ut martin faculty evaluation guidebook

UT Martin Faculty Evaluation Guidebook

The Campus Faculty Evaluation Committee and The Division of Academic Affairs

1

Preface This draft is the culmination of a great deal of work by the Campus-Wide Faculty Evaluation Committee and the Interim Provost. As departments beta test this process during the 2018-19 academic year, we expect to heavily modify this Guidebook—but we tried to set a firm foundation for those groups to build on.

This Guidebook has two parts. The first part (and the majority of the text) describes the annual evaluation plan. The far smaller second part (overseen by the Faculty Senate’s Personnel Policies Committee (PPC)) will describe miscellaneous evaluation activities in far greater detail than belongs in the Faculty Handbook. For example, the Board of Trustees (BOT) is requiring external reviews for tenure. The Faculty Handbook now notes this requirement in sections 2.84 and 2.85, but does not list all the details because text in the Handbook is hard to alter. So the 1

mundane details that might change as we implement the process will be added to this Guidebook. The PPC will review that part in Fall 2018.

Executive Summary The Faculty Evaluation Process is intended to be very flexible so each unit can adapt it by choosing what forms of evidence to use and how to use them. Individual faculty will be able to set weights within ranges. The system will have two outcomes: a two-decimal numerical score between 1.00 and 4.00, along with one of four BOT categories. Our hope is to make the numerical scores consistent across campus. Until we have used this process once or twice, there will be no fixed translation between these two types of outcomes (numeric and categorical).

One way the Faculty Evaluation Process seeks to create consistency is by dividing Faculty’s work into three roles, and each of those roles into four components (see Section 1.3 and Chapter 3). Using a variety of sources during an evaluation can help control the subjectivity inherent in any evaluation.

This process is guided by the work of Raoul Arreola, but we have made it our own in several 2

key ways. For example, Dr. Arreola has a vision of determining tenure and promotion solely from a compilation of numerical annual reviews, but the committee determined that this is inappropriate for our campus. Annual results should inform, not predetermine, a tenure decision.

1 Handbook changes are always reviewed by the UT President’s staff and legal counsel, and often require a Board of Trustees vote. (See the faculty Handbook Chapter 7.) 2 Raoul A. Arreola, Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System: A Guide to Designing, Building, and Operating Large-Scale Faculty Evaluation Systems 3rd Ed, Jossey-Bass, 2006, ISBN 1933371110.

Version 2019.1

2

Evaluation Abbreviations

From the local Faculty Evaluation Process:

● FEP Faculty Evaluation Process ● cFEC Campus-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee

From Raoul Arreola’s Text and Worksheets:

● CRR Composite Role Ratings (for each of teaching, scholarship and service) ● MUA Merit Unit Amount (when using OCRs to calculate merit pay) ● OCR Overall Composite Rating (final numerical result)

From BT0006 “Board of Trustees Policies Governing Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure”:

● APPR Annual Performance-and-Planning Review (usual annual review) ● ARIP Annual Review Improvement Plan (address a hopefully minor problem) ● EPPR Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review (address major problems) ● ETTR Enhanced Tenure-Track Review (3rd or 4th year review before tenure) ● PPPR Periodic Post-Tenure Performance Review (periodic for everyone tenured)

Other common abbreviations:

● BOT The UT Board of Trustees ● DM Digital Measures ● PPC Faculty Senate’s Personnel Policies Committee ● VCAA Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (often, but not always, the Provost)

Version 2019.1

3

Table of Contents

Preface 1

Executive Summary 1

Evaluation Abbreviations 2

Chapter 1. Introduction 5

1.1. History of the Faculty Evaluation Process 5

1.2. Tenure and Promotion 6

1.3. The Three Roles of Faculty and Controlled Subjectivity 7

1.4. The Campus-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee 8

1.5. The College Faculty Evaluation Committees 9

Chapter 2. Overview of the Faculty Evaluation Process 10

2.1. Faculty Evaluation Policies 10

2.2. The Annual Faculty Evaluation Calendar 10

2.3. Setting the Weights of Components 11

2.4. Two Results: Numeric and Categorical 12

2.5. Disagreement with Rating 13

Chapter 3. Campus Standards for the Faculty Roles 15

3.1. Introduction 15

3.2. Teaching (50% to 90% of OCR) 17

3.2.1. Instructional design (fixed at 30%) 18

3.2.2. Instructional delivery (fixed at 30%) 19

3.2.3. Instructional assessment (fixed at 25%) 20

3.2.4. Course management (fixed at 15%) 21

3.3. Scholarship (5% to 40% of OCR) 22

3.3.1. Proficiency (0% to 100% of Scholarship) 23

3.3.2. Discovery/creativity (0% to 100% of Scholarship) 24

3.3.3. Dissemination (0% to 100% of Scholarship) 26

3.3.4. Translation (0% to 100% of Scholarship) 26

Version 2019.1

4

3.4. Service (5% to 40% of OCR) 27

3.4.1. To the institution (0% to 100% of Service) 29

3.4.2. To the profession (0% to 100% of Service) 29

3.4.3. To the community (0% to 100% of Service) 30

3.4.4. To the students (0% to 100% of Service) 31

Chapter 4. Miscellaneous Details 33

4.1. Handling Release Time 33

4.1.1. Usually No Adjustments 33

4.1.2. Mandatory Adjustments 33

4.1.3. Unusual Cases 34

4.2. Calculating Merit Pay 34

4.3. Evaluating Non-tenure Track Faculty 35

Appendix A. Additional UT Martin Evaluation Policies 37

A.1. Introduction 37

A.2. External Reviews for Tenure 37

Appendix B. UT Board Policy BT0006 Section I 39

I. Evaluation of Tenured Faculty Members 39

1. Annual Performance-and-Planning Review 39

Version 2019.1

5

Chapter 1. Introduction The faculty are the heart and soul of the University of Tennessee at Martin. They have dedicated their lives to teaching, mentoring, and helping students, so they deserve to be evaluated in a fair, consistent, and transparent manner. Our campus has a strong history of shared governance, which demands that our faculty evaluation process be developed together by the content and 3

delivery experts, the faculty, and the university’s support system, the academic administration.

This Evaluation Guidebook is the result of a faculty-led process. The current goal is to beta test the process in the 2018-19 academic year (for the Annual Performance and Planning Reviews in Fall 2019) and then fully implement in 2019-20 (for the APPRs in Fall 2020). We have worked very hard to propose and finalize this process, but developing this process (and therefore this Guidebook) will be an ongoing project for several years. It will continually grow and change as implementation exposes both its strengths and weaknesses. For that reason, the Campus Faculty Evaluation Committee will continue to function for the foreseeable future—overseeing both the process and this guide.

1.1. History of the Faculty Evaluation Process Up through 2018, faculty evaluation at UT Martin was an inconsistent patchwork of departmental processes which did not result in ratings that could be compared across units. In some departments, the evaluation process was well developed and described, but others received ratings solely from the department chair and occasionally in a manner that did not match the department’s bylaws. In at least one college, every tenured faculty member received a rating that fell in the Board of Trustees’ highest rating category. Consistently high ratings throughout the university caused the trustees to question whether faculty were being appropriately evaluated.

To address these and other concerns, the Interim Provost Rich Helgeson worked with Chancellor Keith Carver to hire the evaluation expert Dr. Raoul Arreola. Music chair Julie Hill had already brought Dr. Arreola to campus to help with her department’s tenure process, and she became central to the campus-wide effort as well.

Dr. Arreola made presentations to the chairs and deans, and then to the faculty as a whole. Each department selected at least two faculty members to become “experts” and receive more training from Dr. Arreola. These faculty, led by their respective deans, became the college committees. Finally, each college committee selected two members to serve on the Campus Faculty Evaluation Committee (cFEC). This initial committee had the Interim Provost as a non-voting

3 UT Martin’s Faculty Handbook, section 1.6.3, item 8: ... Faculty members are expected to have direct involvement in the development and revision of evaluation procedures and forms. Evaluation procedures outlined in the departmental bylaws must have the approval of a majority of the departmental faculty, as well as the approval of the chair, the dean, and the VCAA.

