I. Introduction
II. Student Opinion of Instruction (SOI)
III. Annual Faculty Activity Report and Action Plan (AFARAP)
IV. Annual Faculty Evaluation (AFE)
V. Merit Pay
VI. Promotion and Tenure Review
VII. Pre-Tenure / Third-year Review
VIII. Post-Tenure / Fifth-year Review
IX. Performance Remediation Plans and Performance Improvement Plans
X. Approval
XI. Appendix

I. Introduction

ßÏÀÖÔ° helps faculty members develop successful, productive careers by regularly evaluating their performance, providing constructive feedback, and facilitating their professional growth. Consisting of a structured, flexible process of continuous planning, communication, and feedback, faculty evaluation begins at the point of initial employment, it guides the promotion and tenure process, and it informs the years of post-tenure service.

Faculty members are evaluated in three areas: (a) teaching and student learning; (b) research, scholarship, professional growth, and creative production; and (c) service to the university, community, or profession including how engagement in student success activities is embedded in these three areas.

Several principles shape this evaluation model1:

Transparency. ßÏÀÖÔ°’s Faculty Evaluation Model provides a conduit for early and consistent communication between department/unit heads and faculty members about university expectations, faculty goals, and departmental needs;
Intentionality. It emphasizes the value of annual, faculty-developed action plans that are devised in consultation with department/unit heads and designed to meet the long-term goals of individual faculty members as well as of the units in which they serve.
Flexibility. It recognizes and rewards the shifting emphases in professional activity that may occur during an academic year as well as over the course of individual faculty members’ careers.
Breadth of Perspective. It yields feedback from diverse perspectives, including students, department/unit heads, and departmental, college, and university peers.
Ease of Access. It employs a variety of readily available online tools and reports.
Academic Freedom. All of these evaluations should be conducted in a manner consistent with ßÏÀÖÔ°’s support of Academic Freedom as defined in ßÏÀÖÔ°’s Faculty Handbook.

 

[1] “Model” indicates that colleges and units will modify elements of the evaluative procedure (e.g., arrangement of professional categories or addition of questions to the SOI, etc.) to facilitate planning, program evaluation by external accrediting bodies, or other disciplinary requirements.

ßÏÀÖÔ°’s evaluation model employs the following assessment activities:

Review Reviewers Frequency Location
Student Opinion of Instruction

Students voluntarily provide feedback on faculty members’ teaching effectiveness.

 Each term
Annual Faculty Activity Report and Action Plan Faculty members report on their activities for the past year, reflect on their accomplishments, and set goals for the upcoming year. Annual AFARAP Template
Annual Faculty Evaluation Department/unit heads use faculty members’ Action Plans and Annual Faculty Activity Reports to evaluate their performance during the past year and work with faculty members to implement Performance Remediation Plans (PRPs) if needed Annual AFARAP Template
Merit Pay Review Department/unit heads use individual department/college standards to reward faculty members’ performance since the last award of merit pay. Periodic, depending upon legislative appropriations Department/ College Policy Manual
Promotion and Tenure Review Department committees and department/unit heads; college committees and deans; and university committee and Provost evaluate faculty members’ performance in teaching and student learning; scholarship and creative productivity; and service to the university, community, and profession, including how eng