The portfolio system evaluates faculty contribution to student-centred learning, internationalisation, and continuous quality improvement aligned with European standards.

Portfolio Components

Teaching Quality Evidence

• Course descriptors with learning outcomes
• Student feedback analysis and responses
• Innovation in teaching methodologies
• International teaching collaborations

Research and Scholarship

• Publications with international visibility
• Research project documentation
• Peer review contributions
• International conference participation

Service and Professional Development

• Committee service at multiple levels
• Quality assurance contributions
• Professional organization memberships
• Community engagement activities

Evaluation Committee Structure

Standard Department (College) Committee

• Department Head (College Dean) (Chairman)
• College QA Officer
• Department QA Coordinator (if applicable)
• Senior Professor (Assistant/Full Professor from outside department)
• Director of Higher Education and Scientific Affairs Unit (College level)

Point Assessment Framework (1-5 scale)

Institutional Commitment (Questions 1-3)

1. University Dedication: 100% working hours commitment and satisfactory attendance
2. Professional Responsibility: Conscientiousness and class compensation
3. Quality Focus: Moodle usage, timely course book preparation, and objective clarity

Teaching Excellence (Questions 4-7)

1. Critical Thinking Promotion: Intellectual engagement and diverse viewpoint acceptance
2. Student Relations: Non-discrimination and student satisfaction
3. Academic Integrity: Objective decision-making and external interference resistance
4. Colleague Relations: Teamwork spirit and professional ethics

Professional Service (Questions 8-12)

1. Institutional Service: Beyond-duty contributions and guideline adherence
2. Research Activity: National-level publications and conference participation
3. International Recognition: High-impact international publications
4. Innovation and Leadership: Committee participation and creative contributions
5. Community Engagement: Public benefit activities and professional involvement

Performance Assessment (Questions 13-16)

1. Research Excellence: International recognition and high-impact publications
2. International Publications: WoS-indexed and prestigious publisher contributions
3. Committee Contributions: Active participation in institutional governance
4. Non-Academic Activities: Community service and professional development

Performance Grade Outcomes

Grade A (4.5-5.0): Excellent

• A1: Combined with CAD A* + SF A+ → Teacher of the Year nomination
• A2: Lower supporting grades → Treated as B1

Grade B (4.0-4.4): Very Good

• B1: High CAD/SF grades → Faculty recognition and acknowledgment
• B2: Lower supporting grades → Standard Grade C treatment

Grade C (3.0-4.0): Good

• Rights preserved with constructive feedback
• Development recommendations provided

Grade D (2.0-2.9): Needs Improvement

• D1: High supporting grades → Rights preserved
• D2: Low supporting grades → Faculty Council discussion
• Repeated D2: Escalation to E2 consequences

Grade E (1.0-1.9): Unsatisfactory

• E1: High supporting grades → D2 treatment
• E2: Low supporting grades → Formal Faculty Council proceedings
  • Teaching suspension: 1-3 months
  • Mandatory retraining programs
  • Repeated failure: Permanent teaching prohibition with role reassignment.

NUR (National University Ranking) Integration

Based on your NUR criteria document number (4276) on (04/04/2021), the system contributes to:

• Academic Staff Quality (10% weight)
• Scientific Research (37% weight)
• International Activities (14% weight)
• Student Satisfaction (3% weight)
• Quality Metrics (27% weight)