12.01.99.R0.02 Annual Evaluation of Faculty
Effective September 1, 1996
Revised July 2002
Revised April 18, 2005
Supplements System Policies 31.01, 12.02 and 12.06
1. Purpose
The annual faculty evaluation process at the university has two major goals:
to provide (1) a system to facilitate the development of teaching, research
or other scholarly and creative activities (RSCA), and service to the university,
profession and community, and (2) an annual evaluation (review of performance)
of teaching, RSCA, and service for the purpose of making decisions regarding
the terms and conditions of the employment relationship between the faculty
and the university, including merit pay, promotion, tenure, and post tenure
review.
Accomplishing these purposes requires the active, joint involvement of the individual
faculty member and his/her department head in developing an appropriate evaluation
plan suitable to the particular responsibilities and strengths of the faculty
member. However, individual faculty members are to take the initiative in promoting
their own growth as teachers, scholars, and practitioners.
2. Criteria for Evaluation
The evaluation of faculty shall be based on university-wide and departmental
criteria.
a. University-wide Criteria
(1) Teaching. Teaching is considered to be the first priority
and prime objective of the university. The Texas A&M University System Policy
on Post Tenure Review of Faculty and Teaching Effectiveness (12.06) lists the
following ‘techniques’ as guidelines for evaluating teaching:
(a) University requirements for faculty including:
1) course syllabi including list of topics to be covered during the semester, specific course objectives, types of activities for the course, student evaluation procedures, and required reading assignments;
2) faculty attendance in class; and
3) adherence to university and departmental policies.
(b) Peer observation of classroom performance.
(c) Departmental, college and university workshops on effective teaching.
(d) Video taping of classroom performance for review and analysis by faculty.
(e) Portfolio assessment by departmental review committee.
(f) On-campus technology centers and other innovative programs designed to educate
and support faculty in their efforts to integrate new technology into their
teaching.
(g) Departmental in-service training.
(h) Senior faculty to serve as mentors for junior, new faculty.
(i) Quality of instructional outcomes assessment by current and former students,
employers of graduates, and faculty in graduate and professional schools attended
by graduates.
(2) Research or other Scholarly and Creative Activities (RSCA). Producing
knowledge and performance in professional/creative activities are essential
aspects of faculty roles. Examples of RSCA include engagement in writing and
publishing through peer reviews, procurement of external funds for research
and creativity goals, and participation in professional encounters or activities
in one’s discipline.
(3) Service. Service to the profession (discipline), the university,
and the community is an integral part of a faculty role. Examples of service
include engagement in the university, college and departmental committees and/or
particular assignments, work on student advisement and in students’ extra-curricular
activities, and involvement in community exhibiting one’s professional
expertise. Credit for service shall be based on specific works done, along with
its documentation (e.g., a letter from the chair of a committee stating faculty
member’s performance) rather than providing mere lists of committees and
tasks involved in. Certain services (e.g., student advisement or serving as
a mentor for students to improve their retention and success) should be given
a larger weight during the faculty evaluation process. Service assignments (e.g.,
memberships of committees) should be based on equity among senior and new faculty
members, and should have a balanced representation of academic colleges and
departments.
b. Departmental Criteria
Faculty members in each academic department of the university, as a group, shall
be responsible for identifying measures and criteria of evaluating (1) teaching,
(2) RSCA, and (3) service suitable to their own discipline and professional
interests. However, the departmental criteria and measures for evaluating faculty
must be comprehensive and consistent with the general framework of the university-wide
criteria stated above.
As an example of a particular measure, faculty in each department shall develop
a procedure for conducting the process of student evaluation of teaching. The
following guidelines must be observed in developing that procedure: (1) student
evaluations in classes should be coordinated by the department head; (2) teachers
of record should not be present in a class when students evaluate them; (3)
all records of students’ evaluations should be maintained in the departmental
office so they can be used in faculty evaluations for merit, promotions, and
tenure considerations; and (4) faculty members should be provided numeric scores
and summaries of all evaluations for formative purposes.
3. Evaluation Procedure
a. Department Faculty Evaluation Plan in General
All full-time faculty members in each department will participate in developing
a departmental plan for measuring and evaluating teaching, RSCA, and service.
A department’s plan will identify how evaluations of teaching, RSCA, and
service areas will be conducted in terms of various criteria and measures. These
shall be published by each department, after having been approved by the department
head, college dean and provost, and shall be regularly updated when necessary.
They shall be distributed by the department head among current and new faculty.
