The QCE of the NBC No.

461
Enhanced QCE Instrument for Instruction

Rating Period: _________________________ to ______________________________

Name of Faculty: ________________________________________ Academic Rank: ____________________

Evaluators:
______ Student ______Immediate Supervisor

Instruction: Please evaluate the faculty using the scale below. Encircle your rating.
Scale Descriptive Rating
5 Outstanding
4 Very Satisfactory
3 Satisfactory
2 Fair
1 Poor
Qualitative Description
The performance almost always exceeds the job requirements.
The faculty is an exceptional role model.
The performance meets and often exceeds the job
requirements.
The performance meets job requirements.
The performance needs some development to meet job
requirements.
The faculty fails to meet job requirements.

A. Knowledge of the Subject Matter Scale

1. Discusses the subject matter without completely relying on the prescribed 5 4 3 2 1
reading.
2. Explains subject matter with depth. 5 4 3 2 1
3. Integrates topics discussed in the lesson and relates the topic being discussed 5 4 3 2 1
to concepts previously learned by the students.
4. Explains the relevance of present topics to the previous lessons, and relates the 5 4 3 2 1
subject matter to relevant current issues and /or daily life activities.
5. Raises problems and issues relevant to the topic(s) of discussion. 5 4 3 2 1
Total Score
B. Teaching for Independent Learning Scale
1. Employs teaching strategies that allow students to practice using concepts they 5 4 3 2 1
need to understand (interactive discussion).
2. Provides exercises which develop critical and analytical thinking among the 5 4 3 2 1
students.
3. Enhances students’ self-esteem through the proper recognition of their 5 4 3 2 1
abilities.
4. Allows students to course with the create their own use of well-defined 5 4 3 2 1
objectives and realistic student-faculty rules.
5. Empowers students to make their own decisions and be accountable for their 5 4 3 2 1
performance.
Total Score
C. Management of Learning Scale
1. Creates opportunities for extensive contribution of students (e.g. breaks class 5 4 3 2 1
into dyads, triads or buzz/task groups).
2. Assumes roles as facilitator, resource, coach, inquisitor, integrator, referee in 5 4 3 2 1
drawing students to contribute to knowledge and understanding of the
concepts at hand.
3. Designs and implements learning conditions and experience that promote 5 4 3 2 1
healthy exchange and/or discourse.
4. Structures/re-structures learning and teaching-learning context to enhance 5 4 3 2 1
attainment of collective learning objectives.
5. Stimulates students’ desire and interest to learn more about the subject matter. 5 4 3 2 1
Total Score
D. Commitment Scale
1. Demonstrates sensitivity to students’ ability to absorb content information. 5 4 3 2 1
2. Integrates sensitively his/her learning objectives with those of the students in a 5 4 3 2 1
collaborative process.
3. Makes himself/herself available to students beyond official teaching hours. 5 4 3 2 1
4. Coordinates student needs with internal and external enabling groups. 5 4 3 2 1
5. Supplements available resources. 5 4 3 2 1
Total Score
Overall Score (Total Score A + Total Score B + Total Score C +
Total Score D

Signature of Evaluator :________________________________

Name of Evaluator :________________________________
Position of Evaluator :________________________________
Date :________________________________
 The QCE of the NBC No. 461
Enhanced QCE Instrument for Research

Rating Period: _________________________ to ______________________________

Name of Faculty: ________________________________________ Academic Rank: ____________________

Title of the Published Research Work:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Name of Journal where article was published:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Vol. No. _____________________ Issue No. ___________________ Year Published: ___________________

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)

College QCE Team: OCE Team (Institutional):

________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
 The QCE of the NBC No. 461
Enhanced QCE Instrument for Extension

Rating Period: _________________________ to ______________________________

Name of Faculty: ________________________________________ Academic Rank: ____________________

Title of the Approved Extension Program / Project / Activity:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

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)

College QCE Team: OCE Team (Institutional):

________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________