Faculty members shall be evaluated annually on the basis of teaching, university and community service, and research activities. The Faculty Member Evaluation section details the criteria and procedure for performance evaluation as following:
The departmental heads will notify the appointee of the forthcoming evaluation and confer with the Faculty member concerning details of the procedures to be followed.
After notification, the appointee will submit to the department head in writing a self-evaluation of progress to date and any supporting materials deemed useful to the department.
After examining the Faculty member’s self-evaluation, the head of department will submit to the Dean a written evaluation comprising reasons for and a recommendation of reappointment or non-reappointment.
Following receipt of the evaluations and tabulation of the recommendations, the Dean will discuss the general results of the evaluation with the head of the department and then separately with the Faculty member. The Dean will give the Faculty member a copy of the written statement of the departmental recommendation including a summary of the reasons for this recommendation; a copy of this statement will become part of the Faculty member’s evaluation file.
At this time the Faculty member may respond to the recommendation, for example pointing out any matter he/she considers factually inaccurate or inappropriate in a letter which becomes part of the Faculty member’s evaluation file. The head of the department may make written reply to the Faculty member’s response to the departmental recommendation, and such reply also becomes part of the Faculty member’s evaluation file.
When an initial appointment to AFU involves full time position or promotion to a rank higher than that held by the candidate at another institution (except when the promotion is to Assistant Professor), the procedures for recommendation and approval are the same as those for the promotion appointees described above except that a self-evaluation by the candidate is not required. The evaluation file prepared by the recommending department includes evaluations and recommendations from each faculty member of the department and a summary recommendation from the head of the department.
Faculty members shall be evaluated annually on the basis of teaching, university and community service, and research activities.
The form specifies the components of each performance area and the titles by which they are evaluated. Faculty members submit their annual plan to the Department Head or Dean within two weeks from receiving the annual plan form.
A month before the end of the academic year, faculty members are required to submit a record of their actual performance to the Department Head who conducts evaluation of the faculty member’s performance and submits it to the Dean for final assessment.
Faculty members keep documented evidence of their academic performance in the Instructor’s Portfolio which should be continuously updated throughout each semester.
During the academic year, faculty members are expected to be involved in the following activities:
These activities reflect the faculty’s contribution to the department, college and university. The significance of faculty participation in each of the above mentioned activities may vary from one activity to another. The total contribution in all activities, however, will be used to assess faculty overall performance.
Classroom performance as measured by student evaluation of instructors through student feedback questionnaire.
Number of course preparations: The department benefits from a variety of courses being offered, so teaching a greater array of courses is sometimes useful. Repeated responsibility for teaching key service courses may limit one’s ability to teach a broad array, so that Faculty with such assignments should not be penalized for teaching fewer preps.
Preparation of new or revised courses: Updating one’s courses as required by changing events and is expected as a matter of course. Major reorganizations of a course or wholly new preparations are usually evaluated positively. Multiple simultaneous preparations must also be taken into account.
Quality of instructional materials: Syllabi and other course materials should be turned in and should be reviewed for signs of the quality of instruction, organization, nature of assignments, expected level of work etc.
Teaching innovations and instructional activity outside the classroom. Innovation in teaching techniques and applications, extensive teaching involvement with students via supervision of moot courts, internet/electronic discussion group exchanges, and supervision are valued instructional activities.
Minimal expectations for teaching performance:
The Departments have innumerable places where much service work has to be done, very little of it is rewarding or entertaining, and yet beneficial if probably planned. Both the quality and quantity of service should be considered for the purposes of evaluation. Among the qualitative criteria for service is whether the Department’s mission and reputation are well served by the work done. Another is whether it is truly expeditious – that is, carried out in such a way that it does not require others to clean up afterward.
There are two sources of interpretation of collegiality; both are implicit in what is written above under other rubrics. These should be considered in evaluations:
The department charter mentions collegiality in these terms:
A decision to recommend reappointment shall be based on the following criteria:
The accomplishments and potential of the individual shall be the major basis for the decision. However, the present and future needs of the University shall also be carefully weighed. A decision to reappoint indicates Faculty member is satisfactory progress. Notification of the terms and condition of reappointment will be given to all Faculty members three months before end of the contract.