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.
- At the beginning of the fall semester, each faculty member will receive a form that constitutes his/her annual plan of performance in the three areas of academic activity:
- Community service.
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:
- University and community service.
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:
- Meeting classes: A primary responsibility of a Faculty member is to teach and is therefore expected to meet the classes faithfully and in person. Instructional material and assignments for students should be provided in a timely and orderly manner. Problems include failure to meet classes, failure to have them appropriately covered when one must be absent, excessive absences or substitutions except in the case of illness, etc.
- Presentation of material: Catalog descriptions of courses leave instructors much flexibility, but instructors should normally endeavor to cover the material promised in the Catalog and syllabi in a reasonably systematic way.
- Office hours and availability to students: Reasonable (10 hours per week) office hours and electronic availability for students are expected. Failure to consistently meet office hours or be available for student consultation is inappropriate and unprofessional.
- Appropriate classroom conduct/relationships with students: Faculty should conduct themselves in the classroom with decorum appropriate for a professional person. Faculty should conduct themselves with appropriate professionalism in relationship with all students and staff.
- Publication of original research: Research and teaching Faculty member is expected to produce and publish original research. The University assessment system has tended to value most the publication of articles in the top general journals of the discipline, which are the most visible, and in top specialty journals of the discipline’s subfields. Other valuable types of publication include scholarly monographs in the form of books (University presses or other scholarly outlets) and the writing of textbooks. Invited chapters in monographs and in special editions of scholarly journals also have value, as have shorter, specialized pieces such as encyclopedia entries. There is an expectation that scholarly publications will be reviewed: anonymous peer review for articles and external peer review for books. For probationary Faculty, published research should be building appropriately toward his/her record. Faculty members are expected to demonstrate a consistent record of published research and the development of a national or international reputation.
- Application for/securing research support: Faculty should seek support for research, especially outside the department and University, from foundation and government resources, etc. Securing grants is, of course, better than not, but unsuccessful efforts have some positive value for evaluation purposes. Teaching track Faculty should be encouraged to apply for instructional grants.
- Conference presentation: Writing scholarly papers and presenting them at scholarly meetings is a useful and valuable activity, especially as it bespeaks a research agenda and may lead to publications.
- Editorships/Offices in associations: Evidence of scholarly accomplishment and recognition may include editorships of journals, holding offices in professional associations, membership on editorial boards, and editorship of special issues of scholarly journals.
Minimal expectations for professional development
- Research. Faculty members are expected to conduct research for the purpose of producing new knowledge, and to publish the results of their research in appropriate scholarly venues.
- Professional conduct. Faculty members are expected to conduct themselves according to the highest standards of scholastic and personal integrity in their research and in their reporting to the department and University about their activities and accomplishments.
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.
- Departmental service. Administrative assignments usually bring a load reduction and sometimes other compensation, but also usually involve extensive work beyond such rewards; this should be considered. Advising department student groups and guest lecturing to departmental student groups or colleagues classes constitutes departmental service.
- Public service. Speaking to off campus groups, service on public service committees and boards, media commentary, and certain types of consulting may fall under the service.
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:
- “Willingness to bear one’s share of departmental obligations is an essential part of properly collegial behavior.” This does not refer to being pleasant, polite or respectful to one’s colleagues; though such behaviors are helpful in maintaining a good interpersonal atmosphere in the department. Rather, collegiality refers, in part, to carrying an appropriate share of the collective workload and administrative-maintenance freight of running the department and its programs, whether these are pleasant and intellectually stimulating or not. This refers to all the department’s endeavors, especially teaching and instruction, departmental service, and such things attendance at required department and University functions such as commencement.
- AFU promotion standards conceives of collegiality as practicing professional integrity, adhering to high standards of professional ethics, and understanding the nature of membership in a community of scholars and having the ability to work as a member of a group while retaining all rights of individual expression, and feeling a sense of responsibility for the well-being of AFU.
A decision to recommend reappointment shall be based on the following criteria:
- Quality of teaching.
- Quality of scholarship, research, or professional achievements.
- Service to the department, AFU, the profession, and the community.
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.