Version 2019.1

6

chair, Dr. Hill as a non-voting facilitator, and the Faculty Senate’s President and President-elect as voting ex-officio members. (The current composition is described in Section 1.4.)

At all levels this was a faculty-led process. Each department proposed definitions, weights, data sources, etc., independently. These were merged by the college committees and then the college results were merged by the campus committee. At times cFEC had to make choices that placed small restrictions on the departments. For example, the departments’ original proposals differed on where academic advising belonged. Some placed advising under teaching and mentoring, others placed it under service to either the department or the institution, and still others made it a separate role. For consistency, the campus committee decided that advising should be placed under service in the component “service to the students.” There were surprisingly few times that cFEC had to ask departments to make changes, perhaps because most departments followed Dr. Arreola’s suggestions.

Dr. Arreola’s guidance, definitions, and forms were very helpful in beginning this process. If you read his text, then you will see that much of the process we created is close to his and honors his important notion of controlled subjectivity. However, the campus committee also decided early on that this was our process, not Dr. Arreola’s, and we deviated from his suggestions in several key ways.

1.2. Tenure and Promotion Dr. Arreola presented a vision where tenure and promotion decisions might be made solely based on the annual overall composite rating (a single summary number produced by this process). The campus committee soundly rejected this suggestion. Tenure and promotion decisions often measure qualities and work that is not neatly separated into academic or calendar years and may not be expected to be repeated annually.

The results from this annual faculty evaluation process will inform decisions about tenure and promotion in the same way the results from the old evaluation processes did, but they will not directly change any of the current tenure and promotion requirements or processes.

UT Board of Trustees Policy BT0006 requires that tenure decisions include peer evaluations of teaching. For UT Martin, the minimal requirements for this peer evaluation will be defined by 4

this annual faculty evaluation process. Individual colleges or departments may choose to add to these, but for many units the peer evaluation may be done by reviewing course materials, syllabi, tests, but not necessarily by direct classroom observation (see Section 3.1).

4 BOT Policy BT0006 App A 1 p. 20 states (in part): Each department shall establish procedures governing the tenured faculty’s consideration of a candidate for tenure that are consistent with applicable college or campus procedures but may be more restrictive. The procedures must include at least the following: a requirement for external reviews; a requirement for the peer review of teaching (for faculty members who engage in teaching); ...

Version 2019.1

7

1.3. The Three Roles of Faculty and Controlled Subjectivity Faculty evaluation is an inherently subjective process, but a subjective process implemented solely by chairs cannot be transparent or consistent across campus. Our proposed process first divides the work of faculty into three major roles: teaching, scholarship and service; and then subdivides each role into four components (all defined in Chapter 3). To allow this process to be adapted to each individual, the weights of most of these components will be set by the faculty member working with the chair (guided by the departments’ and colleges’ bylaws and this Guidebook).

Teaching (50% to 90%) A. Instructional design (30%) B. Instructional delivery (30%) C. Instructional assessment (25%) D. Course management (15%)

Scholarship (5% to 40%) A. Proficiency (0% to 100%) B. Discovery/creativity (0% to 100%) C. Dissemination (0% to 100%) D. Translation (0% to 100%)

Service (5% to 40%) A. To the institution (0% to 100%) B. To the profession (0% to 100%) C. To the community (0% to 100%) D. To the students (0% to 100%)

Only the weights of the components of teaching, and the ranges for the three roles, have been fixed at the campus level. Colleges and departments may enact smaller ranges within these campus ranges for their units.

The goal of the process is to use multiple sources of information (such as ratings of teaching by students and by peers, simple counts of presentations and articles, or rubrics completed by 5

chairs or departmental committees) to evaluate each component using consensus-based values. This spreads the subjectivity across a number of individuals and groups. Once combined into an overall composite rating, the result cannot be based solely on the capriciousness of any one individual or group. Arreola calls the result “controlled subjectivity” and many faculty found it the most appealing part of the process.

5 Department and/or College bylaws shall determine who a peer is for the disciplines represented in that department.

Version 2019.1

8

1.4. The Campus-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee It is important that faculty continue to oversee and adjust this evaluation process. The Faculty Senate has a voice in all such processes through the Personnel Policies Committee, but the most 6

proactive voice for this project will be the Campus-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee.

Purpose: The Campus-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee (cFEC) is responsible for working with the VCAA to design and oversee the new faculty evaluation process. Along with the VCAA, this committee will help write and maintain this Guidebook for Faculty Evaluation and will annually review the evaluations from all units and colleges to see if there are any problems with the process that need to be addressed. If there are problems, this committee will recommend solutions to the Provost and/or Faculty Senate as appropriate.

Composition: The fifteen members of cFEC are comprised by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Senate President and President-elect, SACS Accreditation Coordinator and eleven faculty members serving three-year terms starting August 1 each year (two from each College Faculty Evaluation Committee and one from the Paul Meek Library). The coordinator for the committee will be chosen by the VCAA. Beginning Spring 2020, in its last meeting of the Spring semester each year, the cFEC will elect one faculty member to serve as Chair for the following academic year.

Membership ( * Indicates voting ex officio, ** Non-voting ex officio): ** Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, cFEC Chair * President Faculty Senate * President-elect Faculty Senate ** Faculty Evaluation Coordinator (2020) ** SACSCOC Accreditation Coordinator

Scott Parrott (CAAS 2019) Carrie Humphreys (CBGA 2019) Jeff Longacre (CHFA 2019) Alissa Parrish (CEHB 2019) Jeff Rogers (CAAS 2020) Ray Witmer (CENS 2020) Sarah Haig (CHFA 2020) Sean Walker (CBGA 2021) Justin Martin (CEHB 2021) Nancy Buschhaus (CENS 2021) Erin Peters (PML 2021) Chris Baxter (CBGA 2022) Laura Brown (CEHB 2022)

6 In April 2018, the PPC passed a motion to make this explicit in the Faculty Senate bylaws Article IV, Section 8. The timing of the final senate meeting that year did not allow for the full 25 day review, so the Faculty Senate will vote on this addition September 25, 2018.

Version 2019.1

9

Keith Dooley (CAAS 2022) Kurt Gorman (CHFA 2022)

1.5. The College Faculty Evaluation Committees We expect all of the college committees to continue to function and to keep essentially the same membership in 2018-19 (with units electing replacements as necessary). In Spring 2019 cFEC will discuss with the college committees, the deans, and the Provost before writing a comprehensive description in this Guidebook.

Version 2019.1

10

Chapter 2. Overview of the Faculty Evaluation Process The evaluation process is flexible, but it is designed to create consistency across all academic departments (including the scholarship and service components for library faculty).

The summative result of the process will be reported using both a single composite number (e.g. 3.43) called the Overall Composite Rating (OCR) on a four-point scale and one of four categories discussed below (see Section 2.4).

These two outcomes will be determined by faculty members’ scores on each of the three faculty roles (teaching, scholarship and service), which in turn are based on component scores. Scores must respect both campus standards (described in the next chapter) and individual/department values (using weights for roles and components).

2.1. Faculty Evaluation Policies Faculty evaluation policies can be found in Section 2.5 of the UT Martin Faculty Handbook. 7

Section 2.5.1 focuses on the Board of Trustees’ policy for Annual Performance-and-Planning Review, while Section 2.5.2 addresses additional UT Martin-specific information regarding the annual performance review. Additional college- or department-specific information can be found in college bylaws and departmental bylaws respectively.

The process outlined in this Guidebook is designed to satisfy the Board of Trustees’ expectations for a consistent, in-depth evaluation of faculty performance while simultaneously recognizing differences in the missions of disciplines, departments, and colleges, and differences in faculty strengths.

