Professional Documents
Culture Documents
QCE Forms
QCE Forms
461
Enhanced QCE Instrument for Instruction
Evaluators:
______ Student ______Immediate Supervisor
Instruction: Please evaluate the faculty using the scale below. Encircle your rating.
Scale Descriptive Rating Qualitative Description
5 Outstanding The performance almost always exceeds the job requirements.
The faculty is an exceptional role model.
4 Very Satisfactory The performance meets and often exceeds the job
requirements.
3 Satisfactory The performance meets job requirements.
2 Fair The performance needs some development to meet job
requirements.
1 Poor The faculty fails to meet job requirements.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Instruction: Please evaluate the faculty using the scale below. Encircle your rating.
Dimensions RATING
A. Research Idea Generation (30 10 8 6 4 2
Points)
1. Published study in line with research agenda / International National Regional Local Institutional
sustainable development goals
2. Sought research funds from partners Fully funded by Partially Fully funded Partially Personally
external sources funded by by SUC funded by the funded
external SUC
sources
3. Promoted networking activities with partner International National Regional Local Institutional
organizations
Total Score
B. Research Productivity (30 Points) 10 8 6 4 2
1. Published the research result in indexed 4.5 to 5.0 3.1 to 4.4 JIF 3.0 and below CHED CHED
journals. Journal Impact JIF Recognized – Recognized
Factor (JIF) Category A – Category
B
or Generated patent certificate / utility model / Patented / Utility Model Industrial Copyright Patent
industrial design (to be an option to item 1) Commercialized Design pending
2. Disseminated research output in a forum or International National Regional Local Institutional
symposium
3. Undertaken study in chosen research interest 6 or more 5 studies 4 studies 3 studies 2 studies
since entry to the SUC studies
Total Score
C. Research Influence (30 Points) 10 8 6 4 2
1. Published research influences policy / program 4.5 to 5.0 3.1 to 4.4 JIF 3.0 and below CHED CHED
development. Journal Impact JIF Recognized – Recognized
Factor (JIF) Category A – Category
B
2. Research findings were utilized / adopted or International National Regional Local Institutional
commercialized
3. Published research earned recognition / awards International National Regional Local Institutional
or Published paper cited by other authors More than 5 5 citations 4 citations 3 citations 2 citations
citations
Total Score
D. Research Leadership (10 Points) 10 8 6 4 2
1. Took active role in research implementation. Program leader Project Study leader Project/Study Research
and Lead Leader and and Lead Leader and Collaborator
Author Lead Author Author Co-author and Co-
author
Total Score
Overall Score (Total Score A + Total
Score B + Total Score C + Total Score
D)
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
The QCE of the NBC No. 461
Enhanced QCE Instrument for Extension
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Instruction: Please evaluate the faculty using the scale below. Encircle your rating.
Dimensions RATING
A. Community Needs Awareness and 10 8 6 4 2
Action (30 Points)
1. Conducted extension program / project / 6 or more PPAs 5 PPAs 4 PPAs 3 PPAs 2 PPAs
activity (PPA) relevant and responsive to
community development needs and sustainable
development goals
2. Sought extension funds from partners Fully funded by Partially Fully funded Partially Personally
external sources funded by by SUC funded by the funded
external SUC
sources
3. Promoted networking activities with partner International National Regional Local Institutional
organizations
Total Score
B. Quality Community Engagement 10 8 6 4 2
(30 Points)
1. Acceptability of community engagement (as Very high High Moderate Low Very low
rated by the beneficiaries) acceptability acceptability acceptability acceptability acceptability
2. Percentage of adoptors of technology / 80% and above 60-79% 40-59% 20-39% Below 20%
knowledge
3. Undertaken extension in chosen field of interest 6 or more PPAs 5 PPAs 4 PPAs 3 PPAs 2 PPAs
since entry to the SUC
Total Score
C. Community Impact (30 Points) 10 8 6 4 2
1. Community projects generated IEC materials 6 or more IEC 5 IEC 4 IEC 3 IEC 2 IEC
(e.g. techno-packs, modules, policy briefs). materials materials materials materials materials
2. Extension PPAs earned recognition / awards International National Regional Local Institutional
3. Rate of clients satisfaction based on survey Very high High Moderate Low Very low
results satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction
Total Score
D. Leadership in Extension / 10 8 6 4 2
Community Engagement (10 Points)
1. Took active role in extension / community Program Leader Project Activity Extension Resource
engagement. Leader Leader Collaborator Person
or PPA
member
Total Score
Overall Score (Total Score A + Total
Score B + Total Score C + Total Score
D)
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________