TEXAS
A&M
UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE
PROCEDURES
12.01.99.R0.02 Annual Evaluation of
Faculty
Effective September 1, 1996
Revised July 2002
Revised April 18, 2005; December 5, 2006
(Changes
currently suggested in red color are only in a DRAFT form)
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 adherence to
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.
{Paragraph in bluecolor
given below to be deleted as its contents are now covered under 3, a,
(6).}
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.
Each department in its faculty evaluation
plan shall
identify quantitative and qualitative measures for evaluating the
teaching
portfolio of its teaching faculty member. In addition to teaching
criteria that
may be unique to the department’s discipline(s), the departmental plan
for teaching effectiveness measures shall require the following
information
from every faculty member for each course taught during semester/term
of the
year of evaluation.
(1)
Course
syllabus that spells out the following among other
things considered appropriate by faculty members.
·
Course
objectives and
goals;
·
Textbook(s)
and other
reading materials;
·
Faculty
member’s
e-mail address, office address, and office hours;
·
Topical
outline covered
in the course during semester/term;
·
Requirements,
procedures, and criteria (including details on exams and assignments)
used for
grading students’ learning; and
·
Policies
for dealing
with plagiarism, class disruptions, and accommodations to be available
for
disability, if any.
(2) Materials
and handouts
provided to students. These may include power point presentation
outlines,
audio and video materials used, and research papers or their abstracts
provided.
(3) Copies of
actual
written assignments, exams and quizzes used for grading students.
(4) Faculty
member’s
own assessment of how teaching in each class was effective and whether
goals in
the course were met through a carefully planned outcome assessment
(e.g.,
giving a pre-test to students for understanding their general knowledge
on the
subject matter of the course at the beginning of the course and giving
them the
same as a final exam at the end of the semester to see if their scores
improved).
(5)
Evaluations of
teaching by peers in or outside the department and university through
the
following procedures.
·
Evaluation
of teaching
in classes by peers should be done at least once every year;
·
Each
faculty member and
department head shall agree on which peer(s) will be used for
evaluation; and
·
While a
department head
may be present in a class where observation is made by peer(s), he/she
will not
conduct the evaluation per se.
(6)
Evaluation of courses
by students according to the following guidelines.
·
Student
evaluations in
classes should be coordinated by the department head;
·
Teachers
of record
should not be present in classes when students evaluate them;
·
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;
·
The
questionnaire used
for students’ evaluation of courses should contain
objective/multiple-choice questions as well as open-ended questions
seeking
information from students on such matters as what are strengths of the
teaching
in a course, what were recommendations for improvements in the course,
and the
like; and
·
Faculty
members should
be provided by the department head numeric scores and summaries of all
students’
evaluations for formative purposes.
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: