|Evaluation Of Faculty
Annual evaluations provide administrators, faculty, professionals, and staff an opportunity to meet with their immediate supervisors for a personal review of activities and accomplishments and a planning session for future objectives and goals. Leadership at the unit level can have a most direct and significant effect.
Peer evaluations, which come less frequently, attempt to put wider resources
into the review processes, resources that are represented by one's colleagues
and their collective experience and wisdom. Since promotion and tenure
Categories of Faculty Activity
The three major areas of faculty activity are teaching, research/creative/scholarly activity, and service. Defining precisely the three major areas is often difficult and sometimes impossible; in any case, all activities of a faculty member must be considered as an integrated whole. Faculty activity in each of the areas may vary from year to year, or even semester to semester, according to the interests and abilities of the faculty member, and according to the needs of the department, college, or the University as agreed to by the chair and dean.
Departmental chairs should refer to the approved departmental promotion and tenure policies for specific definitions of ctivities classified under teaching, research/creative/scholarly activity, and service.
Annual Evaluation of Faculty
The intent of the annual evaluation procedure is to:
Each year, the department chair (see Note #4) meets with every faculty member in the department, including permanent part-time faculty, to discuss the faculty member's development during that year and plans for the coming year. The period covered in this meeting is the twelve-month period of time since the last appraisal.
Prior to their annual meeting, the chair and the faculty member complete a draft of the Faculty Appraisal and Planning Form. During the discussion, the faculty member is shown a copy of the mid-ratings (median) for the entire department as established by the chairs preliminary evaluation of the departments faculty. In some cases the rating of an individual faculty member may be changed as a result of this discussion. After all faculty have met with the chair, final mid-ratings (median) for the entire department are calculated and recorded on each faculty member's form. If the faculty member takes exception to any of the chair's ratings, the faculty member's rating for that item is also recorded on the form. After the interview has been completed, the chair and the faculty member sign the final copy. The faculty member's signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with the appraisal, but simply that it was discussed in detail with the chair.
The data required at the top of the form are self-explanatory. Full-time is checked if the person is full-time with the University and if all University responsibilities are being evaluated in the appraisal and planning form even though the individual may not be 100 percent funded by the department. Part- time personnel, or personnel whose appraisal and planning form covers only part of their University responsibilities, are designated by indicating the proportion that is devoted to the department and is being appraised. For faculty with joint appointments, their appraisal and plans are combined on one form, after the evaluating chair has consulted with the second chair. Otherwise, two separate forms, based on separate evaluations and requiring separate interviews must be prepared.
For each of the three areas, teaching, research/creative/scholarly activity, and service, the percent of the faculty member's effort assigned to that area is indicated. The manner in which these assignments are determined will vary considerably. In some units it will be a matter of contract, in some it will be by formal or informal agreement between the faculty member and the chair, and in some it will simply be departmental practice applied to all members of the unit. These percentages are very important because readers, in interpreting these appraisals, weigh each area according to the percent of effort assigned to that area for the individual faculty member.
For each area or item, the chair writes a narrative appraisal of the faculty member's relevant activities and then rates the person's performance on that activity. The criteria to be used as the bases for these judgments are the criteria for performance of faculty members at each rank as codified under the promotion criteria accepted by the department, college, and University promotion and tenure committees, and by the provost's office, and should take account of the individual faculty member's particular responsibilities.
A 9-point scale for the ratings anchored at the end points with the terms unsatisfactory and outstanding is utilized. N/A (Not Applicable) should be used only in those cases where there is no requirement for that individual to engage in that particular activity. In other cases, N/R (Not Rated) may be used. For example, a new Ph.D. might be given N/R in research/creative/scholarly activity because that individuals research program is too new to be evaluated meaningfully, but should not be given N/A because assistant professors, even new ones, are expected to engage in research/creative/scholarly activity.
It is recognized that no chair or any single individual can duplicate the judgment of several committees, nor can performance during a single year determine one's promotion, nor can these procedures match the extensive and intensive evaluation that takes place when a person comes up for promotion. Faculty appraisal and planning sessions provide an opportunity: 1) for faculty members to inform their chairs more completely and accurately about their activities; 2) for chairs to give the faculty their best judgments on how well the faculty have fulfilled their responsibilities during the year prior to appraisal; and 3) provide an opportunity for the faculty member and chair to discuss the faculty member's plans for the coming year. The intent is to determine mutually acceptable goals that develop the faculty member's strength or correct any weaknesses.
Faculty members may add other materials to support their ratings on their activities, especially where they believe that a different appraisal should have been given. Chairs also may add materials they consider appropriate. Along with a copy of the Faculty Appraisal and Planning Form, copies of additional materials should be provided to the faculty member, the chair/department, the dean, and the provost.
Peer Evaluation of Faculty Members
Note #4: In academic units that are not departmentalized, the word "chair" should be replaced by "dean" or "director," whichever is appropriate, throughout these documents. Similarly the word "department" should read "college" or "division."