Faculty Evaluation Handbook - Murray State Universitycoehsnet.murraystate.edu/tenure_promotion/files/... · five (5) or four (4) years with tenure consideration occurring in the fifth

Faculty Evaluation Handbook

Fall 2011

Prepared by Tenure and Promotion Policy Review Committee: Dr. Renee W. Campoy, Interim Dean Dr. Marty Dunham Dr. Robert Lyons Dr. Sharon Gill Dr. Marty Jacobs Dr. Ginny Richerson Dr. Jo Robertson

2

The purpose of this handbook is to provide information to the College of Education faculty about the tenure/promotion processes and procedures. While not all inclusive, this handbook integrates University requirements with College of Education policies/procedures.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction…………………….………………………………………………………...3 Tenure…………………………………………….……………………………………...3 The Probationary Period………………….……………………………………...3 Annual Evaluation Process: Faculty Performance…………….………………..4 Tenure Consideration Procedure……………………………….………………..6 Promotion…………………………………………………………….………………….7 Faculty Qualifications……………………………………….…………………..7 Guidelines…………………………………………………..…………………....8 Promotion Procedures…………………………………….……………………..8 Annual Evaluations……………………………………………….………….….……....9 Annual Evaluation Process……………………………………….…………................10 College Education’s Level of Performance……………………….…………………...12 Teaching…………………………………………………………….……….....12 Research and Creative Activity…………………………………….…………..15 Service………………………………………………………………….……....17 Appendices…………………………………………………………….……………….19 Appendix A: COE Evaluation Tracking Document…………….……………..21 Appendix B: Tenure Information……………………………….……………..25

COE Tenure Checklist………………………….………….……………26 University Tenure Applicant’s Documents…….………….……………27 Student Evaluation Summary Samples…………………….…………...32

Grade Distribution Summary Samples……………………..…………...37 Appendix C: Promotion Information……………………………….………….40 COE Promotion Checklist….……………………………….…………..41 University Promotion Applicant’s Documents…….………………….. 42

3

Murray State University

College of Education Faculty Evaluation Handbook

Chapter One

Policy and Procedures

Evaluation on a continuous basis is required in academia. The purpose of this handbook is to outline procedures and expectations used in the professional evaluation of faculty in the College of Education. It specifically addresses the requirements for tenure and promotion for tenure track faculty and the annual evaluation of all faculty. An overview of this process is found in the College of Education’s Evaluation Tracking Document (Appendix A) with detailed explanation in the body of this document. It is recognized that University policy outlined in the Murray State University Faculty Handbook is the final authority; this document references that document and the Murray State University College of Education’s Policy Manual.

Tenure

Academic tenure may be granted only by formal action of the Board of Regents following completion of the tenure process including completing the probationary period, meeting established criteria for evaluation of faculty performance, and being a factor in meeting the needs of the department, the college, and the university (MSU Faculty Handbook, Section 2.7). Tenure consideration is based on academic year performance. The Probationary Period Tenure consideration shall occur during the final academic year of the probationary period which normally consists of six (6) academic years of continuous full-time service to Murray State University.

• The period of time during which a faculty member may hold a tenurable appointment at Murray State University, exclusive of leaves, shall not exceed seven (7) years.

• A faculty member normally must serve a minimum of five (5) full academic years to be considered for tenure although the Academic Dean may reduce the probationary period to five (5) or four (4) years with tenure consideration occurring in the fifth or fourth year) through the granting of prior service credit at this or another accredited institution of high education. Such reduction shall be made in writing not later than the end of the first year in which the faculty member holds a tenurable appointment.

• The Academic Dean may recommend and the Provost may approve the extension of the probationary period and tenurable appointment by one year if the faculty member experiences an extended life-changing event (MSU Faculty Handbook, Section 2.14) during the period. The faculty member shall in writing inform the Chair, Dean, and Provost of the event within six months of event’s inception and shall at that time request the extension.

• A previously agreed upon reduction of the probationary period may be rescinded upon mutual agreement of the faculty member, the Chair, the Dean and the Provost. Such

4

rescission shall be made in writing at least one year before the tenure process was to have begun.

The Annual Evaluation Process: Faculty Performance The MSU Faculty Handbook (Sections 2.7.3 and 2.7.4) stipulates that during each academic year, in conjunction with the annual performance review for all faculty conducted by the departmental Chair and Dean, each probationary faculty member shall receive written evaluations by the Chair and the Dean based on the established criteria for assessing faculty performance in the following areas:

• *Teaching Excellence, as evidenced by an unmistakable demonstration of teaching and advising effectiveness as recognized by students, colleagues, Chairs, and Dean. Teaching effectiveness will be judged by examining delivery skills, instructional design skills, content expertise, and course management through use of students evaluations and teaching portfolios as well as other evaluative tools.

• Research and Creative Activity, as evidenced by publications, presentations or reports of pre and/or applied research recognized by agencies in the public or private sectors. Empirical research and contributions to scholarly publications are not always the preferred or even feasible methods of contributing to the advancement of every discipline.