2.2. The Annual Faculty Evaluation Calendar An annual, academic-year calendar is outlined in Table 2.2.1. Note that, with the exception of the final due date of the faculty evaluation performance review document for each faculty member, the dates described in this table are slightly flexible and should reflect college and departmental bylaws.

When collecting evidence for the annual faculty evaluation, faculty should follow their departmental and college bylaws. UT Martin uses Digital Measures (DM) as database of faculty productivity in both scholarly activity and service activity. For more information on Digital Measures, please see http://www.utm.edu/assessment/dm.php.

7 http://www.utm.edu/departments/acadaff/_pdfs/Faculty%20Handbook.pdf

Version 2019.1

http://www.utm.edu/departments/acadaff/_pdfs/Faculty%20Handbook.pdf

http://www.utm.edu/assessment/dm.php

11

Table 2.2.1. Annual Faculty Evaluation Calendar

Timeframe Activity

July 1 – June 30 of a given academic year

Faculty document performance in each of the FEP components: teaching, research, and service.

July 1 – September 30 of the next academic year

Input from students (ratings instrument), faculty committees (peer reviews), and the department chair is gathered and analyzed for each faculty member. The department chair meets with each individual faculty member to discuss the faculty member’s activity for the preceding year, achievement of goals set during the previous performance review, and goals for the upcoming year. A summary report is generated.

September 30 each year

All faculty evaluation summary reports are due to the respective deans. It is the responsibility of the department chair to ensure that reports are completed and submitted by this due date.

October 15 each year Deans review faculty evaluation reports and forward to Academic Affairs.

2.3. Setting the Weights of Components The campus has set ranges for the weight of each of the three roles and fixed values for the four categories under teaching. The weights of all the other eight categories have not been constrained to allow for the variation in faculty interest, differences in the disciplines’ requirements, and widely varying workloads (see Chapter 1). Each college and department may also have chosen to establish more narrow ranges in their bylaws—but they must fit within the set campus ranges.

Every fall the faculty members will negotiate weights within these ranges with their department chairs and will both (electronically) sign the annual form in Digital Measures. The negotiation should take into account the faculty member’s interests, strengths, and expected activity in each area for the upcoming year. In the unexpected case that the faculty member and chair cannot agree on the weights, the dean will make the final determination.

It is important to note that these weights are measures of value and are not the same as workload. The value of an activity is often independent of the amount of time it took. It is entirely possible that some faculty teaching only one-quarter time may still prefer to have half of their evaluation based on the quality of their teaching. However, it is expected that workload will be considered in the weight negotiation (see Section 4.1).

Version 2019.1

12

If the faculty member’s work assignment changes significantly after weights have been decided, it may be necessary to renegotiate these weights. Also, in the event of contingency during the annual evaluation period (whether the contingency has a positive or a negative impact on the faculty member’s rating) that was not originally reflected in the faculty member’s original weighting of the OCR, the faculty member should be allowed to renegotiate their original weights in consultation with their respective department chair, or director, and/or dean. The VCAA must approve all renegotiated weights and determine if the new weight will be applied to the whole year or if a weighted average should be used (see Chapter 4 for more details). A faculty member cannot renegotiate weights just because they did unexpectedly well (or poorly) in any particular role or component.

2.4. Two Results: Numeric and Categorical Recall that the summative result of the process will be reported using both a single composite number (such as 3.43) called the Overall Composite Rating (OCR) on a four-point scale and one of the categories below (the top two have been renamed, but are synonymous with those from BOT policy). 8

A simple conversion between a numerical scale and a categorical one is fraught with difficulty and often inappropriate. Eventually cFEC hopes to determine a simple rule for this conversion, but only after we have sufficient data (perhaps after the 2019-20 review cycle). Until then we will continue to expect chairs to assign a categorical rating (using their experience and the planned training). This categorical rating will be reported along with the numerical OCR to the VCAA. Again, we wish to emphasize that the conversion is not as simple as naively conflating the four categories with the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Guidance for calculating the OCR will be discussed in the next chapter. Here we discuss the Board of Trustees’ four categories and what they mean in the context of this process.

Exemplary Performance for Rank

Applies to faculty who, during this single rating period, consistently and substantially exceeded the campus standards of professional performance. This rating is reserved for those rare faculty that are true models of peak academic performance and who make significant contributions to their departments, university, academic field, and society.

8 For the application of BOT Policy BT0006, these four categories are considered to be synonymous with “Exceeds Expectations,” “Meets Expectations,” “Needs Improvement” and “Unsatisfactory” for Rank. Note that those titles in BT0006 follow the statement “The following performance rating scale is to be applied in evaluating tenured faculty members when no campus-specific scale is in place.” This policy also states that those falling in the highest of these four categories “will eligible for significant merit pay or performance based salary adjustment” and those in the professional category “will be for minimal.” This difference is taken care of by the merit pay process described in Section 4.2 based on the more appropriate and granular numerical rating.

Version 2019.1

13

This level is renamed from the Board’s “Exceeds Expectations,” a name which does not fully capture their intent. Many faculty exceed expectations, but the board has made clear that they expect this rating to rarely apply; so we feel “exemplary performance for rank” better describes their intent.

Professional Level for Rank

Applies to faculty who, during this rating period, consistently met the campus, college and departments’ standards for professional performance. These faculty are the excellent and valued professionals on whom UT Martin relies for the continued success of our programs, missions, and goals; and should include the clear majority of our faculty.

This category is renamed from the board’s “Meets Expectations.” To many, the board’s category title sounds minimal or average. But at UT Martin our expectation is excellence: excellence in teaching, excellence in scholarship, and excellence in service. The rating “Professional Level for Rank” indicates that the faculty member is meeting the high standards of the campus.

Needs Improvement for Rank

Applies to faculty whose performance, during this rating period, was deficient in one or more criteria, but who with appropriate professional development and assistance could perform on the professional level.

By BOT Policy BT0006, this rating triggers either an Annual Review Improvement Plan or an Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review; and the faculty member is not eligible for merit or performance-based salary adjustment.

Unacceptable for Rank

Applies to faculty who, during the rating period, failed to meet the campus, college and departments’ minimum standards, or who refused to participate in either the evaluation process or improvement plan.

By BOT Policy BT0006, this rating triggers an Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review; and the faculty member is not eligible for any salary adjustment.

Again, do not simply conflate these four categories with the numerical (and ratio) values of 1, 2, 3 and 4.

2.5. Disagreement with Rating Should a faculty member disagree with the rating received on the evaluation, there are several options to pursue. Choosing an option often depends on the severity of the disagreement.

Version 2019.1

14

In some cases, the faculty member may simply be looking for clarification. Keep in mind that a subscore is a percentage of a component, which in turn is a percentage of a role, so changing the subscore may change the OCR very little and may be worth at most noting in a written response to the evaluation. However, if changing the subscore would result in a significant change to the OCR, the faculty member should follow the usual chain of command and discuss their concerns with the chair. If the disagreement is not resolved at the chair level, the faculty member should meet with the dean and, if it is still not resolved, then seek the VCAA’s advice on what to do next. Although the cFEC is not part of any appeals process, the committee is still especially interested in hearing about the disagreements to see if they indicate a problem with the process that should be addressed. Please contact a Faculty Evaluation Committee representative and/or the coordinator if you have problems or suggestions.

In other cases, if the faculty member believes they have been treated unfairly, there are official appeals processes in place and the faculty member should refer to UT Board Policy BT0006, “Policies Governing Academic Freedom Responsibility and Tenure,” and Faculty Handbook section 2.5.2, “Additional UT Martin Information for Annual Performance Review.”

These processes are slow and cumbersome, so faculty members should make all reasonable efforts to resolve issues informally before resorting to these procedures.

Version 2019.1

15

Chapter 3. Campus Standards for the Faculty Roles In this chapter we will discuss the three roles, categories, and types of evidences, and offer guidance on how to assign numerical faculty ratings.

