ADJUNCT FACULTY EVALUATION POLICY
Adjunct faculty will be evaluated each year on the following expectations:
• prepare syllabi for their courses per university standards.
• teach courses in accordance with the syllabus.
• fully implement natural sciences general education requirements when teaching general education courses.
• specify in the syllabus a set of reasonable grading practices and follow them carefully.
• select teaching materials that are appropriate to the course description and reflect current developments in their discipline when teaching upper level courses.
• meet their classes as scheduled or, if it is necessary to be absent, receive approval from their department head.
• hold office hours and be available to meet with students outside of regular class hours.
• attain acceptable student evaluations.
• work with their department head to address student pedagogical concerns.
• comply with commonly accepted standards of professional behavior and ethics as described in Chapter 5 of UTC’s Faculty Handbook.
Should concern arise about the instructional quality of an adjunct instructor, the Department Head, Associate Head, or a tenured faculty may observe the adjunct instructor teaching. When this occurs, the Head, Associate Head, or tenured faculty will provide the adjunct faculty with a completed Peer Evaluation of Instruction Form that includes a general rating (excellent, very good, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory), discussion of strengths and weaknesses, and suggestions to strengthen teaching. Each year, the Department Head will return student evaluations to adjunct faculty and discuss any significant concerns with adjunct faculty at that time. The Department will not rehire adjunct faculty whose performance is unsatisfactory.
Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences
Peer Evaluation of Instruction Form
Adjunct Faculty
Instructor_
Course_
Bldg/Room#_
Was the presentation primarily: lecture; discussion; demonstration; lecture/discussion; lecture/demonstration; other_
GENERAL RATING
In comparison with other university presentations in my experience and of a similar type, I would rate this presentation as:
Excellent Very Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Comments and Suggestions:
What characteristics of the instructor and the class did you find strong?
What characteristics of the instructor and the class do you think were weak?
What specific suggestions would you make to this instructor to strengthen his/her classroom performance?
Signature of Evaluator
Comments of the evaluated instructor:
Signature of Instructor