• University Service and Professional Activities, as evidenced by service to students; attendance, participation in or direction of, conferences, clinics, workshops, and professional societies; professionally-related public service; preparation of institutional grant proposals; active participation in standing and special university committee work; service as an official representative of the university; sponsorship of or adviser to university-approved, extra-curricular activities; and other professional activities, awards, and recognitions. * The above are university-wide criteria and, with the exception of Teaching

Excellence are not in order of priority. • Needs of the University, as evidenced by the factors determining departmental,

collegiate, and university needs or quality and development including institutional and disciplinary standards (including accreditation standards where applicable); institutional and collegiate master plan goals and objectives; breadth of graduate degree preparations; sufficient flexibility to adapt staffing requirements to changing enrollments and programmatic needs; and institutional funding.

The College of Education Policy Manual (Section 3.1D) outlines the collegiate process for evaluating probationary faculty:

5

Probationary Faculty before Tenure Year (Department) 1. Department chairpersons shall identify experienced faculty member(s) in their

department to serve as mentor(s) to each first year faculty member in department. At beginning of fall semester, department chairpersons shall organize and conduct a formal orientation meeting with new faculty members and mentors to answer questions and explain tenure process, including annual tenure evaluations by chairperson, by departmental tenure committee, and by dean.

2. Each probationary faculty member shall be reviewed annually by Department Tenure Committee composed of all tenured faculty members in department. [If number of probationary faculty in a department to be reviewed exceeds 65 percent (excluding chairperson), dean may select tenured faculty from other departments to serve on that department’s tenure committee, except during applicant’s tenure year.]

3. On or before October 1, Department Tenure Committee shall meet and select chairperson from among its members who are members of that department, and on or before this date department chairperson shall present to committee tenure application packet prepared and submitted by each eligible probationary faculty.

4. Department Tenure Committee shall meet and review each applicant’s packet. Using university criteria for tenure, committee shall make a written observation to probationary faculty member as to satisfactory progress toward tenure. Included in this progress report to probationary faculty member shall be suggestions for improvement for next annual review.

5. On or before November 15, written progress report and suggestions shall be presented to probationary faculty member in person by committee chairperson, accompanied by at least one committee member. A copy of progress report and suggestions shall be given to department chairperson.

Probationary Faculty Member before Tenure (Department Chair) Each probationary faculty member shall be formally evaluated annually by faculty member’s department chairperson who follows procedures and criteria of university tenure policy. The evaluation may include but not be limited to the following:

a. observing faculty in classroom teaching; b. analysis of student feedback data information; c. review of teaching materials; d. review and assessment of departmental tenure committee; e. review of grade course distributions; f. other criteria as specified by college or department policy.

Chairpersons shall provide to each probationary faculty member formal, annual, written feedback and evaluation. Dean shall provide annual written performance evaluations to each non-tenured faculty member.

6

If chairperson or dean finds a faculty member deficient to extent of eventual probability of not being retained, probationary faculty shall be notified in writing and, if appropriate, provided a written plan prescribing recommendations for improvement. **The annual performance reviews are not tenure recommendations even though language may be used to this effect. The performance reviews will be used by the tenure recommending agencies in the year of decision. Favorable annual performance reviews do not mandate positive recommendations for tenure. Tenure Consideration Procedure The tenure process originates with the probationary faculty member preparing a portfolio of evidence that includes items listed on College of Education’s Tenure Checklist [Appendix B] in the designated areas of Teaching Excellence, Research and Creative Activity, Service, and Needs of the University and presenting it to the Department Chairperson. The College of Education’s procedure is encompassed by the University’s procedure as follows: September 1 - Department chairperson will present to Department Tenure Committee (comprised of all tenured faculty of member’s department and only of tenured faculty in member’s department) applicant’s tenure packet and all annual performance reviews by chairperson and tenure committee. Tenure applicants shall be individuals who have been eligible for final tenure consideration since August 1 of current academic year. October 1 - Recommendations of Department Tenure Committee on each member eligible for tenure will be forwarded to department chairperson who will prepare specific recommendations. Copy of committee’s recommendation, without comments, shall be provided to applicant. October 15 - Recommendations of department chairperson and recommendations of Department Tenure Committee will be forwarded to College Tenure Committee. Copy of department chairperson’s recommendation, without comments, shall be provided to applicant. November 15 - Recommendations of College Tenure Committee, department chairperson, and Department Tenure Committee will be forwarded to dean. Copy of collegiate committee’s recommendation, without comments, shall be provided to applicant. December 15 - Dean shall forward dean’s recommendation and all other tenure recommendations to provost. Copy of dean’s recommendation, without comments, shall be provided to applicant. University Guidelines add that by: January 30, the Provost shall forward the candidate’s folder and his/her recommendation to the President via the University Tenure Committee. February 28, the University Tenure Committee shall forward its annual report an all tenure folders and recommendations to the President. March 31, the President shall notify the faculty member of his/her intended recommendation. While meeting dates of the Board of Regents vary from year to year, the Board usually considers the President’s tenure recommendations during the last quarterly meeting of the fiscal year. March 31, the Provost shall notify the faculty member who is considered for but not recommended for tenure that a terminal contract shall be offered for one (1) additional year. Upon receipt of such notice the faculty member may discuss the reasons for the tenure denial with his/her Chair and Dean. The faculty member has the right to advisement by the Provost as

7

to reasons for tenure denial. Such reasons are given to assist the faculty member in his/her professional growth and development. A faculty member may initiate an appeal to the University Tenure Committee no later than sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of the terminal contract. This appeal shall be a written request for a hearing, setting forth the bases or the appeal together with a statement of facts in support thereof (MSU Faculty Handbook Section 2.7.7).