During the beta year, units will be experimenting with ways of valuing evidence and will have no track record with which to standardize scoring. It may be that “professional” faculty members score below 3 (or an “unacceptable” faculty member scores above 3) because of an error or unexpected consequence of the draft system.

For this reason cFEC recommends that chairs of beta units assign the categorical level “as usual.” For the beta units that use both the old and new systems during the beta year, this will likely mean using the old system for the categorical rating and the new for a numerical rating. 9

For those that only use the new system, the rating could be informed by the numerical score but need not be determined by it. After cFEC has collected sufficient data, we will develop a rule for conversion between numerical scores and categories.

In the rest of this chapter we will focus on the solely on numerical scores.

3.1. Introduction UT Martin faculty are expected to be professional educators and to continually pursue excellence in all three faculty roles. However, “exemplary performance” in a particular role often has different meanings for different disciplines, so it is imperative that faculty within a discipline, department, or college describe “excellence” in a way that reflects the values and expectations of their respective areas.

It is also important that the meanings of Composite Role Ratings (CRR) scores are consistent across units even if the scores are measured in different ways. To help define “professional” and “exemplary” levels in a particular discipline, department, or college, the College-wide Faculty Evaluation Committee expects departmental and college faculty to develop rating scales that reflect the ideals expressed by the generic scale in Table 3.1.1.

Departmental and college rating scales will be used to rate faculty in each component of each role in the faculty evaluation system, so it is essential that these scales be developed with the proper input of the faculty who will be held accountable to the expectations reflected in the rating scales. Note that the cFEC fully expects the rating scales to evolve as the faculty evaluation system matures, so faculty should not expect their initial rating scales to be “set in stone” with no hope of improvement. In all cases, ratings scales should be published in departmental and/or college bylaws for reference.

9 Chairs of units using both systems should determine with their faculty members how this will be done (via old system, new system or some combination). The majority of the faculty must approve this choice (Faculty Handbook 1.6.3 item 8.)

Version 2019.1

16

Table 3.1.1. Generic Numeric Scale

Scores Near Are Exemplified by (During that Rating Period)

4.0 Those rare faculty who are true models of stellar academic performance.

3.5 Consistently and substantially exceeds the campus standards of professional performance and makes significant contributions to their departments, university, academic field and society.

3.0 Consistently meets the campus, college and departments’ standards for professional performance. Performs at a level to support the continued success of our programs, missions, and goals.

2.5

Occasionally fails to meet the campus, college, and departments’ standards for professional performance. Shows appropriate commitment to perform at a level to support the continued success of our programs, missions, and goals, but also shows a need for mentoring.

2.0 Deficient in one or more criteria, but with substantial professional development and assistance could perform on the professional level.

1.0 Consistently fails to meet minimal standards and/or complete assigned activities.

Professional behavior, though not directly measured, is expected in all aspects of each role. Table 3.1.2 describes an example of expected professional behavior. Although departments and colleges are not required to develop a professional behavior scale for their areas, the behaviors described here can be used to assist in the development of rating scales for other components of the three roles (teaching, scholarship, and service).

In the sections below, we give several more-focused scales: one for each of teaching, scholarship and service. Remember that the numerical scale is a granular numerical rating that can range from 1.00 to 4.00; so these scales offer guidance on the appropriate scale for the numbers, but do not limit you to just 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 or 4.

For an example of an extremely detailed ratings spreadsheet, please see the example developed by cFEC and used for discussion as we developed this Guidebook. Your ratings scales do not have to be this detailed, but the scales you develop should provide enough detail that any faculty member in your area will have a good idea of what component scores they will receive during their annual evaluation. Items cannot count in multiple components or in different roles without justification from the faculty member.

Version 2019.1

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ACMDHauPkIb-kmvPYC7FnOx-9dx0q2zhoqs8J5zr-i0/edit#gid=2034585113

17

Table 3.1.2. Professional Behavior Scale

Scores Near Could be Exemplified (During that Rating Period) by

4.0 Always submits requested materials early; always complete and accurate; assists others in doing so, too. Routinely leads work-related discussions and activities.

3.5 Submits requested materials in a timely manner and sometimes submits requested materials earlier than anticipated; always complete and accurate. Actively participates in and sometimes leads work-related discussions and activities.

3.0 Submits requested materials in a timely manner. Submissions are typically complete and accurate. Routinely participates appropriately in work-related discussions and activities.

2.5 Occasionally fails to submit requested materials in a timely manner or sometimes submits incomplete or inaccurate materials. Occasionally participates appropriately in work-related discussions and activities.

2.0 Often submits requested materials after due date or often submits incomplete or inaccurate materials. Rarely participates in or often misses work-related discussions and activities.

1.0 Rarely submits requested materials by due date or routinely or deliberately submits incomplete or inaccurate materials. Fails to participate in work-related or required discussions and activities without appropriate justification.

3.2. Teaching (50% to 90% of OCR) Definition:

Teaching, in a global, general sense, may be defined as the process of engaging in specifically designed interactions with students that facilitate, promote, and result in student learning.

Table 3.2.1 gives an example how a rating scale might look for the role of teaching. College and departmental faculty should develop a similar rating scale for each of the components listed under teaching that reflect college- and departmental-level expectations while remaining consistent with the guidance in Tables 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

Version 2019.1

18

Table 3.2.1. Teaching


4.0 Won a university, UT System, or professional society teaching award.

3.5 Was nominated for a university, UT System, or professional society teaching award.

3.0 Demonstrates appropriate commitment to and skills in excellent teaching.

2.5 Demonstrates appropriate commitment to excellent teaching, but still developing skill sets.

2.0 Demonstrates some commitment to teaching, but materials and skills are static and/or out-of-date.

1.0 Demonstrates minimal commitment to teaching and refuses to stay current in field.

3.2.1. Instructional design (fixed at 30%) Definition:

Skills in designing and sequencing experiences that students will have to facilitate or promote learning in a course. This includes selecting and/or identifying content appropriate to the level of the course, appropriate sequencing of the content, and developing handouts and other materials or resources that support and facilitate student learning.

Required documentation may be supplemented by a number of optional items in each area of evaluation. Representative examples are listed below for guidance at the department lelel.

Required documentation:

● Course syllabi that meet university and department standards ● Evidence that minimal requirements as established by department course descriptions and

standards have been taught ● Peer review of instructional material ● Student ratings (SIR II) ● Other (as determined by faculty member and department chair)

Optional documentation:

● Evidence of new course development ● Other (as determined by faculty member and department chair)

The type of documentation for each of these requirements may vary by discipline, department, or college. Each department/college should list acceptable options in their respective bylaws.

Version 2019.1

19

Examples of evidence could include (but are not limited to):

● Course calendars ● Course outlines ● Reading lists ● Exams, major papers, major projects, etc. ● Day-to-day assignments ● Discussion topics ● In-class activities ● Rubrics ● Graded student artifacts

Measurements for the required documentation should be explicitly described in departmental or college bylaws. Suggested measurements include (but are not limited to):

● Peer review of required documentation using appropriate rating scale(s) ● Appropriate section(s) of Student Ratings Instrument results.

3.2.2. Instructional delivery (fixed at 30%) Definition:

Those human interactive/communication skills that promote or facilitate learning in face-to-face instruction, online or video instruction, or clinical/laboratory instruction. This includes those skills in using various appropriate forms of instructional delivery mechanisms.


● Evidence of appropriate class preparation and delivery as determined by exit interviews, peers, and/or self-reporting

● Student Ratings (SIR II) ● Other (as determined by faculty member and department chair)


● Nomination for a teaching award ● Reception of a teaching award ● Research teaching ● Other (as determined by faculty member and department chair)



● Course notes

Version 2019.1

20

● PowerPoint presentations ● Sample videos ● Peer observations ● Teaching award (nomination and/or reception)


● Peer review of instructional material ● Appropriate section(s) of Student Ratings Instrument results

3.2.3. Instructional assessment (fixed at 25%) Definition:

Those skills in developing and using tools and procedures for assessing student learning (including test construction, questionnaire and survey construction, grading practices, and grading procedures).


