DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY
2007-2011 DEPARTMENT CRITERIA
April 29, 2008
Mission Statement: Our mission is to educate students to the sociological and anthropological
perspectives through teaching, research and service. This includes teaching students to appreciate,
analyze and understand the diversity and complexity of social relationships.
I. Categories of Materials and Activities Considered Appropriate by Performance
Area and Relative Importance of Materials/Activities
A. Teaching/Performance of Primary Duties
1. Categories of Materials and Activities: the departmental evaluation instrument consists of
a 20 item questionnaire and open-ended student comments form (see Appendix A).
a.
Student Evaluations
b.
Faculty portfolio which may include but is not restricted to the following:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
xvii.
course syllabi - setting out a detailed road-map for the course including its
objectives, requirements, office hours, place, time of class, and exams, etc.
course handouts
new course proposals and self-study documents
copies of examinations
letters acknowledging guest lectures
awards for teaching
statements from colleagues/students
supervision of independent study and readings
thesis advising
readers of M.A. papers for non-thesis option
peer review reports on classroom visitation by faculty
student comment forms
documented participation in professional growth activities contributing to
enhanced teaching
student advisement and direction of individual student activities
teaching general education, W and WID courses
instructional grants/proposals
published instructional supplements/manual
c.
Peer Review Instrument (see Appendix B)
d.
Student Advising (if assigned)
1
e.
Other appropriate materials and activities, including oral and written proficiency
in English
f.
All assigned duties (credited with ACEs) during the period of evaluation are to be
evaluated as teaching/performance of primary duties. This includes the chair of
the graduate committee, director of the Western Survey Research Center, and
director of archaeology lab or field school.
2. Relative Importance
Student evaluations, considered in the light of representative course materials for the
course being evaluated, will be a very important basis for personnel recommendations.
B. Scholarly/Professional Activity
1.
Categories of Materials and Activities
a.
Publications of Scholarly Research: refereed journal articles, book chapters in
edited scholarly books, and scholarly books
b.
Publications of monographs, refereed teaching notes, and refereed research
notes
c.
Research Grants/Contracts: receiving, administering and fulfillment of
research grant project obligations including written reports
d.
Editorship of a professional journal
e.
Officer or leadership activity in a state, regional, national or professional
organization
f.
Other Research and Creative Activities (not prioritized)
i. papers presented to professional associations and other
ii. professional meetings
iii. manuscript review
iv. work in progress
v. research grant proposals
vi. consulting work, paid or unpaid, that is reflective of the faculty member’s
discipline
vii. professional testimony to groups, agencies, courts, etc.
viii. book reviews
ix. film reviews
x. encyclopedia entries
g.
Any scholarly activity can be counted only once
2
2.
C.
Relative Importance
In general, categories a, b, c, and d are judged more important than categories e and f.
Service
1.
Categories of Materials and Activities
a.
2.
Service to department
i) chairs and members of department committees
ii) as advisor to a Student Organization
iii) an elected or appointed position (i.e. Welfare Officer, Library and AudioVisual Representative, etc.)
iv) development of handouts/brochures, web pages and other computer generated
programs used in attraction of students
v) participation in recruitment, assessment, faculty or student mentoring, or
fundraising efforts
b.
Service on college and university committees, or recognized student groups, as
well as any other college or university service
c.
Professionally related community service
d.
Other appropriate materials and activities
Relative Importance
All the categories of service activities are of equal importance. It is expected that
individuals will document widely differing activities and emphases in their service
contributions; the importance of such activities will be considered on the basis of each
individual’s documentation. Service outside the department is required for tenure and
promotion.
II. Methods of Evaluation to be Used, by Performance Area
Evaluation Committee
The department evaluation committee will be the Department Personnel Committee (DPC). The
DPC will consist of five tenured faculty members to be elected by all tenured/tenure-line
department faculty. If a DPC member submits an application for promotion or old PAA, the
member will not be permitted to evaluate and vote on her/his application. A tie vote permits the
application to go forward with approval.
