ANNUAL FACULTY EVALUATION FOR
Name Rank Department
TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS: Rating is based on evaluation of Part 1 of Annual Faculty Activities and
Assessment Report, Student Instructional Reports, and other available information. Note: Not all listed
items may apply, and additional items (“other”) must be specified if they apply. Note comments beside
all items that apply.
WEIGHT SELECTED BY FACULTY MEMBER (RANGE 50-65%)
Teaching Effectiveness Rating: Excellent Good Needs Improvement
(If “Needs Improvement” specify areas of improvement needed)
SUMMARY COMMENTS ON TEACHING: (attached separate page if needed)
INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY: Rating is based on evaluation of Part II of the Annual Faculty Activities
and Assessment Report. Note: Not all listed items may apply, and additional items (“other”) must be
specified if they apply. Note comments beside all items that apply.
WEIGHT SELECTED BY FACULTY MEMBER (RANGE 15-35%)
Intellectual Activity Rating Excellent Good Needs Improvement
(If “Needs Improvement”, specify areas of improvement needed)
SUMMARY COMMENTS ON INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY: (attached separate page if needed)
UNIVERSITY SERVICE: Rating is based on evaluation of Part III of the Annual Faculty Activities and
Assessment Report. Note: Not all listed items may apply, and additional items (“other”) must be
specified if they apply. Note comments beside all items that apply.
WEIGHT SELECTED BY FACULTY MEMBER (RANGE 10-30%)
University Service Rating Excellent Good Needs Improvement
(If “Needs Improvement”, specify areas of improvement needed)
SUMMARY COMMENTS ON SERVICE: (attach separate page if needed)
0%
0%
0%
Overall All Rating (If “needs improvement” specify areas of improvement needed)
Weight Rating Numerical Score for
Chosen Equivalent Category
Teaching Effectiveness
Intellectual Activity
University Service
OVERALL SCORE/EVALUATION*
SUMMARY COMMENTS ON OVERALL EVALUATION
Teaching Effectiveness
(Weight Range 50-65%)
Intellectual Activity
(Weight Range 15-35%)
University Service
(Weight Range 10-30%)
I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ THIS DOCUMENT AND HAVE DISCUSSED IT WITH THE
EVALUATOR. MY SIGNATURE CONNOTES NEITHER AGREEMENT NOR
DISAGREEMENT WITH THE RATINGS AND COMMENTS HEREON. I UNDERSTAND
THAT I MAY ALSO DISCUSS THIS DOCUMENT WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
UNIVERSITY’S ADMINISTRATION.
Signature of Faculty Member Date Signature of Evaluator Date
Printed Name Printed Name
*Within each category Excellent receives a score of 3, Good receives a score of 2, and Needs Improvement receives a score of 1.
An Overall Score of 2.7 or higher receives an overall evaluation of Excellent/High Merit, an Overall Score of 2.65-1.85 receives
an overall evaluation of Good/Merit, and an Overall Score of 1.80 or lower receives an overall evaluation of Needs
Improvement/No Merit.