Faculty

Full-time faculty positions, such as the faculty-director, are reviewed annually. Goals are set and reviewed as part of the performance assessment. Adjunct faculty are reviewed as part of the three-year course review process and an assessment by one or more supervisors. Reviews include Student Rating of Teaching (SRT) course evaluation results from each semester, as well as an overview of ratings in the previous five years.

Student Rating of Teaching (SRT) Surveys

The University Evaluation of Teaching policy requires that every course, except internships and directed studies, is evaluated each time it is offered. SRT Evaluation is administered online, and is coordinated by University Survey & Assessment Services (USAS). Following the evaluation, USAS provides evaluation summary reports to faculty and department heads.

The SRT survey was introduced in spring 2008 and revised in 2015, 2018, and during the Covid pandemic. It was developed by a subcommittee of the Faculty Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) and the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA), and it included teacher and student input.

The SRT form is intended to assess teaching more holistically and produce results both relevant to the classroom experience and linked to the University student-learning outcomes. The SRT has improved how teaching is assessed by students, and it helps instructors understand how they can improve teaching. This form has a solid research base on student learning and instructional excellence.

The SRT form is divided into two sections:

  • Section 1: Instructor Ratings − Students rate statements about the instructor’s role in learning on a six-point scale, and respond to an open-ended question: “What did the instructor do that most helped your learning?”
  • Section 2: Course Ratings − Students rate statements about the course on a six-point scale, and respond to an open-ended question: “What suggestions do you have for improving this course?”

The Construction Management program tracks the results of our SRTs, and the faculty director follows up with individual faculty as appropriate. A summary of SRT results for Construction Management courses in the last five years are posted below.

  • AY 2020–21: 169 responses were received out of 876 possible, for a response rate of 19.29%. The average rating was 5.35 out of 6, the highest of the five years.
  • AY 2021–22: Responses increased to 195 out of 785 possible, producing the highest response rate in the period at 24.84%. The average rating dipped slightly to 5.15 out of 6.
  • AY 2022–23: 149 responses were collected from 810 possible, a response rate of 18.40%. The average rating rose again to 5.29 out of 6.
  • AY 2023–24: Participation declined to 132 responses out of 757 possible, for a 17.44% response rate. The mean score was 5.31 out of 6.
  • AY 2024–25: The most recent year shows the lowest engagement, with 119 responses from 967 possible, yielding a 12.31% response rate. Despite this, the average rating remained high at 5.29 out of 6.

Student Experience in the Research University Survey

The SERU survey is a comprehensive national survey administered to all undergraduates at the UMNTC. Results of the SERU survey are used to assess many elements of the program and are presented at college level. Those elements are shown in the following section. The most recent survey was in 2024.

Although the response rate for CMGT was low, the majority of respondents are satisfied or somewhat satisfied with our faculty instruction. Other SERU results cover the level of engagement our faculty have with students; the overall educational experience; and the rapport students feel with faculty, expressed by the number of our faculty that students know well enough to ask them for a letter of recommendation.

Across the following figures, CMGT student responses show strong overall satisfaction but consistently lower “Very satisfied” ratings compared with University averages. Responses tend to cluster in “Somewhat satisfied,” indicating generally positive but not exceptional perceptions.

Bar chart showing generally high satisfaction with faculty instruction, with most students reporting “Satisfied” or “Somewhat satisfied,” though Construction Management responses include some very dissatisfied ratings.
Bar chart showing high satisfaction with access to faculty outside of class for both the university and Construction Management program, with most responses in the “Somewhat satisfied” and “Satisfied” categories and very little dissatisfaction.
Bar chart showing frequency of student communication with instructors outside class. CMgt students mostly report rare or no contact (40% rarely, 20% never). UM students are more evenly spread, with fewer never (7%) and higher rates of occasional to very frequent contact, including about 30% reporting often or very often.
Bar chart of classroom experiences reported as often or very often. Both UM and CMgt report high positive experiences, with CMgt higher overall—near 100% for plagiarism clarity, respect, and active participation—while UM ranges roughly from mid-50% to mid-80% across items.
Bar chart showing number of professors students know well enough to request a recommendation. Most CMgt students report zero or one, while UM students are more evenly distributed and more likely to report two or more.

SOURCE: SERU Survey 2024

Performance Review

Each year, faculty directors and staff are reviewed by the program administration as required by the University of Minnesota. A new performance review form was introduced in 2020 to standardize performance assessment and goal setting and to discuss professional development needs and plans. The process moved to a new online performance appraisal tool in 2021 and was updated in 2024.

  • Step 1: Review and update position descriptions with supervisor.
  • Step 2: Employees complete and submit Employee Input Form to supervisor.
  • Step 3: Supervisors complete Performance Review and meet with their employees to discuss the review and rating.
  • Step 4: All completed reviews, including ratings are submitted to Unit Directors.
  • Step 5: Unit Directors submit signed forms (printed or electronically) to CCAPS Human Resources.