Promotion The university promotion policy recognizes the fact that differences exist among faculty members’ achievements in the university community and that rank should reflect those achievements. Decisions on promotions are to be an individualized process whereby the qualifications and guidelines shall be considered. The primary responsibility for promotion recommendations should rest with the Department Chair and Dean, after consultation with faculty of the rank to which the applicant aspires or higher (MSU Faculty Handbook Section 2.6). Promotion consideration is based on performance in the academic year. Faculty Qualifications The university is guided by appropriate discipline-related accrediting agencies in determining academic degree achievement in each discipline. Minimum qualifications normally expected to be met prior to consideration for promotion for specific ranks are as follows:

• Instructor 1. Education: Master’s degree appropriate to the teaching professional field.

2. Experience: None. • Assistant Professor

1. Education: Earned doctorate appropriate to the teaching or professional field or the highest level of academic achievement normally attained in that field. 2. Experience: None

• Associate Professor 1. Education: Earned doctorate appropriate to the teaching or professional field or the highest level of academic achievement normally attained in that field.

2. Experience: Completion of five years of successful, recognized teaching and/or other professional experience in the field. • Professor

1. Education: Earned doctorate appropriate to the teaching or professional field or the highest level of academic achievement normally attained in that field.

2. Experience: Completion of ten years of outstanding teaching and/or other professional experience in the field, with recognition of that experience extending beyond the university community.

8

Guidelines The MSU Faculty Handbook (Section 2.6.2) states that the following guidelines will assist in the determination and evaluation of significant professional experience, accomplishments and qualifications in promotion consideration:

• Teaching Excellence, as evidenced by an unmistakable demonstration of teaching and advising effectiveness as recognized by students, colleagues, Chairs, and Dean. Teaching effectiveness will be judged by examining delivery skills, instructional design skills, content expertise, and course management through use of students evaluations and teaching portfolios as well as other evaluative tools.


• University Service and Professional Activities, as evidenced by service to students; attendance, participation in or direction of, conferences, clinics, workshops, and professional societies; professionally-related public service; preparation of institutional grant proposals; active participation in standing and special university committee work; service as an official representative of the university; sponsorship of or adviser to university-approved, extra-curricular activities; and other professional activities, awards, and recognitions.

Promotion Procedures The College of Education’s Promotion Procedures are based on university guidelines.

• The application for promotion in academic rank shall be initiated by the faculty member and shall be based upon established criteria of Teaching Excellence, Research and Creative Activity, and University Service and Professional Activities. It shall be accompanied by documentation in accordance with a format established by the University Promotion and Leave Committee in consultation with the Provost.

• Promotion recommendations will originate each year with departmental committee consisting of faculty of member's department, using criteria for promotion established by university.

Timelines for Promotion ** October 1 - Applicant submits promotion file to department chairperson, who presents it to chair of departmental promotion committee. November 1 - Promotion recommendations from committee and applicant’s file forwarded to department chair. Copy of committee’s recommendation, without comments, shall be provided to applicant. November 15 - Promotion recommendations and applicant’s file forwarded to collegiate promotion committee. Copy of chair’s recommendation, without comments, shall be provided to applicant.

9

December 15 - Promotion recommendations and applicant’s file forwarded to dean. Copy of committee’s recommendation, without comments, shall be provided to applicant. January 15 - Promotion recommendations and applicant’s file forwarded via provost to University Promotion and Leave Committee. Copy of dean’s recommendation, without comments, shall be provided to applicant. February 15 – The University Promotion and Leave Committee will forward its recommendation and the applicant’s file to the Provost. By March 1 – The Provost will forward his/her recommendation, the applicant’s file, and the recommendation of the University Promotion and Leave Committee to the President. The President will present his/her recommendation to the Board of Regents at its final meeting of the academic year. **Each recommending agency shall promptly inform the applicant of that agency’s recommendation in writing. The applicant shall have the opportunity to review his/her complete file at any time during the process, and may withdraw the application at any time. The faculty member, his/her Chair or Dean, the Provost or the President may ask the University Promotion and Leave Committee to reconsider its recommendation. MSU Faculty Handbook Section 2.6.3.2.

Annual Evaluations The Board of Regents has expectations that evaluations be conducted on a valid and systematic basis so that the effectiveness of faculty and administrators may be continually assessed. It is recognized that each college has its own unique qualities, expectations, and priorities and that the most effective evaluation system must be centered at the college level. In addition to the university’s system for evaluation stipulated in the MSU Faculty Handbook (Sections 2.6.2 and 2.7.4) each college may include other evaluative means.

• Teaching Excellence, as evidenced by an unmistakable demonstration of teaching and advising effectiveness as recognized by students, colleagues, Chairs, and Dean. Teaching effectiveness will be judged by examining delivery skills, instructional design skills, content expertise, and course management through use of students evaluations and teaching portfolios as well as other evaluative tools.


• University Service and Professional Activities, as evidenced by service to students; attendance, participation in or direction of, conferences, clinics, workshops, and professional societies; professionally-related public service; preparation of institutional grant proposals; active participation in standing and special university committee work; service as an official representative of the university; sponsorship of or adviser to university-approved, extra-curricular activities; and other professional activities, awards, and recognitions.