Additionally, the departmental faculty will develop procedures for determining
how the areas of teaching, RSCA, and service will be weighted and used for the
purpose of making decisions regarding the terms and conditions of the employment
relationship between the individual faculty members and the university. Relative
weights for teaching, RSCA and service will be determined on the basis of such
criteria as the department’s involvement in graduate programs, national
disciplinary standards, applicable reassigned time for faculty members for research
grant, service and administrative assignments, and so forth. While assigning
relative weights for three areas of functioning, department faculty should remember
that lower weight for RSCA in the annual evaluation may disadvantage them in
the long run when they are evaluated for promotion, tenure, and post tenure
review. Each department’s plan, including details on measures and instruments,
minimums and maximums of percentages allowable in teaching, RSCA, and service
will be submitted by the department head to the appropriate college dean for
approval and then forwarded to the provost & vice president for academic
and student affairs. Changes or annual updates in departmental plans will be
submitted when necessary through the same channels. The Office of the Provost
& Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs (VPASA) will maintain
a file of departmental plans.
b. Faculty - Department Head Goals for a Given Year
Using the framework of the department’s plan, each faculty member and
his/her department head will discuss and identify goals related to his/her teaching,
RSCA, and service before the beginning of each year. They will then formulate
an individual faculty plan for achievement (see Appendix ‘B’) commensurate
with faculty rank and seniority (see Post Tenure Review Procedure A12.22) by
January 20, spelling out the following for the forthcoming year:
(1) The proportion of the faculty member’s work in teaching, RSCA, and
service.
The faculty member and department head, acting together, will determine the
percentage of weight for teaching, RSCA, and service, as per the departmental
plan.
(2) Specific measures to be employed for evaluating the faculty member’s
teaching, RSCA, and service.
Unresolved disagreements in sections 3.b.(1) and /or 3.b.(2) will be forwarded
to the appropriate college dean’s office for resolution.
Copies of the faculty - department head yearly goals for each faculty member
will be signed by both with copies retained by both. Changes in a faculty member’s
plan may be negotiated between the faculty member and the department head during
a given year only when the faculty member’s assignments change significantly
for that year, and such changes will be recorded and signed by both parties
and copies of new document retained by both parties.
4. Schedule for Annual Evaluations (Annual Reviews of Performance)
The following schedule will be used for annual evaluations:
a. The calendar year (January through December) will be utilized for annual
evaluations.
b. From January 5 to January 30, the department head will consult with faculty
as they establish annual goals, supported by a plan of activities, for January
through December of that year. A copy of each faculty member’s plan, describing
the activities to be pursued during the period of evaluation, will be submitted
by the department head to the dean of the college for review and approval by
January 25.
c. The annual evaluation conference between the faculty member and the department
head will take place from January 5 through January 30 of each year. A first
year faculty member will be evaluated for the fall semester only (plan will
be filed in September).
d. The annual evaluation process will include the following steps:
(1) Each faculty member will prepare for the department head, by January 5,
an annual report on accomplishments in teaching effectiveness, RSCA, and service
as per the plan which the faculty member signed at the year’s beginning.
(2) For each faculty member the department head will draft an assessment of
the degree to which the faculty member fulfilled the plan formulated the previous
January. The departmental plan for evaluation will be the foundation for the
assessment; depth, breadth, and quality of the achievements should be considered.
The assessment will include a numerical rating for each of the three categories
of teaching, RSCA, and service, and an overall numerical merit rating which
is calculated by weighting the teaching, RSCA, and service numbers according
to the plan formulated for that year (see Faculty Evaluation Format in Appendix
‘A’ at the end of this procedure). The department head will then
have a conference with each faculty member to explain and discuss the assessment,
and the faculty member will receive a copy. The faculty member will sign to
acknowledge receiving a copy of the evaluation. If a faculty member disagrees
with the department head’s evaluation, he/she will have a right to write
a rebuttal by stating specific reasons for the disagreement. The rebuttal, if
any, shall become a part of the evaluation report of that faculty member for
the year.
(3) The department head will forward a copy of faculty reports and department
head recommendations (in the faculty evaluation format) to the dean of the college
by January 30. The dean will review the materials, and where the dean wishes
to revise any faculty member’s overall merit rating, the dean will have
a conference with the department head and faculty member involved.
(4) The dean will forward faculty reports, department head recommendations and
dean’s recommendations to the vice president for academic affairs by February
l5.
(5) The vice president for academic affairs will review the recommendations.
In instances of disagreement with the dean’s recommendations, the vice
president will consult with the dean. Any changes made in ratings at whatever
level will be shared with the department head and faculty member. The vice president
will make faculty merit recommendations to the president by March l.
5. Merit
The following example demonstrates the process. However, this example is not
meant to imply any particular norm or standard for the faculty in general.
A faculty member and his/her department determine the following allocation of
involvement that would be appropriate for him/her in the upcoming year.