● Evidence of university-level assignments (as determined by peers) ● Student Ratings ● Other (as determined by faculty member and department chair)



● Sample exams ● Test blueprints/outlines ● Grading strategies, procedures, and strategies ● Rubrics ● Sample graded student work


● Peer review of documentation ● Appropriate section(s) of Student Ratings Instrument results

Version 2019.1

21

3.2.4. Course management (fixed at 15%) Definition:

Course management includes those organizational and bureaucratic skills involved in maintaining and operating a course.


● Evidence of compliance with departmental, college, and university deadlines (including Banner grade submission reports)

● Maintain a full teaching load as assigned, or equivalent. If unable to meet a class period, documentation of substitute faculty or communication with class members regarding alternative assignments/expectations

● Evidence of appropriate management of the course (e.g., ensuring that all materials and resources are available for the course, ensuring that students receive appropriate feedback, making appropriate arrangements for field trips, etc.)

● Other (as determined by faculty member and department chair)


● Travel study materials ● Other (as determined by faculty member and department chair)



● Copies of grade reports (mid-term and final) ● Copies of communications with students (when unable to meet class session) ● Copies of communications with substitute instructors ● Copies of travel study schedules and arrangements ● List of materials and resources provided to students ● Lists of lab equipment/supplies


● Chair review of required documentation using appropriate rating scale(s) ● Appropriate section(s) of Student Ratings Instrument results

Version 2019.1

22

3.3. Scholarship (5% to 40% of OCR) Definition:

Scholarly & Creative Activities may be defined as those activities associated with the faculty member’s recognized area of content expertise including maintaining proficiency; discovering, developing, or creating new knowledge; disseminating information and knowledge; and translating information and knowledge into products or services of value to society.

Table 3.3.1 is an example of how a scale for scholarship might look. College and departmental faculty should develop a similar rating scale for each of the components listed under scholarship that reflect college- and departmental-level expectations. We encourage faculty to consider both discipline-specific and pedagogical scholarship as they develop their rating scales for scholarship.


● Evidence of continued scholarship and academic currency in the discipline

Optional documentation (includes, but not limited to):

Proficiency:

● Attendance at, or participation in, international, national, regional, or state meetings/conferences

Discovery:

● Directing senior project out-of-load ● Grant submissions ● Evidence of personal research ● Student-directed research ● Research teaching

Dissemination:

● Publications: peer-reviewed ● Publications: submitted or in-press ● Reports and/or Reviews: non peer-reviewed ● Presentations at a professional meeting/conference

Translation:

● Publications or presentations translating academic work for a different audience (e.g. language translations, presentations of complicated ideas for a general audience, etc.)

Version 2019.1

23

Suggested Measurements:

● To be determined by disciplinary faculty and published in appropriate ratings scales

Departmental and/or college bylaws may have additional requirements. Consult your departmental and college bylaws for more information concerning scholarship.

Table 3.3.1. Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activity


4.0 National or international recognition of expertise in scholarly, creative, and/or dissemination activities (national, international, or system awards, publications in top journals, etc.).

3.5 Regionally recognized for scholarly, creative, and/or dissemination activities (publications; invited or juried presentations or performances; departmental, college, university, or state awards, etc.).

3.0 Demonstrates appropriate commitment to scholarly, creative, and/or dissemination activities as defined by department or college bylaws; demonstrates dissemination of knowledge (presentations, performances, etc.).

2.5 Demonstrates appropriate commitment to scholarly, creative, and/or dissemination activities as defined by department or college bylaws but does not make progress in those activities.

2.0 Demonstrates some commitment to scholarly, creative, and/or dissemination activities but does not present tangible work products.

1.0 Demonstrates minimal commitment to scholarly, creative, and/or dissemination activities and has made no effort to participate in such activities.

3.3.1. Proficiency (0% to 100% of Scholarship) Definition:

Proficiency speaks to the issue of a faculty member maintaining currency within their chosen discipline (base profession). That is, a faculty member must continue to keep abreast of the latest research findings or developments in his or her field with concomitant enhancements of their professional ‘practice’ or ‘clinical’ skills as appropriate.

Proficiency, as a metric for scholarship, can be demonstrated in a variety of ways. The appropriateness of evidence should be determined by the faculty within a discipline and should reflect the expectations of the discipline, department, and/or college. We provide a few examples

Version 2019.1

24

of proficiency along with some suggestions for appropriate evidence in Table 3.3.1.1; however, we will leave definitive examples and evidence up to the appropriate group(s) to define and publish within their respective departmental and/or college bylaws.

Table 3.3.1.1. Examples of Proficiency in Scholarship

Type of Scholarship Evidence Examples

Documented continuing educational experiences related to the professional or academic area

CV; documents related to continuing educational experiences (e.g., workshop materials, acknowledgements of attendance at workshops or conferences; etc.)

Advanced seminars/workshops in discipline or academic area

CV; copies of conference program; email confirmations of attendance

Obtain certification (in one’s discipline area) CV; certificate

Take additional classes (or pursue an advanced degree) in one’s discipline or academic area

Transcripts

Attend conferences, publish in discipline area, or other evidence of maintaining currency in the academic area

CV; acknowledge of conference registration, etc.

3.3.2. Discovery/creativity (0% to 100% of Scholarship) Definition:

This component of scholarship is based on the general principle of contributing to the advancement of knowledge in one’s area of expertise. This includes, of course, conducting any form of research appropriate to the discipline. Also included, especially in the arts, is engaging in creative endeavors within the discipline that produce new and/or unique modes of expression.

The interpretation of discovery/creativity in scholarship is largely discipline-specific. The appropriateness of evidence should be determined by the faculty within a discipline and should reflect the expectations of the discipline, department, and/or college. We provide a few examples of discovery/creativity along with some suggestions for appropriate evidence in Table 3.3.2.1; however, we will leave definitive examples and evidence up to the appropriate group(s) to define and publish within their respective departmental and/or college bylaws.

Version 2019.1

25

Table 3.3.2.1. Examples of Scholarship Discovery/Creativity


Descriptions of ongoing or completed research Written summary; sample drafts; bibliography of research; literature review; report on data collection

Examples of artistic creations

Copies of creative writing (poetry, fiction, etc); copies of musical compositions; recordings of musical or dramatic performances; photographs of visual artwork (e.g. painting, sculpture, graphic designs)

Performances or participation in exhibitions relevant to discipline or academic area (e.g. acting in a play or musical performance)

CV; program from performance or exhibit

Table 3.3.3.1. Examples of Scholarship Dissemination


Academic publications in relevant discipline or academic area

Authored or co-authored books/textbooks; book chapters; articles in peer-reviewed journals; book reviews; published case studies or analyses

Presentations at academic conferences or meetings Copies of conference program or proceedings

Keynote/invited addresses Copies of conference program or proceedings

Popular press publications, or communication through television, radio, and the internet (i.e., YouTube, podcasts, etc.)

Articles in newspapers; relevant contribution to blogs, podcasts, or other internet platform; television or radio interviews related to discipline or academic area

Production of Instructional Software (INFS or Computer Engineering)

Description of software along with directions concerning how to acquire software

Grants and awards for research Copies of certificates; emails or letters acknowledging grant or award

Consulting where the academician shares his/her work with the organization Correspondence acknowledging consulting work

Version 2019.1

26

3.3.3. Dissemination (0% to 100% of Scholarship) Definition:

This component of scholarship is based on the general principle of transmitting to others information concerning one’s discipline. This can take the form of publishing articles in refereed journals, but can also take the form of books, monographs, pamphlets, paper presentations, keynote/invited addresses, popular press publications, or communication through television, radio, and the internet (i.e., YouTube, podcasts, etc.).