10

Faculty evaluations are to be shared each year with the individual faculty member being evaluated. These evaluations will become part of the documentation that will support recommendations for promotion or tenure. (MSU Faculty Handbook Section 2.5) Yearly evaluations based on the calendar year performance are the basis for determining salaries and the amount of merit pay awarded faculty member if such money is available. The College of Education’s Policy Manual stipulates that “For determination of salary, each faculty member shall be evaluated annually, using university, college and departmental criteria and procedures to determine salaries.” Annual Evaluation Process The College of Education’s annual evaluation process includes the following: By February 15th faculty will present an Individual Activity File documenting their achievements in the required areas for the preceding calendar year (January – December) to the department chair. The department chair will convene a meeting of the departmental committee selected to review and evaluate the Individual Activity Files. This committee consists of two faculty members and the department chair. Members of the committee are elected by each department’s faculty and must be tenured faculty. The department committee will have evaluated the folders and made recommendations for the department chair. By May 1st the department chair will have shared a written summary of the annual evaluation findings and shared it with the individual faculty member. The evaluation will be shared with the dean. Copies of the report will be placed in the department’s and dean’s personnel files. With respect to monies (salary and merit) the College of Education’s Policy Manual (Section 2.5 F) states that:

1. Salary determination and recommendation process in colleges is an activity that involves participation and input of dean, chairpersons, and faculty. Faculty and chairperson in each department must jointly develop departmental salary procedures that will be utilized in awarding across-the-board and merit salary increments. Dean must approve departmental salary plans.

2. When annual salary allocation for college is presented to dean, these funds will be allocated to departments and other units in college utilizing following guidelines:

• Salary money designated as across-the-board will be passed forward to each department based on appropriate percentage of aggregate salary pool of employed faculty and staff in department. This across-the-board money will be distributed to each faculty member who meets minimum acceptable performance standards. Vacant lines are not used in this calculation.

• Salary money designated as merit money will be passed forward to each department based upon appropriate percentage of aggregate salary pool of employed faculty and staff in department. This money will be distributed to appropriate faculty and staff based upon merit pay procedures adopted for department. Vacant lines are not used in this calculation.

11

• All across-the-board and merit money that is generated by salaries of employed faculty and staff is passed through to salary pool at department level. There, it is to be allocated in a manner consistent with university, college, and departmental salary policies. Only moneys associated with vacant lines are not distributed in this manner.

• Chairperson is responsible to conduct all salary activities at departmental level. This shall include appropriate individual performance assessment; application of approved departmental salary procedures, and development of fair and equitable individual salary recommendations based on departmental salary policy. Chairperson shall inform each individual faculty member of salary recommendation and shall then present these recommendations, with appropriate justifications, to dean. Dean may approve, disapprove, or require additional justification for any recommendation.

3. Upon notification by chairperson of salary recommendation, faculty member may appeal recommendation directly to dean or through normal university grievance procedure. In event an appeal is made to dean, written notification of intent to appeal must be submitted to that office within one working day (24 hrs) of salary conference with chairperson.

4. Upon completion of all salary development activities and following verification and reconciliation of all budget entries, dean shall forward college annual budget, with salary recommendations, to provost.

5. In event any one of these policy statements or procedures is determined to be inconsistent with current university salary policy, it shall not necessarily invalidate others but shall be superseded by appropriate university policy.

12

Chapter Two Murray State University College of Education’s Levels of Performance

Teaching

The Murray State University Faculty Handbook identifies Teaching Excellence as one area of evaluation for the awarding of tenure and promotion. Teaching excellence is defined in Handbook section 2.7.4.1 as “an unmistakable demonstration of teaching and advising effectiveness as recognized by students, colleagues, Chairs, and Deans. Teaching effectiveness will be judged by examining instructional delivery skills, instructional design skills, content expertise, and course management through the use of student evaluations and teaching portfolios and well as other tools. Evidence of concern for students, including academic advising, and contribution to student development, should be considered.”

13

ANNUAL REVIEW OF TEACHING A faculty member’s annual performance, related to issues of tenure and promotion, will be considered to be at the “targeted” level (acceptable) if (s)he consistently meets the “targeted” level of performance for the areas identified in the Faculty Handbook. A faculty member’s annual performance will be considered to be at the “outstanding” level (exceeding expectations) if (s)he consistently meets most of the “outstanding” criteria.

TARGETED OUTSTANDING Goal-Setting • Uses student, collegial, and administrative

feedback to identify strengths and areas for growth

• Develops action plan to address areas of growth • Reflects upon whether identified goals have

been met

• Follows through on annual plans • Documents substantial efforts to improve

teaching • Shows improvement over time

Instructional Design • Aligns course objectives, content, assignments

and assessments • Uses sound pedagogical practices • Keeps courses current with the field • Participates in program assessment system

• Uses a variety of strategies to assure a high degree of student engagement and productivity

• Uses technology to improve teaching and learning

• Actively engages in program assessment system at the program, department, college and/or university level

Instructional Delivery • Consistently receives student evaluations at

“good” levels or higher • Receives positive evaluations from colleagues

and administrators

• Consistently receives student evaluations at “very good” levels or higher

Content Expertise • Has appropriate educational background and

experiences for courses taught • Applies knowledge of content in the creation

of instructional materials, course content, and new courses

• Participates in professional development activities

• Conducts action research to improve teaching • Applies knowledge of content in the creation or

revision of programs

Course Management • Establishes clear expectations with students • Provides thoughtful feedback • Maintains accurate records • Cooperates with student services to meet

students’ special needs (e.g. SSLD, SSS) • Assists student learning by providing study

guides, reading guides, etc.

