FACULTY PEER REVIEW SYSTEM
The IOU Foundation Ph.D. program faculty agreed in October 2008 to affirm FASC’s proposal to develop a “peer evaluation system” for the purposes of conducting a meaningful and effective faculty review system. In October 2008 the faculty unanimously agreed that FASC develop a “person-centered, collaborative peer review system.”
In the IOU Foundation Ph.D. program, professional development is understood in the context of Progressive Education. That is, individuals are free to pursue their own initiatives to develop and determine the contributions to the larger community being made. As such, a peer review system for the IOU Foundation Ph.D. program must be person-centered for faculty that are educators and scholars as well as collaborative for evaluation purposes.
In the context of the peer review system we note that all “evaluation is intervention” to assist faculty members in professional self-development and examination.
The review system contained in this packet is person-centered because its sources of information are faculty and learner primary documents reflecting on experience with faculty member practices. The review system is also person-centered because it acknowledges that the community’s purpose for the review is educative. Lastly, it is person-centered in that its goal is professional development and that the system invests in the individual participant through a system of knowledge construction.
The review system is collaborative because a face-to-face dialogue about a faculty member’s recent academic and scholarly work occurs. The purpose of the dialogue is to engage one faculty member’s work in an effort to accurately portray his or her academic and scholarly contributions and the identity of the member’s endeavors.
The peer review system seeks to maintain the coherence of the IOU Foundation Ph.D. program’s core values and best practices by using face-to-face conversations about our work as a faculty-wide collaborative review system. Through the collaborative vehicle of dialog we meet in small groups of three to engage one faculty member’s work for the past five years.
The review team consists of (a) a FASC member, (b) a faculty member not in review status and identified by FASC, and (c) the faculty member in review status. The review team, in a face-to-face meeting, conjointly composes a “work portrait.” This collaborative portrayal of a faculty member’s work is the perspective that supports FASC’s recommendation to the Dean’s Office for his or her evaluative requirements.
The two review team members not in review status will individually familiarize themselves with review documentation assembled by FASC from the faculty member in review status, the IOU Foundation Ph.D. program office and interview data from FASC concerning the member in review status. The individual familiarization is preparation for the review team face-to-face meeting.
All faculty will participate in two types of reviews. Each faculty member is expected to complete the Annual Review on pages 8 through 11 of this booklet. Identified faculty members will complete the Faculty Peer Review System every five years.
FASC assembles the following documents:
From the faculty member in review status
Updated curriculum vita (CV) in the format of the four scholarship domains.
Summaries of scholarly endeavors for the past five years with substantiating documentation where appropriate.
Selection of three “best” Second Reader Reports.
Selection of one Second Reader Report that could be improved.
A signed informed consent form allowing FASC and the two faculty review team members allowing access to all necessary files and materials.
The name of a first core graduate whose PDE represents the strongest PDE you approved for Dean’s review in the past five years.
The name of a first core graduate whose PDE represents the weakest PDE you approved for Dean’s review in the past five years.
From the IOU Foundation Ph.D. Program office
Self-evaluation submitted each year by all faculty.
Learner and recent graduates’ evaluations (Recent graduates are those who completed their programs in the past 12 months.) Learner colloquium and seminar evaluations.
Record of faculty meeting attendance.
Record of participation in governance committee meetings.
From FASC
Random calling for feedback from faculty for whom the faculty member under review served as Second Core reader as well as the Second Core reader for whom the faculty under review was the First Core. Random calling for feedback from co-convener with whom the faculty member in review did a colloquium, seminar or both.
FASC will identify the two non-review team members. One is a member of FASC who can be faculty, graduate representative or learner representative.
The faculty under review has one veto as to a peer serving on the review team.
Reciprocal arrangements are not allowed.
FASC Chair determines the FASC member on review team. All FASC members must serve once before any member receives a second assignment.
Reviews should be held at convenient times for the participants.
Review sessions are anticipated to take two hours.
FASC, with assistance from the IOU Foundation Ph.D. Program, assembles the review materials based on the timeline that follows.
At the time of the review, the faculty member under review is asked to bring information to assist the team with the discussion of the strongest and weakest PDEs.
The review team has one month after the team meeting to submit the work portrait to FASC.
Following are the guidelines to develop the work portrait:
- During the dialogic process each person will make notes on strengths and weaknesses, integration of differences and resolution of issues.