In general, dissemination refers to sharing your work with others. Traditional notions of publications, conference presentations, performances, and exhibits usually are considered the dissemination of scholarship. We provide a few examples of dissemination along with some suggestions for appropriate evidence in Table 3.3.3.1; however, we will leave definitive examples and evidence up to the appropriate group(s) to define and publish within their respective departmental and/or college bylaws.

3.3.4. Translation (0% to 100% of Scholarship) Definition:

This component of scholarship is based on the general principle of utilizing research results within a discipline, not necessarily from your own research, and applying those results to the development of new products, services, performances, or artistic expressions of value or benefit to the professional or larger general social audience.

Translation of scholarship may not apply to all disciplines or to all faculty within a discipline. Faculty in each discipline should articulate the interpretation of “translation” within their own discipline as part of their departmental bylaws. We provide a few examples of translation along with some suggestions for appropriate evidence in Table 3.3.4.1; however, we will leave definitive examples and evidence up to the appropriate group(s) to define and publish within their respective departmental and/or college bylaws.

Table 3.3.4.1: Examples of Scholarship Translation


Translating pedagogical research into the classroom

Assignments or classroom activities that demonstrate a direct correlation between one’s scholarship and the classroom

Translating pedagogical/assessment research into new assessment metrics

Comparison of existing research to new metrics; results of new metrics compared to results from old metrics

Translating Basic/Applied research into new products/services

“Best Practices Book” based on research in that particular area; published translations of a text (creative or academic) from one language into another

Version 2019.1

27

3.4. Service (5% to 40% of OCR) Definition:

Service describes those activities of a faculty member in which they assume responsibilities relating to the academic and support services of the university or the community. Service requires participation in departmental work and shared governance at the departmental, college, and university levels.

Table 3.4.1. Service


4.0 Leadership roles in service demonstrating system-wide, state, or national recognition of professional knowledge and skills.

3.5 Leadership roles in service (chairing university-wide committees, service on executive committees of professional society committees, etc.).

3.0 Demonstrates appropriate commitment to service as defined by department/college bylaws.

2.5 Demonstrates appropriate commitment to service as defined by department/college bylaws but participates in minimal service activities.

2.0 Demonstrates some commitment to service but participation is passive or non-existent.

1.0 Demonstrates minimal commitment to service and has made no effort to participate in such activities.

Table 3.4.1 gives an example of how a scale for service might look. College and departmental faculty should develop a similar rating scale for each of the components listed under service that reflect college- and departmental-level expectations.

Required documentation: ● Evidence of participating in required service activities (e.g., attending department

meetings, participating in one graduation ceremony annually, etc.)

Optional documentation (includes, but not limited to):

Service to the Institution:

● Chairing a department, college, or university committee ● Serving on Faculty Senate ● Mentoring new faculty

Version 2019.1

28

● Award based on institutional service

Service to the Profession:

● Organizing a panel for a conference/other professional events ● Serving on a local, state, regional or national professional committee ● Serving as a reviewer for professional conference proposed abstracts ● Serving as a reviewer for a professional journal/academic press

Service to the Community:

● Member/officer of a community organization ● Award related to community service ● Presentation to local organization in area of base profession

Service to the Student:

● Organize Travel Study/Study Abroad trips ● Advise or Supervise an RSO ● Write letters of recommendation ● Mentoring University Scholars

Suggested Measurements:

● To be determined by disciplinary faculty and published in appropriate ratings scales

Departmental and/or college bylaws may have additional requirements. Consult your departmental and college bylaws for more information concerning service.

Table 3.4.1.1. Examples of Service to the Institution

Type of Service Evidence Examples

Committee Service: Institutional, college, department and/or discipline, including Faculty Senate

Correspondence indicating participation or meeting minutes, portfolio, service awards

Recruiting/Retention Activities Correspondence indicating participation or program showing attendance at event(s), service awards

Alumni relations, and/or development activities (e.g., fundraising, meeting donors, advisory boards, etc.) Correspondence

Graduation Participation Departmental list

Mentoring New Faculty Departmental office or correspondence

Version 2019.1

29

Assessment Duties (*non-course release related; could include: collecting, analyzing, and submitting data or reports related to SLOs and assessment)

Copy of data or report submitted or correspondence indicating completion

Campus-wide events (e.g., coordinating guest lectures, conferences, performances, exhibits, etc.)

Advertising posters, programs, or correspondence concerning events

Special projects in support of the University mission Correspondence or documentation

3.4.1. To the institution (0% to 100% of Service) Definition:

Carrying out non-teaching activities, not necessarily related to your area of university expertise that serve to assist the institution in carrying out its mission, goals, and objectives.

Service to the institution can be demonstrated in a variety of ways, including service on committees (at any level within the institution or system). The expected level of service and the appropriateness of evidence should be determined by the faculty within a discipline and should reflect the expectations of the department and/or college. We provide a few examples of service to the institution along with some suggestions for appropriate evidence in Table 3.4.1.1; however, we will leave definitive examples and evidence up to the appropriate group(s) to define and publish within their respective departmental and/or college bylaws.

3.4.2. To the profession (0% to 100% of Service) Definition:

Voluntarily engaging in activities or responsibilities, not necessarily related to one’s university area of expertise, which contribute to the functional operation of a professional organization or entity within one’s academic discipline.

Service to the profession can be demonstrated in a variety of ways, including service on committees or as an officer within professional organizations, participation in professional organization activities, reviewing manuscripts, etc. The expected level of service and the appropriateness of evidence should be determined by the faculty within a discipline and should reflect the expectations of the department and/or college. We provide a few examples of service to the profession along with some suggestions for appropriate evidence in Table 3.4.2.1; however, we will leave definitive examples and evidence up to the appropriate group(s) to define and publish within their respective departmental and/or college bylaws.

Table 3.4.2.1. Examples of Service to the Profession


Officer of a professional organization Correspondence, publications, printed programs and proceedings, minutes

Version 2019.1

30

Editor of a journal, newsletter, & other official publication

Correspondence, publications, printed programs and proceedings, minutes

Editor or manuscript reviewer


Grant proposal reviewer Correspondence, publications, printed programs and proceedings, minutes

Conference organizer (general meeting, sessions, workshops, fieldtrips, meeting logistics, etc.)


Discussant and/or Chair Correspondence, publications, printed programs and proceedings, minutes

Jurist Correspondence, publications, printed programs and proceedings, minutes

3.4.3. To the community (0% to 100% of Service)

Definition:

The application of one’s recognized university area of expertise in the community.

Example: A mathematics instructor may offer a summer mathematics ‘boot camp’ for underserved students; an instructor of civil engineering may volunteer professional services in the city’s development of a new park, etc.

Service to the community can be demonstrated in a variety of ways, such as offering a summer “boot camp” for underserved students who are transitioning to college; volunteering professional services to a community entity; or working with a state entity in a capacity related to your professional expertise. The expected level of service and the appropriateness of evidence should be determined by the faculty within a discipline and should reflect the expectations of the department and/or college. We provide a few examples of service to the community along with some suggestions for appropriate evidence in Table 3.4.3.1; however, we will leave definitive examples and evidence up to the appropriate group(s) to define and publish within their respective departmental and/or college bylaws.

Table 3.4.3.1. Examples of Service to the Community


Consulting services Examples

Correspondence, collected programs, samples or

Version 2019.1

31

● Community education ● Creation of promotional materials ● Pro-bono consulting/development ● Referring organizations to students for non-course related

service projects ● Working with K-12 students in a professional capacity (within

discipline)

documents, official documents from service events

Use of professional expertise with community organizations Examples

● Jurying/judging/adjudicating a competition in the community (within discipline)

● Speaker at area or community event (within discipline)

Correspondence, collected programs, samples or documents, official documents from service events

3.4.4. To the students (0% to 100% of Service) Definition:

Carrying out non-teaching activities, not necessarily related to your university area of expertise that serve to assist our mission of student-focused excellence (and quality undergraduate education).

