Fillable Faculty Member Date of Review Department Semester(s) Reviewed (West Chester University of Pennsylvania)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Faculty Member Date of Review Department Semester(s) Reviewed (West Chester University of Pennsylvania) Form

Use Fill to complete blank online WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA pdf forms for free. Once completed you can sign your fillable form or send for signing. All forms are printable and downloadable.

Faculty Member Date of Review Department Semester(s) Reviewed (West Chester University of Pennsylvania)

On average this form takes 8 minutes to complete

The Faculty Member Date of Review Department Semester(s) Reviewed (West Chester University of Pennsylvania) form is 4 pages long and contains:

  • 2 signatures
  • 30 check-boxes
  • 11 other fields

Country of origin: US
File type: PDF

U.S.A. forms for West Chester University of Pennsylvania

BROWSE WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA FORMS

Related forms
Fill has a huge library of thousands of forms all set up to be filled in easily and signed.
Fill in your chosen form
Sign the form using our drawing tool
Send to someone else to fill in and sign.
find another form
 
Rev.
05/14
Canary Yellow
Canary Yellow Canary Yellow Canary Yellow Canary Yellow Canary Yellow
Canary Yellow
West Chester University of Pennsylvania
Department Chairperson's Performance Review
Review and Faculty Evaluation Form
Faculty Member Date of Review
Department Semester(s) Reviewed
Type of Evaulation: (check where applicable)
Post 5th year evaluation Regular Part Time
Probationary 1
st
2
nd
3
rd
4
th
5
th
Promotion Year 1 or 2
Temporary Interim
EVALUATION: "The Chairperson's evaluation shall be based on his/her knowledge and personal
observation of the FACULTY MEMBER'S performance, the results of the department evaluation
committee's evaluation and recommendations and materials submitted by the FACULTY MEMBER."
[Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article XII, C, 1, c, 2].
Each of the three specific evaluation areas to be covered should be handled in two ways: (1) Selecting one
of the four categories describing the evaluee's performance. Each of the categories is intended to serve a
carefully defined function, discussed below. (2) Including a thorough narrative explanation justifying the
selection. Mere selection of an objective description does not constitute evaluation and is unacceptable.
Evidence must be cited in support of judgments. Use additional space as needed.
Does Not Meet Professional Standards. This description should be reserved for rare cases where
an individual is mismatched with his job or is simply incompetent.
Improvement Needed. This comment should be used frequently and without hesitation. It means
simply that there appear to be aspects of the evaluee's performance which could be improved. It
should only rarely, and then in obvious cases, be considered pejorative. For example, beginning
faculty or experienced persons taking on new assignments, should frequently be expected to need
improvement in their performance.
Meets Professional Standards. This designation will probably be used to describe a majority of the
cases that are considered. It is specifically intended as a means of avoiding narrow "grading" of
personnel. Qualitative differences should emerge from the narrative explanation section of the
evaluation.
Distinguished. This description should almost never be used. It should be reserved as a means of
recognizing unequivocally superior performance.
Rev.
05/14
1. EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND FULFILLMENT OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Does Not Meet Improvement Meets Professional
Professional Standards Needed Standards Distinguished
Explanation: [Indicated, when applicable, by such items as student evaluations, peer evaluations, classroom
visitations, quality of syllabi, quality of student advisement, willingness to accept departmental work
assignments, timely execution of work assignments, etc., (See Collective Bargaining Agreement XII, B, 1)].
2. CONTINUING SCHOLARLY WORK
Does Not Meet Improvement Meets Professional
Professional Standards Needed Standards Distinguished
Explanation: [Indicated, when applicable, by such items as development of experimental programs, papers
delivered at national and regional meetings of professional societies, regional and national awards, etc., (see
Collective Bargaining Agreement XII, B, 2)].
Rev.
05/14
3. SERVICE: CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNIVERSITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
Does Not Meet Improvement Meets Professional
Professional Standards Needed Standards Distinguished
Explanation: [Indicated, when applicable, by such items as quality of participation in programs,
department, college, and university committees; APSCUF activity contributing to the governance of the
university; development of new course(s) or program(s); etc. (see Collective Bargaining Agreement XII, B,
3)].
4. OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Does Not Meet Improvement Meets Professional
Professional Standards Needed Standards Distinguished
(Refer to preceding sections where specific strengths and weaknesses are detailed as a basis for the
chairperson's recommendation to the appropriate dean or manager.)
Rev.
05/14
Name:
Date:
Signature:
FACULTY MEMBER: Please check one of the following:
I accept this evaluation report.
I disagree with this report. My signature merely indicated that I have read the report and have had
the opportunity to attach a personal statement to it.
I disagree with this report and will attach a personal statement within one week of the date of my
signature.
Date: Signature:
cc: Chairperson
Faculty Member
Faculty Member
Canary Yellow Canary Yellow Canary Yellow Canary Yellow Canary Yellow Canary Yellow Canary Yellow
click to sign
signature
click to edit
click to sign
signature
click to edit
Download
Save PDF to desktop
Email
Email completed PDF
Send for Signing
Email for others to sign
Print
Print document
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it
Want to add a signature?
You can add a signature field
and assign it to someone else
to sign
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it

Faculty Member Date of Review Department Semester(s) Reviewed (West Chester University of Pennsylvania)

This document is locked as it has been sent for signing.

You have successfully completed this document.

Other parties need to complete fields in the document. You will recieve an email notification when the document has been completed by all parties.

This document has been signed by all parties.

Completed 1 September 2020

Message

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document