- The “work portrait” will be constructed from each person’s notes on agreements and differences. Individual notes will be pooled and sorted by the participants into two major categories: Strengths and Weaknesses. These two categories of notes will be further sorted into the four scholarship domains: Scholarship of Discovery; Interdisciplinary Scholarship; Scholarship of Engagement Service and Social Action; and Scholarship of Teaching and Learner Guidance. A profile is constructed.
- The profile is used to contextualize and characterize the stability of an overall pattern by comparing to it to the historical record of evaluation and performance. Changes and differences between the profile and the record are noted and discussed to create a “fuller and clearer understanding.”
- The collaborative process in constructing the above profile is realized through sharing and revising opinions in the interest of invoking insight and new understanding. The common element of openness to sharing, questioning and revising one’s views in the presence of personal information is noted. Also noted is the proportional amount of time committed to and spent engaged in using the dialogic process. Openness to dialogue and commitment to the concept are noted and weighed. Agreement to the degree of openness and commitment is agreed upon by the team and listed.
- The FASC member will facilitate the final construction process by clarifying agreements, understandings and differences. All materials will be submitted to FASC for analysis, evaluation and formulation.
- Strength rankings: the review team assesses the faculty member’s work on the following three-point scale:
Meets or Exceeds Expectations – meets or exceeds contract responsibilities and quality standards.
Needs improvement – a plan for improvement is developed by the team and reassessed in 6-12 months, the interval depending on the level of improvement needed. FASC will call for the reassessment.
Unacceptable – immediate intervention is needed; contract status is put at risk.
FASC will notify and provide the Faculty Development Committee with recommendations for a plan from the review team for the faculty member under review.
Faculty Development develops the final improvement plan and assigns a monitor to work with the faculty member under review for three months.
Faculty Development provides FASC with a written report on the progress being made by the faculty member under review.
FASC makes recommendations for further action.
Peer review packets are mailed to faculty who are to be reviewed.
Learner surveys are sent to learners.
FASC receives list of faculty to be reviewed from IOU Foundation Ph.D. Program office.
IOU Foundation Ph.D. program provides FASC with a list of First and Second core faculty as well as Colloquia and Seminar Co-conveners for the faculty member under review.
First and Second Core faculty members as well as Colloquia and Seminar Co-conveners are randomly selected.
FASC does random calling of colloquium and seminar co-conveners, and first and second core faculty members.
FASC develops review teams
November 1
All review material is received from the faculty member under review, learner and recent graduate evaluations, and FASC in the IOU Foundation Ph.D. Program office.
In collaboration with FASC all materials for review are sent to review team members by the IOU Foundation Ph.D. Program office.
Faculty reviews are conducted.
One month after review
Review team submits work portraits to FASC chair
FASC develops review letters.
FASC chair submits FASC review letters to appropriate administrator.
See informed consent form.
1. Self-evaluation Report
Definitions of the four scholarship domains
Samples of scholarship summary and documentation
Faculty Informed Consent Form for Participation in the Faculty Peer Review System
Telephone Interview Surveys
Learner and Recent Graduates Cover Letter
Learner and Recent Graduate Informed Consent Form for Participation in the Faculty Peer Review System
Learner and Recent Graduate First Core Evaluation Form
Learner and Recent Graduate Second Core Evaluation Form
CONFIDENTIAL
Faculty: ____________________________________________________
Name
Annual Self Evaluation Report
___________________________________________________________
Signature
___________________________________________________________
Date
Return to the Dean’s office
Received ____________________________________________
Date Stamp
____________________________________________
Dean’s Signature
Received: ____________________________________________
Date
Response Sent: _______________________________ (attached to this report)
Date
Discussion Held (If Requested): ___________________________ (summary attached to this report)
Date
Final copy provided Dean: ________________________________ (summary attached to this report)
Date
Return to: Dean’s Office
Approved: ______________________________________ Report Filed: ___________________
Executive Vice President of Academic Affairs
Copy received in Human Resources: _______________________________
Date
Please Complete and Return to the IOU Foundation Ph.D. Program
ANNUAL CORE FACULTY SELF-REPORT OF ACADEMIC
AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
I. Name_______________________________________ Date____________
II. Status: _____ Full-time _____ Three-quarter-time
_____ Half-time _____ Part-time
III. Years in current status: ______________
Do you intend to apply for change of status? ___ yes ___ no
___ not applicable
IV. List the number of learners for whom you are serving as of this date:
___________ First core ______________ Second core
V. Number of colloquia convened _____________
Number of Seminars convened _____________
VI. Number of faculty meetings attended: ______________
VII. Number of committees on which you serve: __________
Please list each committee:
a.
b.
c.
d.