Service to students encompasses many roles, such as academic advising, advising a student organization, or providing letters of recommendation. The expected level of service and the appropriateness of evidence should be determined by the faculty within a discipline and should reflect the expectations of the department and/or college. We provide a few examples of service to students along with some suggestions for appropriate evidence in Table 3.4.4.1; however, we will leave definitive examples and evidence up to the appropriate group(s) to define and publish within their respective departmental and/or college bylaws.

Table 3.4.4.1. Examples of Service to the Students


Conducting Academic Advising

Documentation that advising hours were provided such as proof of sign-up sheet, correspondence, or online announcements List of advisees per semester Evaluation scores from student academic advising evaluations in fall and spring

Faculty Advisor for a Registered Student Organization (RSO)

Correspondence, documentation (i.e., OrgSync)

Version 2019.1

32

Letters of Recommendation Correspondence, copies of letters

Other Advising & Mentoring Examples

● Career ● Grad School ● University Scholars ● Non-course related tutoring or study sessions

(LSAT, GRE, PRAXIS, etc.) ● Non-course related competitions

Correspondence, minutes, list/log of advisees, copies of grad school acceptance and/or job offers

Version 2019.1

33

Chapter 4. Miscellaneous Details

4.1. Handling Release Time

4.1.1. Usually No Adjustments No adjustment to the Faculty Evaluation Process is necessary for many of the faculty with release time. For example, if the faculty member has 25% release time to support assessment, then the faculty member should increase the weight of the service role and include this activity under “service to the department.” A faculty member with 25% release time as Faculty Senate President would include that activity under “service to the institution.” A faculty member with a one-semester Reagan Leave would likely increase research to its maximum and include the leave activities under “scholarship.” Teaching just one semester does not require that the faculty member with a leave reduce the weight of teaching.

As mentioned in Section 2.3, these weights are measures of value and are not the same as workload. The value of an activity is rarely directly related to the amount of time it took. It is entirely possible that some faculty teaching only one-quarter time may still prefer to have half (or more) of their evaluation based on the quality of their teaching. However, it is expected that workload will be considered in the weight negotiation (Section 2.3).

4.1.2. Mandatory Adjustments On the other hand, the process must make adjustment for faculty members who will be evaluated by some method outside of the Faculty Evaluation Process. A common example of this is department chairs.

Most chairs are faculty with 50% release time for their administrative duties. Such a chair would be evaluated both by the Faculty Evaluation Process (for their faculty role) and by the dean (for the chair role); then these scores will be converted to a weighted average. For example, if Julie Chair is evaluated as 3.48 (out of 4.00) as faculty using the Faculty Evaluation Process and as 17.5 (out of 25) as chair by the dean, then the calculation would be as follows. The number 17.5 would be multiplied by 0.16 (by 4/25) to convert the chair score to a four-point scale, giving 2.8 (out of 4). Finally combine the two scores using the percentage of time spent on those two roles (in this case 50% and 50%):

0.50 × 3.48 + 0.50 × 2.8 = 3.14.

As another example, consider faculty member Stephanie K. Suppose in fall she teaches 50% and has 50% release time for assessment duties. In spring she was released another 25% for duties related to SACS so teaches only 25% time. For the year she has taught (50% + 25%)/2 = 37.5% time and has worked for Academic Affairs 62.5% of the time. If she earned a score of 3.55 as a

Version 2019.1

34

faculty member and 22 out of 25 for her Academic Affairs time, then her combined score would be

0.375 × 3.55 + 0.625 × (22 × 0.16) = 3.53

(where the result is rounded to the nearest one-hundredth).

It is important to note that in both of these examples the weights in the usual faculty evaluation process do not need to be altered. In Stephanie K’s example, if she left teaching at 50%, then teaching would be 0.375 × 0.50, or 18.75% of her total evaluation.

4.1.3. Unusual Cases Not all cases will fit well with the required role weights. For example, a faculty member with 50% or more release time may wish to negotiate weights outside of these ranges. These variations should be determined and agreed upon by the faculty member and chair, and approved by the dean and VCAA. The agreed-upon solution (or failure to reach a solution) should be shared with cFEC so they can determine if the process and/or this Guidebook should be adapted.

4.2. Calculating Merit Pay (cFEC will revisit this section Fall 2018, what is drafted below is just one possibility out of many.)

Dr. Arreola suggested that once all inequities in pay have been addressed and a policy of annual cost of living raises have been established, there are excellent arguments that merit pay should be awarded as bonuses rather than changes in the base pay. It appears that neither of these preconditions are likely to be met by UT Martin in the foreseeable future, so we must continue our tradition of making merit raises part of base pay.

If we ever reach the conditions necessary to offer merit pay as bonuses, Academic Affairs must be assured by the campus that the funds for the merit pool itself will continue from year to year and the pool will grow annually at least at the rate of cost of living.

To calculate merit pay, the VCAA must first decide what size academic units are used when calculating the pool—these units could be the individual departments, the colleges, or the whole campus. The campus funds could be shared across these units in way that is proportional to their faculty FTE or the sum of their salaries. One advantage to using smaller units is that it will help prevent departments or colleges from gaming the process by creating scales that give their unit higher scores—they will just be competing against themselves and gain little by adding 0.5 to everyone’s OCR.

Once the pools/units have been established, we calculate a number called the merit unit amount (MUA) for each faculty member. Since this faculty evaluation process was designed to fairly evaluate faculty performance as a single overall composite rating (OCR), merit raises should be solely dependent on the faculty member’s OCR.

Version 2019.1

35

The MUA, a number between one and four, will then be used to calculate the merit pay for each faculty member as follows:

MUA = (total funds in the merit pool)/(total of all OCRs of eligible faculty).

This process could be easily handled via spreadsheet analysis.

For example, suppose an academic unit has the faculty in Table 4.1 eligible for merit pay (by BOT policy we must exclude those that are not rated at least professional from the merit pool). In the second column of this table we have listed their OCR’s which total to 21.02. If there is $3,000 in the merit pool, then the MUA is $3000/21.02 or $142.72. The raises would then be product of the OCR by the MUA as shown in the last column of Table 4.1.

Table 4.1. Merit Pay Example

Name OCR Raise = OCR x MUA Professor Arnie Aardvark 3.34 $476.68 Professor Betty Boop 3.77 $538.05 Professor Curious George 3.25 $463.84 Professor Frodo the Hobbit 3.67 $523.78 Professor Tigger Too 3.01 $429.59 Professor Gandalf the White 3.98 $568.03 Total 21.02 $2999.97

In his research, Dr. Arreola mentions several ways to convert OCR’s to raises (and there are many more). For comparison with the above, Dr. Arreola’s Large Distribution Model uses the OCR Excess (OCR 3). This produces a MUA of $993.38 and gives the results in Table 4.2.−

Table 4.2 Merit Pay Example (Arreola’s Large Distribution Model)

Name OCR Excess Raise = Excess x MUA Professor Arnie Aardvark 0.34 $337.75 Professor Betty Boop 0.77 $764.90 Professor Curious George 0.25 $248.35 Professor Frodo the Hobbit 0.67 $665.56 Professor Tigger Too 0.01 $9.93 Professor Gandalf the White 0.98 $973.51 Total 4.02 $3000.00

4.3. Evaluating Non-tenure Track Faculty The cFEC committee did not have enough time to develop suggestions or guidelines for the evaluation of non-tenure-track faculty. During the 2018-19 academic year we will monitor how

Version 2019.1

36

the beta departments handle this issue and then will likely seek guidance from the departments on what, if anything, needs to be decided at the campus level.

Appendix A. Additional UT Martin Evaluation Policies

A.1. Introduction There are a number of miscellaneous evaluation activities required by the Faculty Handbook. Text in the Faculty Handbook is hard to alter as it is always reviewed by the UT President’s staff and often requires a Board of Trustees vote, so it is wise to not include mundane details in the Handbook (especially small things that faculty might wish to change as we implement the process).

The Faculty Senate bylaws [will] require the Personnel Policies Committee to periodically review Academic Affairs Policies regarding faculty evaluation, tenure, and promotion—that will include this Guidebook.

A.2. External Reviews for Tenure The Faculty Handbook [may soon] states:

External Reviews of Tenure Applicants

All applications for tenure must include at least two external evaluation letters addressing the candidates scholarship. These letters should be requested the year before tenure review and must be completed before the review begins.

The candidate and department chair (or department tenure committee) shall each provide a list of potential reviewers, along with a short description of why they are qualified. At least one name from each list will be agreed upon by the candidate and chair (or committee). If they cannot agree, the dean will make the choices.

The department chair will be responsible for requesting the letters from the reviewers. For additional information see the UT Martin Faculty Evaluation Guidebook.

Additional details [drafted by Sean Walker’s subcommittee of PPC, not yet approved by anyone!]

1. External Letters of Scholarship a. At least two external letters of scholarship must be obtained for all candidates being

reviewed for tenure. b. The department chair will be responsible for the process of obtaining external letters (see

guidelines for obtaining letters by chair in Item 4 below). c. External letters should be requested one year before the tenure review and must be

obtained before the department committee conducts its review.

Version 2019.1

37

2. Choice of External Reviewers a. The candidate shall provide a list of names in which one will be chosen by the

department chair. b. The department chair will provide a second external reviewer from a pool of qualified

reviewers not listed in the candidate’s list. c. The candidate and the department chair shall agree on the reviewers.

i. All reasonable attempts will be made to avoid any potential bias or conflict of interest (i.e. dissertation chair, former mentor, collaborators, close associates should not be permitted).

ii. The candidate shall not solicit the external letters.

3. Role of the Faculty Member a. Each faculty member will supply supporting material on scholarship that will be sent to

an external evaluator. b. Each faculty member will suggest names for external evaluators, but will not directly

solicit external letters of scholarship.

4. Role of the Department Chair a. The Department Chair will be responsible for:

i. Gathering a list of names from the candidate. ii. Compiling a list of names for review that may be different from that provided by the

candidate. iii. Send letters to the potential external reviewers asking for their participation in the

review. iv. Conducting follow-up correspondence. v. Receipt of letters and placement in the candidate’s personnel file and immediately

providing the candidate a copy. vi. Keep a log of requests for letters and correspondence with external reviewers.

vii. Provide a brief explanation of the external reviewer’s qualifications to serve. viii. Provide a detailed explanation of the criteria for the department as it pertains to

receipt of tenure.

5. Letters a. All letters should be on letterhead. b. Letters should be requested with enough time to allow the candidate to provide a

rebuttal.

6. Other

Version 2019.1

38

a. Letters can be removed from a candidate’s personnel file only with the approval of the Office of Academic Affairs.

Appendix B. UT Board Policy BT0006 Section I UT Board Policy BT0006 “Policies Governing Academic Freedom Responsibility and Tenure” contains the key policies on evaluating, tenuring and promoting faculty. During the first two years that this Guidebook is used for Faculty Evaluation, it is recommended to reference a copy of Part I “Evaluation of Tenured Faculty Members.” Later, this appendix could be removed because it might be confusing to have multiple copies of external policies as it would be difficult to keep them all updated. The rest of this section is Part I of BT0006. It is recommended to consider referencing the original document in order to fully understand the context. Below are two of the footnotes from this document which define some of the terms . 10 11

I. Evaluation of Tenured Faculty Members The University is committed to the evaluation of all faculty members as a means of strengthening the principle of tenure. To that end, the University conducts the types of performance reviews described in this Section I. Performance reviews focus on the faculty member’s contributions to the University’s missions through teaching, research (including scholarly and artistic work), service, and clinical care.

Competent teaching is a crucial responsibility for faculty members, and the effective use of appropriate instructional evaluation (including departmental files of class syllabi and related materials, student, and peer evaluation, etc.) is important to all objective review processes. Faculty members with research/creative arts responsibilities should have the quantity and quality of their work fairly assessed. Each faculty member’s service contributions should be evaluated impartially.

10 Many terms throughout this document are used generically. “University” refers to The University of Tennessee as a state-wide system composed of several campuses and institutes. “Campus” refers to UT Knoxville, the Health Science Center, the UT Institute of Agriculture, UT at Chattanooga, and UT at Martin. “Chancellor” refers to the chief executive officer of the unit. “Department” refers to the smallest academic unit (in some cases a college, school, or division); similarly, “department head” refers to chair, director, or dean as appropriate. “Faculty Senate” refers to the campus governance body of elected faculty members and “Faculty Senate Executive Committee” refers to that committee or its comparable group of elected Senate officers. “Chief academic officer” refers to the campus provost, academic vice chancellor, or other official designated by the Chancellor for oversight of campus academic affairs. 11 The word “teaching” includes the set of instructional activities that normally occurs in classrooms, laboratories, clinical sites, and in directed study, etc.; “research” includes both scholarly investigation and the creation of works of art related to a faculty member’s academic appointment; “service” includes public service, institutional service, and other assigned professional/clinical service responsibilities.

Version 2019.1

39

1. Annual Performance-and-Planning Review Each faculty member and his or her department head will engage in a formal annual Performance-and-Planning Review, examining the current fiscal/academic year’s activities and planning what should occur during the coming fiscal/academic year. The planning aspects of these annual academic year reviews should also take place in the context of longer-term goals for the campus, college, and department. Each campus shall strive to reward faculty members who more than meet expectations for rank, and administrators shall develop and publish guidelines for each campus to allocate funds for this purpose whenever feasible. Each faculty member’s annual review should proceed from guidelines and criteria which are appropriate to the department, college, and campus, and this annual review should be a key element in merit pay or performance-based salary adjustments. A document summarizing the review, including an objective rating of the faculty member’s performance, as listed below, must be signed by the faculty member (to acknowledge receipt of the review document) and the department head. The department head must send a copy to the dean of the college. The dean must send copies of the documents or a list of names by category to the chief academic officer for review and approval/disapproval.

The performance rating scale for annual reviews shall be approved by the Board of Trustees, and may include (in whole or in part) the ratings defined below. Unless or until the Board of Trustees approves a campus-specific rating scale, campuses shall employ the rating scale defined below. To ensure seamless application of other faculty policies and procedures related to performance ratings (whether part of this document or some other policy or procedure), any campus-specific rating scale must explain how it articulates with the rating scale defined below.

Campus faculty handbooks, college bylaws, and/or department bylaws must specify the substantive performance criteria to be used when conducting performance reviews within the particular unit.

The following performance rating scale is to be applied in evaluating tenured faculty members when no campus-specific scale is in place:

a. Exceeds Expectations for Rank – eligible for significant merit pay or performance-based salary adjustment that is consistent with campus, college, and department fiscal situations;

b. Meets Expectations for Rank – eligible for minimum merit pay or performance-based salary adjustment that is consistent with campus, college, and department fiscal situations;

c. Needs Improvement for Rank – not eligible for merit pay or performance-based salary adjustment and may require an Annual Review Improvement Plan (see below); and

Version 2019.1

40

d. Unsatisfactory for Rank – not eligible for any salary adjustment and requires an Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review.

Annual Review Improvement Plan: Within 30 calendar days of the annual review, any faculty member with an overall performance rating of Needs Improvement for Rank must collaborate with the head on an Annual Review Improvement Plan to be reviewed by the head and recommended by him/her to the dean for review and approval/denial. The next year’s annual review must include a progress report that clearly describes improvements in any area(s) for which improvement was required. This Annual Review Improvement Plan process is inapplicable if the faculty member’s performance rating has triggered Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review.

Appeal Process: Each campus shall have a campus-wide process by which a faculty member may appeal his or her annual review rating. Developing the process should involve the Faculty Senate or an appropriate committee thereof. The final decision on an appeal shall not be appealable to the President.

Version 2019.1

ut martin faculty evaluation guidebook

Documents