3
Evaluation Period
The evaluation period [20.3. c.] is as follows:
PY Year
Semesters to be Documented
1
2
3
4
5
6 (Tenure Year)
Fall PY 1
Spring PY 1*
Fall & Spring PY 2*
Fall & Spring PY 3*
Fall & Spring PY 4*
Fall PY 1to Date of tenure application
*Plus outlines from previous years (Faculty may choose to do these outlines either in chronological
order with a separate outline for each year or in reverse chronological order in a cumulative format.)
* “The evaluation period for promotion (to both Associate Professor and Full Professor) will
include the employee’s entire record since the initial hiring date.” [Faculty Contract 20.3.e]
A. Teaching/Performance of Primary Duties
1. Student Evaluations
a. The instrument for evaluation will be the Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Survey of Student Opinion of Teaching and Open-Ended Student Comment Forms (see
Appendix A).
b. All faculty in our department will have student evaluations conducted in all of their
courses taught during the fall and spring semesters.
c. In small courses (under 30), student course evaluations with comments will not be
returned to the faculty member. The student comments will be transcribed by the
department office and a copy provided to the faculty member. In all other cases,
original course evaluation forms and quantitative results will be returned to the faculty
member for review.
d. To insure that the evaluation instrument is administered in a standard fashion, the chair
of the Assessment Committee shall request faculty to indicate preferred times of
evaluation for all of their classes. A graduate student shall be appointed by the
Assessment Committee chair to schedule and oversee the evaluations. Graduate
students assisting in the evaluations shall be briefed on the importance of student
evaluations and the procedures used in obtaining the evaluations.
When administering evaluations in a classroom, graduate students shall read a prepared
set of instructions for completing the evaluations to the students present. When
completed, the evaluation forms shall be placed in envelopes and retained in the
4
department Chair’s office until they are tabulated. The evaluation instrument shall be
administered each semester by graduate students to all designated classes in our
department during the three weeks prior to the last week of classes.
e. Faculty members shall not be present in their classes when evaluations are being given.
f. Faculty members cannot examine their evaluations until final grades have been
submitted and tabulation for the entire department has been completed.
g. A faculty member cannot select from a set of student evaluations the ones which will
be submitted.
h. The course is the unit of evaluation.
i. The items from each of the individual course evaluations that will constitute the
evaluation measures will be the median scores on the twenty questions of the student
evaluation instrument.
j. All official evaluations remain the property of the University and a summary for each
course evaluated will be placed in the employee’s personnel file.
k. Faculty who question the accuracy of the transcription of student comments may
request that the DPC Chair and/or Department Chair review the original evaluations.
Student evaluations are the property of the university. Faculty will be provided with a
copy of evaluation scores and all transcribed comments. [20.11.d.]
l. Distance Education and Extension Courses - Distance Education and Extension
courses may be evaluated if taught by probationary or tenured faculty.
“For the purpose of evaluating a faculty member's CODEC, web based, or satellitebroadcast teaching, on-campus and off-campus sections of the same class will be
evaluated by taking into account the different methods of delivery. The intent is that
inherent instructional differences between distance education and regular classes be
taken into account in a faculty member's evaluation.” [20.16.a.]
Items to be taken into consideration when evaluating above courses include, but are not
limited to the type of distance education; the number of remote sites for CODEC and
satellite broadcast, and number of students at each site; the types and reliability of
support to students at remote sites; frequency of technical "downtime"; and a faculty
member's prior experience with this type of distance teaching or offering of this course
at a distance.
The department chair, in conjunction with the chair of the Assessment Committee will
conduct student evaluations of an extension class by mail using postage paid, selfaddressed envelopes. Like the procedure followed in student evaluations of our regular
on-campus classes, each student evaluating an extension class will be asked to remain
5
anonymous by not signing his/her name on the Survey of Student Opinion of Teaching
and open-ended Student Comment Form (see Appendix A).
m. Evaluations for team-taught courses will focus on the course. Evaluations may be
conducted for faculty/department use but will not be used for evaluating individual
faculty.
n. In considering student evaluations, evaluators will consider "inherent differences in
form, content, or audience that might adversely affect a faculty member's evaluation.