VIII. The following are aspects of faculty roles and responsibilities. Please address each statement to reflect your self-assessment. Attach additional pages, if more space is needed.
In your IOU Foundation work of this self-report:
a. Describe what you have done that demonstrates your commitment to the learning philosophy of the IOU Foundation Ph.D. Program that includes learning as an interdisciplinary, socially meaningful, and a life long process.
b. Describe your participation in your governance work. Include in your description your interest in the work, how your participation included your expertise, and specific contributions you made.
c. Describe your strengths as a first core.
d. Describe your challenges as a first core and what you are doing or have done to address them.
e. Describe your strengths as a second core.
f. Describe your challenges as a second core and what you are doing or have done to address them.
g. Describe your strengths and challenges in the role of a convener of IOU Foundation Ph.D. Program colloquia and Seminars? Include what you doing or you have done to address the challenges.
h. Describe the scholarly activities in which you have been engaged.
Any other comments you care to make?
Scholarship of Discovery
This domain is the more traditional domain because it connects the process of research to publication. At IOU Foundation the purpose and placement of research is directly connected to our mission. Research and the publishing of it are not just to advance knowledge for its own sake, but also to share knowledge and inform constituencies beyond the wall of academe.
CV Data: Publications such as books; book chapters; peer-reviewed, refereed and editorial board reviewed journals; and writing for non-specialists by publishing scholarly based ideas for the nonacademic.
Interdisciplinary Scholarship
This domain is grounded in the IOU Foundation principle of interdisciplinary study. In this domain CV data that actualizes interdisciplinarity with social meaning. While it is more likely than not that the information in this domain are “peer reviewed” it is not the type, style, or purpose of peer review that is associated with the previous domain.
CV Data: Journal articles, monographs and papers written for gatherings of individuals across disciplines; works of art including poetry, music, fine art; multimedia products (i.e., computer software, audio, video, film, television); interdisciplinary seminars for IOU Foundation or other organizations; interdisciplinary work on governance committees; consultative services and activities.
Scholarship of Engagement, Service and Social Action
This domain speaks directly to the IOU Foundation mission of social meaning or relevance of the work of an academic. The CV data in this domain focuses on our commitment to making a positive contribute to our immediate communities and broader communities through our scholarly efforts. These activities might be an outgrowth of our ongoing scholarly work or might be the catalyst for new scholarly areas.
CV Data: Leading and or facilitating IOU Foundation activities for change, improvement and or enhancement, consultative activities, policy analysis, lobbying, program evaluation, critiques of artistic productions, techniques or activities, book reviews, program development.
Scholarship of Teaching and Learner Guidance
This domain is concerned with the specific roles the faculty plays for learners, potential learners and promoting IOU Foundation generally as well as teaching and learner guidance at other universities. For some the word “teaching” might seem synonymous with “learner guidance.” However, our roles as First and Second Cores are not truly one of teaching when defined as the process of imparting knowledge. Our Core roles include facilitating learning, mentoring, counseling, and assessing. Information in this domain may or may not be clearly included in a CV. In all likelihood it is implied when we state that our position at IOU Foundation is IOU Foundation Ph.D. program Core Faculty. In this domain you are asked to become more specific about what you do as an IOU Ph.D. Program Core Faculty.
CV Data: Methods and or materials used to assist learners in their Ph.D. process; group process and the encouragement of learners in colloquia, seminars as well as first and second core; activities to develop, assess and describe the IOU Foundation doctoral program; participation in briefings; assisting prospective learners with application narratives; creating and conducting presentations for faculty development at faculty meetings.
NOTE: It is possible that scholarship and research activities began before the five-year review period, with the documentation occurring during the five-year period.
Scholarship of Discovery – Sample
African American Education: A Reference Handbook. 2007. Santa Barbara, CA” ABC-CLIO.
The intent of the book is to provide readers with information and resources on three prevalent issues concerning the education of African Americans-schooling, higher education and legal influences from the viewpoints of African Americans. The book covers historical and current events that shape the milieu in which African Americans are educated. Although an overview of African American education for more than 300 years is provided, primary emphasis is placed on the period from 1954 to the present, especially the past 20 years. The challenges of African American education are confronted. The approach taken enables the reader to focus specifically on African American social, economic and educational status and attainment as well as institutions and events that shape, enrich and define African American lives and education.
Documentation: A copy of the book is available through Intercultural Open University Foundation
(Note: All books should be available through Intercultural Open University, which make them available to the review team members. Intercultural Open University Foundation will purchase the book. Copies of articles or book chapters should be attached to the summary.)
Interdisciplinary Scholarship – Sample
In 1999 I was appointed by Chief Justice Herman Lum to serve a one-time 6-year term on the Hawaii State Judicial Selection Commission of four lawyers plus five non-lawyers. This Commission interviews and reviews all applicants for judgeships at all levels of the Court: Family, District, Circuit, Appellate and Supreme Courts. It conducts extremely thorough background checks of personal & professional life including legal performance, judicial decisions & reversals, courtroom demeanor, etc. The Commission then presents a list of no more than six candidates to the Governor for Supreme, Appellate and Circuit Court appointments, and to the Chief Justice for District and Family Court appointments. Judicial terms range from 6 to 10 years. The Commission has the unique and sole authority to decide whether or not a judge at any level will be retained “on the bench” when s/he applies for another term.
I served as a Commissioner until June 1999 and was elected Vice-Chair in 1997. For nearly half of my term, I was the only woman on the nine-member Commission. Due to staggered terms, only the Chair and I served during the appointments of what is now Hawaii’s currently sitting Supreme Court. In early 2003, Chief Justice Ronald Moon and Associate Justice Paula Nakayama were reappointed to 10-yr terms. The Supreme Court is the most diverse in the U.S.: 4 men – 1 woman; Korean, Filipino, Japanese, Hawaiian, and Caucasian; Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, and Protestant.
This service opportunity inspired and informed my ongoing and increasing interest in the ethical-legal-judicial-political interface, plus other complex issues involving women, power and competition. During my term a significant and diverse number of women were appointed as judges. This milestone experience has had a clear impact on my academic interests, my work with learners, teaching & seminar topics, and several writing projects.
Documentation: (Note: This could include a bibliography of materials read, letters acknowledging involvement, to name a few.)
Scholarship of Engagement, Service and Social Action -Sample
I served as the Secretary General of the Sixth Pan African Congress convened in 1974 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. I am a founding member of the Southern African Support Project, which was formed in 1978 to mobilize material aid for refugees in southern Africa. The project implemented popular educational and fundraising campaigns to encourage international solidarity with the people of southern Africa. In 1984 I was one of the architects of the campaign of civil disobedience at the South African Embassy. As a member of the Free South Africa Movement Steering Committee, I participated in the planning of legislative lobby, educational and sanctions campaigns. In 1990 I was the Associate Director of the Nelson Mandela and Winnie Mandela historic African National Congress first visit to the United States.
Since 1999, I participated in study groups and self-directed study in the areas of pan-Africanism, colonialism and neo-colonialism in Africa, United States foreign policy in Africa, National Liberation Struggles in southern Africa and international solidarity.
Beginning in 2003, I presented papers including the United Nations Committee on Decolonization, the World Peace Conference Vienna Dialogues, international symposium on Amilcar Cabral, and other international forums.
Documentation: (Note: This could include a bibliography of materials read, selected sample of papers presented.)
Scholarship of Teaching and Learner Guidance – Sample
Documentation:
This type of scholarship includes the study of the dynamics of the core and learner interaction, the Ph.D. committee and other aspects of the learning phenomenon. This type of scholarship also includes the production of curriculum materials that facilitates the learning process. Scholarship in this category may include but is not limited to: a research study on the impact of Study Guides on PDE quality, or the role of Study Guides when implementing the field proficiency components of the Learning Agreement. In order for activities in this category to be considered scholarly, the Core faculty is expected to implement a research method, which may include a social action component, and report on this research to a group of scholars. Faculty may choose to present to the IOU Foundation faculty, a conference, professional organization or learner feedback. Documentation should include an explanation of how this occurred.
Dear Colleague,
The Faculty Status and Appointments Committee (FASC) is in the process of gathering data from faculty who are to be reviewed in January 2010. For the protection of you, the review team and the Intercultural Open University Foundation, we ask that you read and sign this form and return it to the IOU Foundation Ph.D. Program office. You should make a copy of this form.
If you have questions about the content of this form, please contact, the FASC Chair.
Procedures
The specifics of the procedure are outlined in the attached document. A three-member review team will consist a FASC member, a faculty member, assigned by FASC, and the faculty member in review status. The materials and documentation from the faculty member in review status and others, outlined in the attached document, and assembled by FASC, will be the catalyst for the dialogue. Following the dialogue the team, based on the individual notes will construct a profile of the faculty member in review status using the four scholarship domains. The written profile will be forwarded to FASC.
Confidentiality
The material and documentation received by FASC will only be accessible to FASC members, review team members and the appropriate academic administrators. All who have access to your information understand that the contents and the results of the peer review are confidential. The materials, documentation and results will be kept private in so far as permitted by law. Only if any identifiable information you submit is required by law or a court of competent jurisdiction, will records be released to appropriate bodies.
Resources
All questions concerning the Faculty Peer Review System or the contents of the informed consent form should be directed to the Chair of FASC.
Review Status Faculty Authorization
I have read and understand this consent form. I understand that I should make a copy of this form. I understand that my consent does not take way any legal rights in the case of negligence and other legal faulty of anyone who is involved in the peer review. I further understand that nothing in this consent form is intended to replace any applicable Federal, state, or local laws.
Review Status Faculty (printed or typed):________________
Review Status Faculty Signature: _________________
Date: __________________
Chair of FASC Name (printed or typed): __
Chair of FASC Signature on behalf of FASC and Review Team: _____________
Date:
Telephone Interviews: Review Status Faculty as Second Core
Introduction: NAME will be participating in the peer review system in January. I am a member of FASC who is serving on his/her review team. Included, as part of the dialogue with NAME is feedback from a colleague where NAME served as Second Core for your learners. You were randomly selected to be interviewed. The information you provide is for TIMEFRAME.
For how many of your learners has NAME served as Second Core Reader/External Scholar?
What were the areas of specialization you were expecting from him/her as Second Core Reader/External Scholar?
Did NAME demonstrate the level of knowledge you expected for the areas of specialization? Please explain.
Were NAME’s Second Core reports useful for the learner, you and the committee? Please explain how and or how not.
What do you consider to be NAME’s strengths as a Second Core Reader/ External Scholar? Please provide examples.
What do you consider to be NAME’s weaknesses as a Second Core/External Scholar? Please provide examples.
Is there anything else that you want to add that has not been asked?
Telephone Interviews: Review Status Faculty as First Core
Introduction: NAME will be participating in the peer review system in January. I am a member of FASC who is serving on his/her review team. Included, as part of the dialogue with NAME is feedback from a colleague where NAME served you served as Second Core for his/her learners. You were randomly selected to be interviewed. The information you provide is for TIMEFRAME.
For how many of NAME’s learners have you served as Second Core Reader/External Scholar?
What are your thoughts on the academic quality of the learner documents you received? Please provide specific examples.
As the Second Core/External Scholar, did you receive documents that were ready for your review? Please explain.
What do you consider to be NAME’s strengths as a First Core? Please provide examples.
What do you consider to be NAME’s weaknesses as a First Core? Please provide examples.
Is there anything else that you want to add that has not been asked?
Telephone Interviews: Review Status Faculty as Colloquia Coconvener
Introduction: NAME will be participating in the peer review system in January. I am a member of FASC who is serving on his/her review team. Included, as part of the dialogue with NAME is feedback from a colleague where NAME served as a colloquia coconvener. You were randomly selected to be interviewed. The information you provide is for TIMEFRAME.
How many times have NAME and you coconvened a colloquium?
What was NAME’s level of involvement in the planning of the colloquium? Please explain with examples.
What was NAME’s level of involvement in actual coconvening of the colloquium, during and after? Please explain with examples.
What do you consider to be NAME’s strengths as a colloquium coconvener? Please provide examples.
What do you consider to be NAME’s weaknesses as a colloquium coconvener? Please provide examples.
Is there anything else that you want to add that has not been asked?
Telephone Interviews: Review Status Faculty as Seminar Coconvener
Introduction: NAME will be participating in the peer review system in January. I am a member of FASC who is serving on his/her review team. Included, as part of the dialogue with NAME is feedback from a colleague where NAME served as a seminar coconvener. You were randomly selected to be interviewed. The information you provide is for TIMEFRAME.
How many times have NAME and you coconvened a seminar?
What were the seminar topics and what was NAME’s area of specialization contribution? Please explain.
What are your thoughts on NAME’s scholarly and interdisciplinary contribution to the content of the seminar?