Areas of Faculty Involvement Weight of Effort (%)
Teaching .60
RSCA .20
Service .20
Following the academic year, the department head shall determine the appropriate
ordinal rating which best describes the level of effectiveness that the faculty
member achieved in each of the planned areas. The following levels of effectiveness
will be used.
Ordinal Rating Level of Effectiveness
1 The highest level of performance
2 A high level of performance
3 A moderate level of performance
4 A minimal level of performance
5 An unsatisfactory performance
Using the previously agreed upon proportions of involvement, the overall rating
will be determined as the weighted average of the ratings and these proportions.
The overall merit rating stated to one decimal would be determined as the sum
of each rating multiplied by the appropriate proportion. The spreadsheet below
demonstrates the result.
Areas of Faculty Involvement Weight of Effort (%) Annual Rating Merit Rating
Calculated
Teaching .60 1 .60 X (1) = 0.60
RSCA .20 1 +.20 X (1) = 0.20
Service .20 3 +.20 X (3) = 0.60
Overall Rating 1.40
6. Split Appointments
Faculty members who have split appointments (where work load credit is granted
for responsibilities outside the home department) will consult with the appropriate
administrator to establish goals supported by a plan of activities. They will
be evaluated by each administrator to whom they are responsible. The merit rating
shall be determined by using each evaluation in proportion to the percent of
time the individual is assigned to each entity. For example, if a faculty member
has a one-half time administrative assignment during a given year, he/she will
have 50% of total expectations of performance in teaching, RSCA, and service
as compared to a full-time teaching faculty.
7. Appeals
Appeals beyond the departmental level regarding adverse decisions are to follow
regular administrative channels. TAMUS policies and regular A&M-Commerce
university grievance procedures (A12.01) are available for use by individual
faculty members.
8. Professional Development Action
If a faculty member receives an overall rating of 4 or 5, the department head
and the faculty member will develop formative recommendations in the following
year’s plan to help the faculty member overcome deficiencies or shortcomings
in teaching, RSCA, or service.
References: Prior ETSU Policies II N 10 and D-32; approved February 18, 1983;
revised May 1, 1992, November 28, 1994, January 22, 1997; and July 2002. June
2002 Deans Council Minutes to meet SACS regulations; Procedure A12.20
***************
CONTACT FOR INTERPRETATION: Provost and Vice President for Academic and Student
Affairs
APPENDIX ‘A’: FACULTY EVALUATION FORMAT
Annual Review of Performance
This format is to be used for reporting the supervisor's narrative evaluation,
and the numerical performance ratings. Attach the narrative report to this page.
Faculty having split appointments will be evaluated proportionally by each supervisor.
Faculty Name________________________ Department________________________
Evaluation Period: From____________ To_________________
Narrative Evaluation: The attached narrative should include (1) Teaching, (2)
Research or other Scholarly and Creative Activities, and (3) Service.
Performance Rating: Provide performance ratings as identified in the Annual
Evaluation of Faculty Procedure.
(1=highest...5=lowest).
Areas of Faculty Involvement Weight of Effort (%) Annual Rating Merit Rating
Calculated
Teaching
RSCA
Service
Overall Rating
Department Head/Supervisor Signature ____________________________Date_____________
Faculty's Response: ___ I agree ___ I disagree
If disagree, is a rebuttal from you attached?: ___Yes ___No
Faculty Signature ________________________________ _Date______________________
Dean's evaluation: ___ I agree ___ I disagree
If rating is changed: I evaluate the faculty member's performance as:
Teaching _______ RSCA _______ Service _______ Overall _______
Dean’s Signature__________________________________ __ Date_________ _________
APPENDIX ‘B’: FORMAT FOR INDIVIDUAL FACULTY GOALS FOR THE
YEAR____________
This format is to be used for reporting the individual faculty
member’s plan for a given year. The plan is to be in line with the particular
responsibilities and strengths of the faculty member. Continue on additional
sheet if extra space is needed.
Faculty Name __________________________________ Department ____________________________________
Rank ________________________
Years in Rank ______________________
Years of Teaching in Higher Education ______________________________
Responsibilities:
Goals (commensurate with faculty rank and seniority):
Activities planned:
Area of Faculty Involvement Weight to be Applied (%) Specific Measures/Activities
to be Employed
Teaching ___%
RSCA ___%
Service ___%
= 100%
Department Head’s response:
___Agree
___Disagree (If department head disagrees, changes are noted above and discussed
with the faculty member).
Department Head Signature_______________ Date discussed with Faculty________________
___ Agree
___Disagree (Unresolved disagreements will be forwarded to the dean’s
office for resolution.)
Faculty Signature _____________________________________Date ____________
Comments: