APS #1009


Multiple Means of Teaching Evaluation

Brief Description

This policy provides requirements for the evaluation of faculty teaching.

Policy Profile

APS Policy Title: 
Multiple Means of Teaching Evaluation
APS Number: 
Effective Date: 
July 1, 2020
Approved By: 
President Mark R. Kennedy
Responsible University Officer: 
Vice President for Academic Affairs
Responsible Office: 
Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs
Policy Contact: 
Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs
Multiple Means of Teaching Evaluation, July 1, 2013
Last Reviewed/Updated date: 
July 1, 2020
Applies to: 
All Faculty

I. Introduction

This policy provides requirements for the evaluation of faculty teaching, the results of which may be used for annual merit evaluation, tenure and promotion, and mentoring and professional development.  Requirements for the annual evaluation of teaching are addressed in Regent Policy 5.C – Faculty Appointments and Regent Policy 5.D – Reappointment (to a tenure-track position), Tenure, and Promotion.

II.  Policy Statement

  1. The teaching of all faculty members shall be evaluated using normed student feedback on behaviors and practices of which students have direct knowledge using an instrument that mitigates known bias in student evaluations of teaching.  See section IV of this APS.
  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 shall include data from the Faculty Course Questionnaire (FCQ) or a similar, campus-approved mechanism (see Section IV of this APS) and may include other measures of teaching effectiveness.
    2. Summative evaluations require more in-depth assessment and evaluation and shall 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 similar, campus-approved mechanism.
      1. In accordance with Regent Policy 5.D – Reappointment (to a tenure-track position), Tenure, and Promotion, a recommendation of tenure based on excellence in teaching shall include multiple measures of teaching evaluation and demonstrated achievement at the campus, local, national, and/or international level which furthers the practice and/or scholarship of teaching and learning beyond one’s immediate instructional setting.
  3. For instructional, research, and clinical track faculty with teaching responsibilities:
    1. The evaluation of teaching shall include data from the FCQ or similar campus-approved mechanism.  Other means of evaluation may be required by the campus or primary unit. 
  4. Professional development to improve teaching should be informed by the results of teaching evaluation as defined in this policy.
  5. In conducting annual performance evaluations, primary units can consider performance over multiple years to account for activities that may not yield measurable 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.

III. Procedures

  1. The voting faculty of each primary unit shall determine the goals and components for evaluating 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 both annual and summative evaluations shall be appropriate to their teaching responsibilities.
    3. Faculty members shall be advised of any elimination/revision of existing components, or addition of new 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 and failure to do so may be regarded as neglect of duty. 
  2. The evaluation components for both annual review and reappointment, tenure, and promotion shall be reviewed when primary unit criteria are reviewed and approved by the dean and provost.
  3. The  provost shall facilitate effective and efficient implementation of this policy with the deans and the chairs of the primary units.

IV. Faculty and Course Evaluation1

  1. Each student in a course/course section shall have the opportunity to participate in a faculty and course evaluation (commonly referred to as the FCQ), or a similar, campus-approved mechanism that evaluates the effectiveness of the course and the faculty member’s teaching of that course or part of the course.
  2. The purposes of the evaluation are:  (1) to provide a student-based evaluation of the course and the faculty member; and (2) to support the faculty evaluation process and faculty rewards system.  In addition, 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.
  3. Each campus shall have a process for determining common elements for evaluating courses and individual faculty on the campus.   Schools/colleges, primary units, and individual faculty members shall have the option of adding additional components, but any additions are subject to dean and provost approval.
    1. The campus process for determining common elements shall include faculty and students representing each school or college.  When possible, these faculty and student representatives should be members of the school or college shared governance body.
  4. The implementation and information distribution associated with faculty course evaluations shall be funded by the chancellor
  5. Faculty and course evaluation summary data shall be available to the campus community.

V. Definitions

Classroom instruction (online or face-to-face, undergraduate or graduate) and laboratory instruction is considered teaching and is subject to faculty 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.

VI. History

  • Adopted:  AY 1994-95.
  • Revised:  July 1, 2009; July 1, 2013; July 1, 2020 [regent policy 4.B (rescinded effective January 1, 2018) incorporated into the APS July 1, 2020.  Regent policy 4.B adopted April 17, 1986 (pp. 445-453); amended August 3, 2000 (Appendix A); revised September 23, 2004.  NOTE: Latest changes approved March 18, 2020; became effective July 1, 2020, with the rollout of the new regent article and policy 5 regarding faculty.
  • Last Reviewed:  July 1, 2020.

Appendix A: Multiple Means of Teaching Evaluation

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, e.g., graduate students (as primary advisor or committee member)
  • 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 education enterprises
  • Authoring or co-authoring textbooks adopted by other higher education institutions
  • 1. 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.