Examples include, but are not limited to, general education, distance education...or
multicultural material...." [Faculty Contract, 20.4.b.1.]
2. Assigned Advising
The only faculty member formally advising students is the Chair of the Graduate
Committee. That faculty member's performance will be evaluated on the basis of a
standardized questionnaire completed by sociology graduate students (see Appendix C).
3. Other Primary Duties
A faculty member may have primary duties other than teaching/student advising. Hence,
assignments in non-teaching/teaching-related activities for which ACEs are awarded may be
classified as primary duties and must be evaluated. Such service and/or
scholarly/professional activities, however, will be counted within the service or
scholarly/professional activity categories.
4. Evaluation Portfolios
a. Each faculty member to be evaluated for retention, promotion or tenure, is responsible
for assembling an evaluation portfolio. This evaluation portfolio should include a table
of contents that lists both qualitative and quantitative components. The qualitative
component could include peer review instrument results, syllabi, exams, student
comment forms, handouts, and other pertinent classroom materials.
Syllabi for all courses taught during the probationary period (probationary years one to
six) must be included in the evaluation portfolio. Representative samples of course
syllabi may be submitted into evaluation portfolios pertaining to promotions. The
quantitative component will include standardized departmental evaluations and other
pertinent material and activities.
b. Materials for the evaluation portfolio may consist of anything the faculty member
deems relevant to his/her evaluation.
c. Evidence of faculty teaching performance within each evaluation portfolio shall be
evaluated by the Department Chair and Department Personnel Committee as
6
"satisfactory," "highly effective," and "superior" with respect to the adequacy,
effectiveness and relevance of content.
More specifically, a "satisfactory" teaching performance will be defined as the faculty
member meets classes as scheduled and is prepared for class and maintains required
office hours. The review of syllabi, teaching materials, and student evaluations by the
Department Personnel Committee and Department Chair shows that they are acceptable
and no major deficiencies are evident. In terms of the Survey of Student Opinion of
Teaching (see Appendix A), "satisfactory" will be defined as the faculty member attains
a composite mean of 3.00 for the top twelve of the twenty items in each of the courses
evaluated.
A "highly effective" teaching performance will be defined as the faculty member has
attained student evaluations as mainly favorable and has employed sound teaching
practices. Syllabi and teaching materials reveal an explicit and well thought out
teaching philosophy. In terms of the Survey of Student Opinion of Teaching, "highly
effective" will be defined as the faculty member attains a composite mean of 3.25 for
the top fourteen of the twenty items in each of the courses evaluated.
A "superior" teaching performance will be defined as the faculty member has exhibited
some notable strengths revealed in student evaluations, in reviews of
narratives/portfolios by the Department Personnel Committee and the Department
Chair. Some additional possible achievements are present for this faculty member,
among which are one or more of the following: curriculum development, strong
contribution to department and university programs, or development of curriculum
materials. In terms of the Survey of Student Opinion of Teaching, "superior" will be
defined as the faculty member attains a composite mean of 3.75 for the top sixteen of
the twenty items in each of the courses evaluated.
d. Faculty shall be evaluated on the basis of more than one measurement of teaching
effectiveness. Numerical scores on student evaluations shall not be the sole
determinant in retention, tenure, promotion, and four-year appraisal recommendations.
Evaluators should not render negative personnel decisions based on one or a few low
scores or one or a few classes, but, rather, evaluators should interpret numerical scores
from student evaluations in terms of clear and consistent “patterns” that have developed
over the appropriate evaluation period (20.11.b).
e. Course evaluation scores submitted by faculty members for courses taught prior to fall
2008 (and therefore utilizing the Survey of Student Opinion of Teaching scoring rubric
from a previous contract period) will be required to obtain a median score of 6 to 9 on
the equivalent proportion of the twenty items in each of the courses from those
semesters consistent with the “satisfactory”, “highly effective” and “superior”
performance requirements identified above.
5. To be considered for retention, tenure and promotion, the following specific criteria must
be met.
7
a. Retention
i. First probationary year at Western Illinois University
First year faculty are required to be evaluated by the DPC and Department Chair
only for the fall semester. These evaluations will consider only teaching
performance but may encourage demonstrated involvement in scholarly/
professional activity or service. Retention requires a composite mean of 3.00 for
the top twelve of the twenty items in each of the class evaluations, and evidence
of "satisfactory" faculty teaching performance exhibited within the evaluation
portfolio.
ii. Second probationary year at Western Illinois University
Retention requires a composite mean of 3.00 for the top twelve of the twenty
items in each of the courses evaluated, and evidence of "satisfactory" faculty
teaching performance exhibited within the evaluation portfolio.
iii. Third and fourth probationary years at Western Illinois University
Retention requires a composite mean of 3.25 for the top fourteen of the twenty
items in each of the courses evaluated, and evidence of "highly effective" faculty
teaching performance exhibited within the evaluation portfolio.
iv. Fifth probationary year or more at Western Illinois University
Retention requires a composite mean of 3.75 for the top sixteen of the twenty
items in each of the courses evaluated, and evidence of "superior" faculty teaching
performance exhibited within the evaluation portfolio.
a. Tenure
A faculty member to be considered for tenure must meet the retention criteria under II.
A. 5. a. iv (see above), but must have evidence of "superior" faculty teaching
performance as defined under II.A.2.c (see above) exhibited within the evaluation
portfolio at the end of the probationary period.
b. Promotion
i.
A Unit B faculty member to be considered for promotion from instructor to
assistant professor should show evidence of "highly effective" teaching
performance (must meet the criteria under II.A.5.a.iii as listed above, except a
Ph.D. is not required).
ii.
A faculty member to be considered for promotion to associate professor or
professor must meet the retention criteria under II.A.5. a. iv (see above), but must
have evidence of "superior" faculty teaching performance exhibited within the
evaluation portfolio. The evaluation period is the entire employment record in
8
our department and “superior” performance standards are applied for each of the
courses following the fifth probationary year.
c. In all cases of retention, tenure or promotion, the Personnel Committee and the faculty
member have the right to examine the data from the student evaluation instrument for
program errors, faulty coding, incorrect scoring, inappropriate coding, and other data
damaging procedures.
B. Scholarly/Professional Activity
Research leading to the dissertation does not count for scholarly/professional activity unless it is
published in a refereed publication or presented at a refereed professional conference. Work on
the dissertation does not count as work in progress for any probationary year.
1. Process
Both the Department Personnel Committee (DPC) and the Department Chair will
independently review and evaluate documentation of scholarly/professional activity
submitted by a faculty candidate. The DPC and the Department Chair will submit, in
written form, a detailed assessment of all materials.
2. The specific criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion are as follows:
a. Retention
i. To be considered for retention, the faculty member will annually forward to the
Department Personnel Committee and Department Chair a narrative and an
evaluation portfolio describing his/her research and creative activities.
ii. Faculty in probationary years 1 and 2 will not be evaluated on
scholarly/professional activities, though they are encouraged to begin such
activities. An "acceptable" evaluation by the DPC and Department Chair of
scholarly/professional activities is required for retention for probationary years 3
and 4. A "satisfactory" evaluation by the DPC and Department Chair of
scholarly/professional activities is required for the fifth probationary year or more.
More specifically, an "acceptable" scholarly/professional performance will be
defined as the faculty member has scholarly work in progress, which has the
potential for publication or for presentation at a professional conference or for some
other comparable professional recognition.
A "satisfactory" scholarly/professional performance will be defined as the faculty
member has published or has forthcoming (with a letter of acceptance) at least one
scholarly work as identified in I.B.1.a. Faculty members who submit co-authored
publications must document a substantial contribution to the project.
9
A "highly effective" scholarly professional performance will be defined as the
faculty member has published or has forthcoming (with a letter of acceptance) at
least two refereed journal publications in addition to other scholarly works as
identified in I.B.1.a. Faculty members who submit co-authored publications must
document a substantial contribution to the project. The combination of professional
and scholarly achievement, demonstrates a level that would merit beginning
recognition by peer professionals in the field.
A "superior" scholarly/professional performance will be defined as the faculty
member has published at least four refereed journal articles in addition to other
scholarly works as identified in I.B.1.a. Faculty members who submit co-authored
publications must document a substantial contribution to the project. Here, the
faculty member's level of scholarly and professional achievement has grown to be
recognized by more and more professional peers in the field.
3. Tenure
A faculty member is expected to maintain a "highly effective" performance level in
scholarly/professional activity in his/her discipline. That is, the faculty member will be
expected to publish or have forthcoming at least two scholarly works as identified in
I.B.1.a. Faculty members who submit co-authored publications must document a
substantial contribution to the project. It is further expected that, taken as a whole, these
publications will make a meaningful contribution to the discipline. Here, faculty are also
expected to make paper presentations at regional and/or national professional meetings.
The minimum requirement for tenure/promotion to Associate Professor shall be at least two
refereed journal publications. However, if an individual faculty member can demonstrate
that another activity in the Scholarly/Professional area (such as the publication of a book
chapter) is of at least equal rigor and importance to the discipline, evaluators may consider
this activity as substituting for one of the publications. In addition, evaluators may consider
the publication of a scholarly book as substituting for two of the publications.
4. Promotion
a. Promotion from Instructor to Assistant Professor (Unit B)
Instructors may apply for promotion to Assistant Professor from the third year of fulltime service. [20.9b]
The faculty member should show "satisfactory" scholarly/professional performance
(must meet criteria for PY3 and 4 under II.B.2.a.ii as listed above).
b. Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor
A faculty member is expected to maintain a "highly effective" performance level in
scholarly/professional activity in his/her discipline. Faculty members who submit co10
authored publications must document a substantial contribution to the project. It is
further expected that, taken as a whole, these publications will make a meaningful
contribution to the discipline. Here, faculty are also expected to make paper
presentations at regional and/or national professional meetings.
The minimum requirement for tenure/promotion to Associate Professor shall be at
least two refereed journal publications in addition to other scholarly works as
identified in I.B.1.a. However, if an individual faculty member can demonstrate that
another activity in the Scholarly/Professional area (such as the publication of a book
chapter) is of at least equal rigor and importance to the discipline, evaluators may
consider this activity as substituting for one of the publications. In addition, evaluators
may consider the publication of a scholarly book as substituting for two of the
publications.
c. Promotion from Associate to Professor
A faculty member is expected to maintain a "highly effective" performance level in
scholarly/professional activity in his/her discipline. Faculty members who submit coauthored publications must document a substantial contribution to the project. It is
further expected that, taken as a whole, these publications will make a meaningful
contribution to the discipline. Here, faculty are also expected to make paper
presentations at regional and/or national professional meetings.
The minimum requirement for promotion to Full Professor shall be at least four
refereed journal publications in addition to other scholarly works as identified in
I.B.1.a., two of which must have been published since promotion to Associate
Professor. However, if an individual faculty member can demonstrate that another
activity (such as publishing a book or a book chapter) is of at least equal rigor and
importance to the discipline, evaluators may consider this activity as substituting for
one of the publications. In addition, evaluators may consider the publication of a
scholarly book as substituting for two of the publications.
C. Service
1. Process
Attention will be given to the extent of the faculty member's participation in service
activities, especially whether the faculty member provided leadership or took on
burdensome roles, and whether significant contributions were made in terms of solving of
problems, preparing of reports, and carrying out important tasks in an effective manner.
Both the Department Personnel Committee (DPC) and the Department Chair will
independently review and discuss documentation of service submitted by a faculty
candidate. They may request written statements as to the quality of the service from other
11
professional persons involved in the service activity or activities documented by the faculty
candidate. The DPC and Department Chair may discuss the materials with the candidate.