• Uses technology and/or other sources to provide course materials and to facilitate communication

• Establishes clear expectations by including purpose statements, delineating tasks, and providing directions and/or rubrics

• Scaffolds students’ efforts to develop effective written and oral communication skills

• Assists student learning by helping students find resources for lifelong learning

Advising • Is available to advise students through regular

office hours and by e-mail • Shows commitment to quality advising

• Is involved in activities aimed at improving advising and/or helping students succeed in the teacher education program

14

Tenure Expectations (Over Five Year Period) It is expected that the faculty member’s annual performance ratings each year will move toward “targeted” performance levels, and that by the tenure year the faculty member will have met all criteria at the targeted level, as evidenced by reflective critique, student evaluations, and other documentation provided in the tenure file.

Promotion Expectations

• Assistant Professor to Associate Professor: The criteria for promotion to Associate Professor will be the same as set for tenure.

• Associate Professor to Professor: The faculty member’s cumulative record may be

considered; however, the focus of the review will be placed on the period since the last promotion. It is expected that the faculty member’s annual performance will consistently be at the “Outstanding” performance level since being promoted to Associate Professor as evidenced by reflective critique, student evaluations, and other documentation provided in the promotion file.

15

ANNUAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY

Faculty members are encouraged and expected to conduct research. Scholarly activities, in conjunction with a range of service to the university, profession, and community, distinguish COE faculty from instructors or teachers. Research helps faculty develop specialized knowledge, contributes to the body of knowledge in their profession, and helps inform and guide her/his teaching. It is an important aspect of being a professional and a professor. Therefore, a faculty member’s annual performance related to issues of tenure and promotion will be evaluated based on his/her progress towards the overall requirements for tenure and promotion. A faculty member is expected to develop and pursue an active research and creative activity agenda that includes both scholarly presentations and publications. The faculty member’s research and creativity should be in their area of expertise. On average, the faculty member is expected to have at least one research product (see list below) yearly. As a general guide, a faculty member’s annual performance will be considered at the “targeted” level (acceptable) if she/he is making good progress towards tenure and has completed one research product (from the list below) during the year. A faculty member’s annual performance will be considered at the “outstanding” level (exceeding expectations) if he/she is making excellent progress towards tenure and has completed at least two research products from the list below for the year.

• Author or coauthor a manuscript in a regional (multistate), national, or international peer-reviewed publication. Two state-level peer-reviewed publications will meet this standard. While collaboration is encouraged, the applicant must describe his/her level of involvement.

• Make a peer-reviewed presentation at a regional, national, or international meeting. Two state-level peer reviewed presentations will meet this standard.

• Peer-reviewed published book • Author or coauthor a chapter in a published book (includes textbooks) • Obtain and direct an externally funded grant of at least 30K • Other comparable activities as defined/judged by the departmental committee. It is

incumbent upon the faculty member to demonstrate the merit of their research and creativity when their scholarly activities do not meet one of the standards listed above Note: Vanity publications will not be considered

16

Tenure Expectations (over the Five Year Period)

A faculty member is expected to develop and pursue a research and creative activity agenda that includes both scholarly presentations and publications. It is expected that the faculty member must have at least five research products from the list over the 5-year period. At the minimum, the faculty member must have at least one high-quality, regional, national, or international peer-reviewed publication over the probationary period. Promotion Expectations

• Assistant Professor to Associate Professor: In order to earn promotion to the Associate level, the faculty member must have, at a minimum, five research products, including: 1) one high-quality national or international peer-reviewed publication OR 2) two high-quality regional peer-reviewed journal articles OR 3) two book chapters, AND 4) at least four state, regional, national or international presentations during the five years prior to application. Per university policy, the faculty member’s cumulative record may be considered; however, the focus of the review will be placed on the period since the last promotion. The quantity and the quality of the research products will be considered. Grants and other comparable activities may also be considered, as judged by the departmental committee.

• Associate Professor to Professor: In order to earn promotion to Professor, the faculty member must demonstrate recognition at the national or international level. The faculty member must have at least two quality national or international publications and at least three quality peer-reviewed national or international presentations since the last promotion (prior to application). Per university policy, the faculty member’s cumulative record may be considered; however, the focus of the review will be placed on the period since the last promotion. The quantity and the quality of the research products will be considered. Grants and other comparable activities may also be considered if recognition is at the national level.

17

ANNUAL REVIEW OF SERVICE

The area of service allows faculty members to demonstrate professional contributions to the institution, their discipline, and the community. As a member of a university community, every faculty member has an obligation to contribute to the effective running of the institution. Service is an important role but is not limited to what occurs on campus. Traditionally universities have acknowledged the obligation of faculty as professionals with specialized expertise to contribute to the community beyond the institution. This college places high priority on the need for faculty to be involved with and contribute to the successful running of the public schools and other community organizations in our region. Service fulfills a very important part in how faculty members complete their responsibilities. As a general guideline, a faculty member’s annual performance (related to issues of tenure and promotion) will be considered to be at the “targeted” level (acceptable) if he/she completes two of the following per year. As a general guideline, a faculty member’s annual performance (related to issues of tenure and promotion) will be considered to be at the “outstanding” level (exceeding expectations) if he/she completes at least three of the following per year or other comparable activities as judged by the department committee. Each service activity will be evaluated on quality and professional time commitment to the activity.

