Student Reviews Clause Samples

The Student Reviews clause establishes the process and guidelines for students to provide feedback or evaluations regarding a course, instructor, or educational program. Typically, this clause outlines when and how reviews can be submitted, the format or platform to be used, and any confidentiality or moderation policies that apply. By setting clear expectations for student feedback, the clause ensures that reviews are collected in a structured manner, helping institutions improve quality and address concerns while maintaining fairness and respect for all parties involved.
Student Reviews. The team will use the online student review system, with the alternatives of mail-in and regular in-class reviews to be available for students who do not have online capability. The team and the faculty member under review will come to an agreement about how student reviews will be handled in the particular live interactive course under review. Student Review of Faculty Performance (Online Version) 1. Provides and follows the course syllabus. 2. Requires textbooks and/or materials that are connected to the course. 3. Provides an orientation that helped prepare me for this course. 4. Assigns homework problems, exercises, readings or other class activities that help achieve the goals of the course. 5. Provides material in the online site that is easy to find and use. 6. Is well prepared. 7. Explains the subject clearly. 8. Answers questions clearly. 9. Encourages student participation. 10. Is accessible to students (for example, responds to email, is available in discussion forums, keeps regular office hours). 11. Is knowledgeable and cares about the subject. 12. Gives tests, papers and/or other assignments that cover the course's material. 13. Grades with a system that seems fair. 14. Is fair and impartial to all students. 15. Rank the overall quality of instruction so far. NARRATIVE SECTION 1. What is the most valuable part of this course? 2. What is the least valuable part of this course? 3. How could this course be better? 4. What could you have done to be a better student in this course? 5. Do you have any general observations or helpful comments to offer about this course?
View SourceView Similar (6)
Student Reviews. The Student Review of Faculty and Student Review of Faculty (Online) forms for classroom instructors shall be uniform throughout the District. They shall be administered and collected by someone other than the faculty member under review or any of his/her current students. The faculty member under review will not be present during the administration of the review form. The Area ▇▇▇▇ is responsible for the student review process.
View SourceView Similar (5)
Student Reviews. Student reviews will be administered in a minimum of three (3) classes and when practicable for each class preparation. Student reviews from a minimum of one (1) class must be completed before the mid-semester review meeting. For counselors and nurses, a minimum of one (1) week must be specified and student reviews administered prior to the mid- semester review meeting. A majority vote of the review team will determine if student reviews are necessary for coordinators with a workload split with another service area (e.g. instructional, nursing, counseling), or if the extent of their selectable standards and criteria warrant such consideration. If student reviews are to be used, the procedure will be the same for that specific in Performance Review Service Area for Adjunct Faculty (Section 8.8.2.1.d).
View SourceView Similar (4)
Student Reviews. Student reviews are primarily a tool for faculty to use to facilitate the improvement of instruction or student services. In addition, a less than satisfactory performance review based on workstation observations, administrative documentation (i.e., written letters or documentation from students, faculty, staff, or administration directly related to the performance review), and self-study may be corroborated by student reviews. Original individual student reviews will be returned to the faculty after grades have been submitted. For tenure-track faculty, the District may maintain copies no longer than one (1) semester following the fourth year of review or until a grievance has been resolved. For all other faculty, the District may maintain copies no longer than one (1) semester or until a grievance has been resolved, or unless there is a disciplinary process underway for which the reviews may be relevant. The District’s handling of online student reviews is summarized below. Student reviews will be administered online unless determined otherwise by the review team or the faculty member under review by the second week of the semester. The Area ▇▇▇▇ will, prior to the start of the semester in which the review is to occur, send a Pre-Semester Notification Email to the faculty member under review informing them that student reviews will be conducted online unless the faculty member elects to have on-ground reviews, and that the faculty member must convey their decision about this matter to the Area ▇▇▇▇ by the end of Week 2. Online reviews of on-ground classes will use the review form for on-ground classes. For classroom faculty, on-ground student reviews occur between the 6th- 15th week. Online student reviews occur in Canvas during week six (6) for 8-week-1 classes and week twelve (12) for 16-week classes, and in the 4th week of 8-week-2 classes. Faculty teaching 16-week classes may change the week of their online student reviews to any week between the 6th-12th week by mutual agreement with the review team. For counselors and nurses, four (4) weeks within the overall timeline will be identified by the Area ▇▇▇▇ in consultation with the Department Chair to administer student reviews. The four (4) identified weeks must be scheduled after the pre-review conference or arrangements are completed. However, the return of student reviews will be collected throughout the overall timeline and used for the performance review. ● Once online student reviews are complete...
View SourceView Similar (3)
Student Reviews. The basic Student Review of faculty performance form for classroom instructors shall be uniform throughout the District. It shall be administered and collected by someone other than the faculty member under review or any of his or her current students. The instructor will not be present during the administration of the review form. The area ▇▇▇▇ is responsible for the student review process. Forms and processes for the review of non-classroom faculty will be developed no later than May 1, 2000.
View Source

Related to Student Reviews

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Department Review The parties shall resolve disputes through written submission of their dispute to the Department’s Contract Manager. The Department shall respond to the dispute in writing within ten (10) Business Days from the date that the Department’s Contract Manager receives the dispute. The Department’s decision shall be final unless a party provides the other party with written notice of the party’s disagreement with the decision within ten (10) Business Days from the date of the Department’s decision. If a party disagrees with the Department’s decision, the party may proceed to subsection (b) below.

  • Agreement Review If, pursuant to section 25.10 (Review of Agreement) of the Bilateral Agreement, the Bilateral Agreement is reviewed after three or five years, or both, of the effective date of the Bilateral Agreement, and any changes to the Bilateral Agreement are required as a result, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as necessary and in a manner that is consistent with such changes.