• Advising and mentoring of students
• Video recordings of teaching
• Documentation of efforts to create inclusive and equitable educational experiences for students
• Scholarly research and presentation or publication on teaching and learning
• Mentoring students beyond the immediate instructional setting, e.g., supervision of doctoral or medical students, presenting teaching seminars to graduate students
• Mentoring faculty members in their educational activities
• Authoring or co-authoring textbooks adopted by other higher education institutions