• Serve on one department committee • Serve on one college committee • Serve on one university committee • Chair one college committee • Service on faculty senate • Serve as an officer in a local professional organization • Service as an officer in a state professional organization • Serve as an officer in a regional professional organization • Serve as an officer in a national professional organization • Serve as a program chair in state professional organization • Serve as a program chair in a regional professional organization • Serve as a program chair in a national professional organization • Actively serve on a state committee related to the profession • Actively serve on a national committee related to the profession • Organize a conference (local, state, and national) • Program coordinator • Serve as a member of an editorial board at the state level • Serve as member of an editorial board at the regional level • Serve as a member of an editorial board at the national level • Serve as a member of an editorial board at the international level • In-field service consistent with expertise • As determined by departmental leadership

18

TENURE EXPECTATIONS A faculty member should demonstrate responsibility to their institution and profession by demonstrating growth in the area of service. Faculty members must seek ways to consistently demonstrate service at the targeted level or beyond each year during the probationary period. The tenure decision will be based on a combination of service activities including service at all levels (department, college, university, and profession). Individual guidance will be provided to each faculty member related to progress toward tenure over a five-year period. Each service activity will be evaluated on quality and professional time commitment to the activity. PROMOTION EXPECTATIONS

• Assistant Professor to Associate Professor: The criteria for promotion to Associate Professor (related to service) will be the same as set for tenure.

• Associate Professor to Professor: The faculty member’s cumulative record may

be considered; however, the focus of the review will be placed on the period since the last promotion. Faculty members should be demonstrating service at the outstanding level. Faculty seeking promotion to Professor should demonstrate service to their university and larger professional community.

Each service activity will be evaluated on quality and professional time commitment to the activity.

19

APPENDICES

20

APPENDIX A

21

This document is to be viewed in color

College of Education Tenure Tracking

Merit Pay Tracking through Individual Activity File Annual Evaluations

**Note Faculty and Evaluators always sign evaluations and copies are retained by all parties

Evaluation Path for New Faculty Hired in Fall Semester

Date Comment Tenure Information IAF (Merit Information)

Evaluation Activities

Non-tenured Faculty

Timeline

Non-tenured Faculty

Timeline

Fall Semester Year 1

1st Tenure Review

Materials Collection Begins

First Year Tenure Checklist

Materials Collection Begins

! Faculty Mentor assigned ! Department Chair and Faculty Mentor give

faculty member orientation to the university and college evaluation systems.

! First Year Tenure Checklist completed. Spring Semester Year 1

1st IAF Review (for 1 Semester Only)

IAF /Annual Review submitted to Department in February

(calendar year)

! Department IAF Committee (Elected

Faculty and Chair) review and evaluate to determine points for merit

! Department chair communicates points and merit pay to faculty member. Copy in department files. Copy sent to Dean.

! Department Chair reviews materials, writes evaluation, and conferences with faculty

! Evaluation in department Files and copy sent to Dean

22

! Dean reviews evaluation/materials; meets with non-tenured faculty member and department chair. Dean’s evaluation copy to faculty and in dean’s files.

! Dean reviews evaluations of tenured faculty/lecturers/half-time faculty. Signs evaluations. Dean’s evaluation copy to faculty and in dean’s files.

Fall Semester Years 2-5

2nd Tenure

Review

Tenure Materials submitted for 1 academic year

(September 15th)

! Department Tenure Committee reviews materials, writes report, conferences with faculty (Evaluation in departmental Files)

! Chair reviews materials. Spring Semester Year 2-5

IAF/Annual Review submitted

in February (calendar year)

! Department IAF Committee (Elected Faculty and Chair) review and evaluate to determine points for merit

! Department chair communicates points and merit pay to faculty member. Copy in department files

! Department Chair reviews materials, writes evaluation, conferences with faculty

! Evaluation in department Files and copy sent to Dean

! Dean reviews evaluation/materials; meets with non-tenured faculty member and department chair. Dean’s evaluation copy to faculty and in dean’s files

! Dean reviews evaluations of tenured faculty/lecturers/half-time faculty. Signs evaluations. Dean’s evaluation copy to faculty and in dean’s files

23

Fall Semester Year 6

Formal Tenure Materials

Submitted to University

Tenure Materials submitted for Tenure

Consideration September 15th

! Faculty Member’s tenure application and supportive material is evaluated by tenure committees and administrators. Evaluations and tenure recommendations are forwarded to the appropriate body:

! Department Tenure Committee ! Department Chair ! College Tenure Committee ! College Dean ! Provost Office – to University Tenure

Committee Spring Semester Year 6

IAF/Annual Evaluation

submitted in February

(calendar year)



! Evaluation in department Files and copy sent to Dean.

! Dean reviews and signs. Copy in dean’s files

24

ANNUAL EVALUATION PROCEDURE FOR TENURED FACULTY Spring Semester

IAF submitted for merit consideration in February

(calendar year) additional material submitted later for annual

review



! Department Chair reviews materials, writes evaluation, conferences with faculty

! Evaluation in department Files and copy sent to Dean.