What was NAME’s level of involvement in the planning of the seminar? Please explain with examples.
What was NAME’s level of involvement in actual coconvening of the seminar? Please explain with examples.
What do you consider to be NAME’s strengths as a seminar coconvener? Please provide examples.
What do you consider to be NAME’s weaknesses as a seminar coconvener? Please provide examples.
Is there anything else that you want to add that has not been asked?
Dear Learner or Recent Graduate:
It’s that time of year again, the annual faculty evaluation process! Our faculty evaluation procedure in The IOU Foundation Ph.D. Program is designed to aid in the professional development of faculty and to contribute to personnel decisions. We consider the first purpose as primary–an opportunity for faculty to hear from their learners about how their work has been received–both positive observations as well as observations you may have that call or further reflections and improvement. Your observations may also demonstrate a pattern of “best practices” that can be shared with faculty. Personnel review and decision-making take place periodically, when a faculty member requests a change of status (e.g. movement from part-time to full-time) or when regular contract renewal is determined. In both uses of evaluation data, we value your views as one important source for our understanding faculty performance.
As a part of the evaluation process, we also ask faculty members to complete a self-evaluation form, and we are implementing for the first time a peer review system. The process of learner evaluations, however, is one of the important centerpieces of the procedure. We encourage you to participate in this evaluation process as part of your learner-centered role in a non-traditional doctoral program.
Your responses will be seen by the Dean and by the Faculty Appointments and Status Committee members only. Faculty members will not see responses directly related to their services as core or second core. However, comments from the responses will be summarized and shared with the faculty member in their final evaluation letter. All efforts will be made to protect confidentiality in the written reports to each faculty member. Learners may, of course, choose to send a copy of their evaluations to their core or second core, but there is no expectation regarding this choice. You may also choose to sign your evaluation form on the signature line, but there is no requirement of a signature. .
Again, we want to urge you to respond to the evaluation questionnaires. The work of IOU Foundation core faculty members with learners is an important area of our self- assessment as a faculty. Please return the forms to IOU Foundation. If you feel unable to comment on any one of the items on the questionnaires, simply write NA (not applicable) or DK (don’t know) to indicate that you feel unready to assess the Core or Second Core on the particular dimension. Thank you in advance for your responses to both of the questionnaires.
Enclosures
Learner Evaluation of First Core Faculty Advisor PRIVATE
Faculty Member’s Name:
Your Name (Optional):
Status in Program (circle one): Pre-certified Certified
Pre-grad Mtg. scheduled Graduated
Please describe your experience of your core’s performance in the functional areas of facilitation, mentoring, and modeling as described below. For each area, consider the following questions:
• What are your Core’s strong points?
• How would you recommend that your core attempt to grow/develop in this area?
• What other comments, if any, do you have with respect to your core’s performance in this area?
Your core should, through her/his work with you, demonstrate the following. Using the scale provided, circle the rating that best represents your core’s performance. Please provide a rationale for each rating in the space provided. In your work with your first core, to what extent does your core:
• Provide clear and accurate information concerning IOU Foundation principles, procedures and requirements
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Help you work with your committee
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Provide assistance in your interactions with IOU Foundation administrators and staff
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Respond to your work and requests within 30 days
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Help you in your networking
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Expect and support a high level of achievement
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Encourage you to pursue your individual interests and goals
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Assist you in identifying and locating resources for your learning
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Strengthen you to meet personal and professional challenges
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Share wisdom and expertise
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Demonstrate intellectual and/or artistic competence
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Exemplify participation in a community of scholars
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Demonstrate a balance of theory and practice
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Promote analysis of social meaning
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Ask thought-provoking questions
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Write clearly and effectively
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
• Make interesting connections between disciplines
1 – Hardly ever 2 – Sometimes 3 – Most of the time 4 – Always
Send your completed evaluation to the IOU Foundation Ph.D. Program. Thank you.
Learner Evaluation of Second Core Reader/External ScholarPRIVATE
Faculty Member’s Name:
Your Name (Optional):
Status in Program (circle one): Pre-certified Certified
Pre-grad Mtg. scheduled Graduated
Please describe your experience of your second core’s performance as conveyed principally through his/her written reports. In so doing, please consider the following:
• What are your second core’s strong points?
• How would you recommend that your second core attempt to improve?
• What other comments, if any, do you have with respect to your second core’s performance?
Send your completed evaluation to the IOU Foundation. Thank you.