! Dean reviews and signs. Copy in dean’s files

25

APPENDIX B

26

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION TENURE CHECKLIST

Name ___________________________Hired:___________Deparatment:__________________________________ ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS

1st year Department Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ _____-_____ Chair. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________

2nd year Department Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ _____-_____ Chair. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________

3rd year Department Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ _____-_____ Chair. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________

4th year Department Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ _____-_____ Chair. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________

5th year Department Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ _____-_____ Chair. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ Dean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ 6th Year ~ Application for Tenure ~ Summative Evaluations

Department Tenure Evaluation FT-89. . . . . . . . . . . ____________ Chair Tenure Evaluation FT-E89. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ Collegiate Committee Tenure Evaluation FT-E89. ____________ Dean Tenure Evaluation FT-E89. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ VP/Academic Affairs Tenure Evaluation FT-E89. . ____________ Tenure Recommendation Summary FT-R89. . . .. ____________

VITA________________________________________________

SUMMARY STUDENT EVALUATIONS_____________________ GRADE DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION ___________________

PRIOR SERVICE LETTER_______________________________

EXCEPTIONAL LETTER________________________________ EARLY TENURE POLICY LETTER________________________ ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS _____________________

27

28

Tenure Recommendations Summary Page 2 APPLICANT’S FORM Applicant’s Name I. TEACHING EXCELLENCE _____________________________________ Signature Date Revised 11/02

29

Tenure Recommendations Summary Page 8 APPLICANT’S FORM Applicant’s Name II. RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY _________________________________________ Signature Date Revised 11/02

30

Tenure Recommendations Summary Page 14 APPLICANT’S FORM Applicant’s Name III. UNIVERSITY SERVICE AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES _________________________________________ Signature Date Revised 11/02

31

Tenure Recommendations Summary Page 20 APPLICANT’S FORM Applicant’s Name IV. NEEDS OF THE UNIVERSITY _________________________________________ Signature Date

32

STUDENT EVALUATION SUMMARIES

The evaluation process requires that faculty document teaching ability. Student evaluations are important to this process and faculty should collect data from their courses each semester. The Instructional Assessment System is the common evaluation system used on campus at this time.

There is no prescribed method for analyzing and presenting student evaluation data. The faculty is free to choose the method which will communicate the data most effectively.

Two methods of presenting IAS data are presented here as examples—a bar graph presentation and a tabular presentation (note the overall presentation has additional individual courses also being analyzed). It is stressed that these are examples and do not represent the only ways in which data can be analyzed and presented.

Bar Graph Presentation of Evaluation Data:

Figure 1 – Summary of Overall IAS Course Evaluation Results

2001-2006 Overall IAS Responses

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Fall 2001 Spring2002





Semester

Course as a WholeCourse ContentInstructor's ContributionInstructor's EffectivenessCombined 1 to 4

33

2001-2006 Selected IAS Items

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5






Semester

Course Organization

Student Confidence in theInstructorInstructor's Interest in StudentLearningAmount Learned

2001-2006 Challenge & Effort Summary

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7






Semester

Intellectual Challenge PresentedEffort to Succeed in the Course

34

Tabular Presentation of Evaluation Data: INSTRUCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM RESULTS SUMMARY

Median Student Ratings Summary of Selected Assessment Components for 27 Courses

Taught from 1998-2003

Fall 1998 Spring 1999 Fall 1999 Spring 2000 Fall 2000 Spring, 2001 GENERAL

EVALUATION

Course as a whole 4.51 4.47 4.54 4.60 4.77 4.54 Course content 4.45 4.65 4.48 4.55 4.69 4.33

Instructors contribution 4.75 4.71 4.62 4.84 4.87 4.69 Instructors effectiveness 4.68 4.60 4.63 4.79 4.86 4.70

Combined items 1-4 4.62 4.59 4.58 4.72 4.82 4.54 FEEDBACK TO INSTRUCTOR

Course organization 4.55 4.60 4.63 4.5 4.84 4.61 Explanations by instructor 4.69 4.62 4.70 4.66 4.88 *

Use of examples/illustrations

4.80 4.66 4.77 4.76 4.88 * Confidence in instructor

knowledge 4.77 4.80 4.81 4.87 4.89 4.83

Encouragement of student expression

4.78 4.75 4.77 4.78 4.90 4.83 Availability for extra help 4.75 4.73 4.69 4.82 4.86 * NFO FOR IOTHER

STUDENTS

Instructors interest in whether students learned

4.78 4.72 4.76 4.80 4.90 4.83 Relevance and usefulness

of course content 4.76 4.57 4.74 4.67 4.75 4.63

Clarity of student requirements

4.58 4.65 4.35 4.59 4.77 4.27

*Items not on the student evaluation form.

35

Fall, 2001 Spring, 2002 Fall, 2002 Spring, 2003

GENERAL EVALUATION Course as a whole

4.54 4.65 4.7 4.65

Course content

4.325 4.6 4.8 4.6 Instructors contribution

4.69 4.75 4.9 4.75

Instructors effectiveness

4.70 4.75 4.85 4.75 Combined items 1-4

4.54 4.7 4.85 4.7

FEEDBACK TO INSTRUCTOR Course organization

4.61 4.65 4.8 4.65

Explanations by instructor

* 4.75 4.85 4.75 Use of examples/illustrations

* 4.70 4.85 4.7

Confidence in instructor knowledge

4.83 4.8 5.0 4.8 Encouragement of student expression

4.83 4.8 4.8 4.8

Availability for extra help

* 4.8 4.9 4.8

INFORMATION FOR OTHER STUDENTS


4.83 4.8 4.8 4.8 Relevance and usefulness of course content

4.625 4.75 4.9 4.75

Clarity of student requirements

4.265 4.45 4.55 4.45

*Items not on the student evaluation form.

36

The faculty member analyzed several individual courses in this manner

INDIVIDUAL COURSE NUMBER- INDIVIDUAL COURSE TITLE Spring 1999, Spring 2000, Autumn 2000, Spring 2001*, Spring 2002*

Summary of Selected Assessment Components *ITV course with 4-5 sections and blackboard support

STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION

GENERAL

EVALUATION Highest Median Lowest Median

Course as a whole

4.74 4.21 Course content

4.76 4.24

Instructors contribution

4.89 4.5 Instructors effectiveness

4.8 4.39

Combined items 1-4

4.8 4.32

FEEDBACK TO INSTRUCTOR

Course organization

5.0 4.32 Explanations by instructor

4.83 4.36

Use of examples/illustrations

4.83 4.44 Confidence in instructor knowledge

5.00 4.65

Encouragement of student expression

4.86 4.58 Availability for extra help

4.86 4.54

INFORMATION FOR OTHER STUDENTS


4.86 4.62 Relevance and usefulness of course

content 4.72 4.25

Clarity of student requirements 5.00 4.58

37

GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS

Faculty are asked to communicate their assessment of students’ performances in their courses in some manner. Again, this is individual preference with the goal to effectively communicate the final assessments. The two examples again are bar graph and tabular.

Bar Graph Presentation:

Grade Distribution by Semester 2001-2006 Grade Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Fall 20

01

Spring

2002

Summer

2002

Fall 20

02

Spring

2003

Summer

2003

Fall 20

03

Spring

2004

Summer

2004

Fall 20

04

Spring

2005

Summer

2005

Fall 20

05

Spring

2006

Summer

2006

# S

tude

nts E

DCBA

38

Grades Distribution Percentage of students receiving letter grade A B C D E I

Fall, 1998 Undergraduate classes

EDU 230 83% 13% 4% EDU 530 30% 50% 10% 10% EDU 560 80% 13% 7%

Graduate/Undergraduate EDU 530 86% 7%

Graduate class EDU 655 77% 15% 8% Spring 1999

Undergraduate class EDU 230 52% 33% 7% 7%

Graduate classes EDU 655 73% 18% 9% EDU 605 27% 67% 7% Summer, 1999

Graduate/Undergraduate EDU 520 75% 23% 2%

Graduate classes EDU 550 73% 18% 9% Fall, 1999

Undergraduate classes EDU 430 84% 8% 4% 2% 1 student EDU 450 88% 13%

Graduate class EDU 655 90% 10% Spring, 2000

Graduate/Undergraduate EDU 526 54% 42% 9% 2%

Graduate classes EDU 652 82% 18% EDU 605 60% 35% 5% Summer, 2000

Undergraduate class EDU 470 100% EDU 501 67% I student

Graduate/Undergraduate EDU 550 90% 8% 3%

Graduate EDU 640 100% EDU 526 90% 9% Fall, 2000

Undergraduate class EDU 530 60% 30% 1student

Graduate class

39

EDU 640 67% 1student EDU 653 (ITV) 59% 38% 1 student Spring 2001

Graduate EDU 652 100% EDU 640 88% 1 student EDU 605 92% 7% Summer 2001

Undergraduate class EDU 470 75% 25%

Graduate/Undergraduate EDU 501 50% 25% 1 student

Graduate EDU 640 100% Fall, 2001

Graduate EDU 650 100% EDU 640 100%

Graduate/Undergraduate EDU 530 55% 33% 1 student EDU 520 (ITV) 77% 11% 2 students Spring, 2002

Undergraduate EDU 470 60% 20% 20%

Graduate EDU 605 77% 23% EDU 650 85% 7% 3% 1 student EDU 640 85% 1student Summer, 2002

Undergraduate EDU 470 100%

Graduate EDU 640 90% 1 student Fall, 2002

Undergraduate EDU 530 56% 22% 22%

Graduate/Undergraduate EDU 526 ITV (5 sect. 42 stud)

80% 15% 5%

Graduate EDU 640 100% EDU 653 80% 20% Spring, 2003

Undergraduate EDU470 85% 15%

Graduate EDU 652 100% EDU 605 70% 30% EDU 640 85% 1 student EDU 660 100%

40

APPENDIX C

41

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION PROMOTION CHECKLIST

Name ___________________________Hired:___________ Department:__________________________________ Promotion Recommendation Summary Sheet . . . .. ____________ Application for Promotion ~ Recommendations Faculty Application ____________

Department Promotion Committee’s Recommendation . . ____________ Chair’s Promotion Recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ Collegiate Committee’s Promotion Recommendation . ____________ Dean’s Promotion Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____________ VP/Academic Affairs Promotion Recommendation. . ____________

VITA________________________________________________

SUMMARY STUDENT EVALUATIONS_____________________ GRADE DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION ___________________

PRIOR SERVICE LETTER_______________________________ EXCEPTIONAL LETTER________________________________

42

43

Promotion Recommendations Summary Page 2 APPLICANT’S FORM Applicant’s Name I. TEACHING EXCELLENCE _________________________________________ Signature Date Revised 11/02

44

Promotion Recommendations Summary Page 7 APPLICANT’S FORM Applicant’s Name II. RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY _________________________________________ Signature Date Revised 11/02

45

Promotion Recommendations Summary Page 12 APPLICANT’S FORM Applicant’s Name III. UNIVERSITY SERVICE AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES _________________________________________ Signature Date Revised 11/02