Service will be defined as "satisfactory" if the faculty member attends and participates
actively in department meetings, serves and plays an active role on one department
committee or equivalent service, and completes other tasks.
“Service will be defined as “highly effective” when a faculty member serves and
participates actively in three service activities, one of which is to be beyond the
department, and as a chair of at least one committee or as an advisor to a student
organization. The faculty member makes a noteworthy contribution in their service
activities.
Service will be defined as “superior” when the faculty member achieves a respected record
of service, involving some leadership responsibility such as serving as chair of two or more
committees (one of which may be an advisor to a student organization) in the department
and as a member of two or more service activities outside the department.”
“For faculty assigned to the WIU-Quad Cities campus, the department criteria shall reflect
what Service activities are available at the location, recognizing alternatives to Macomb
based committee service.” [20.4.e.3].
a. Retention
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
For first year and second year faculty, active involvement in departmental
affairs is encouraged. [20.3.c]
For third, and fourth year faculty, there should be "satisfactory" service
For fifth year or more faculty, there should be "highly effective" service
These activities may be at the departmental, college, university, community
and professional levels such as service related to the faculty member's
professional expertise.
b. Tenure
The factors relevant for tenure in the area of service should be rated by the DPC and
Department Chair as meeting our departmental requirements by the end of the
evaluation period. It is expected for tenure that a faculty member's service
performance is rated as "highly effective".
c. Promotion
i.
For promotion from instructor to assistant professor (Unit B), service
performance should be rated as "satisfactory" through the period of
evaluation.
12
ii.
iii.
III.
For promotion from assistant professor to associate professor, service
performance should be rated as "highly effective" through the period of
evaluation.
For promotion from associate professor to professor, service performance
should be rated as "superior" through the period of evaluation.
Retention and Promotion of Associate Faculty
Associate faculty will be evaluated annually by the Department Chair and the Dean. To be judged
as "satisfactory" the associate faculty member is expected to meet the same criteria as regular tenure
track faculty in the area of Teaching/Performance of Primary Duties (only) as specified under
II.A.5.a. of the Department Criteria.
Non-tenure track faculty become "Associate Faculty"—and members of Unit B—in their second
year of employment in the department. All references below to "year one" (etc.) refer to the year
the faculty member becomes an Associate Faculty member, not to their first year of employment.
That is, to be considered for retention, the following specific criteria must be met.
A. Retention
1. Year one at Western Illinois University
First year faculty are required to be evaluated by the DPC and Department Chair only for
the fall semester. These evaluations will consider only teaching performance but may
encourage demonstrated involvement in scholarly/professional activity or service.
Retention requires a composite mean of 3.00 for the top twelve of the twenty items in each
of the class evaluations, and evidence of "satisfactory" faculty teaching performance
exhibited within the evaluation portfolio.
2. Year two at Western Illinois University
Retention requires a composite mean of 3.25 for the top twelve of the twenty items in each
of the courses evaluated, and evidence of "satisfactory" faculty teaching performance
exhibited within the evaluation portfolio.
3. Years three and four at Western Illinois University
Retention requires a composite mean of 3.75 for the top fourteen of the twenty items in
each of the courses evaluated, and evidence of "highly effective" faculty teaching
performance exhibited within the evaluation portfolio.
4. Years five or more at Western Illinois University
13
Retention requires a composite mean of 3.00 for the top sixteen of the twenty items in each
of the courses evaluated, and evidence of "superior" faculty teaching performance exhibited
within the evaluation portfolio.
Persons who do not meet these criteria should be judged as "unsatisfactory." Persons who
clearly exceed these criteria may be judged as "highly effective."
Course evaluation scores submitted by faculty members for courses taught prior to fall 2008
(and therefore utilizing the Survey of Student Opinion of Teaching scoring rubric from a
previous contract period) will be required to obtain a median score of 6 to 9 on the equivalent
proportion of the twenty items in each of the courses from those semesters consistent with the
“satisfactory”, “highly effective” and “superior” performance requirements identified above.
5. Unit B: Associate Faculty Promotion to Assistant Professor
“Associate faculty who meet department criteria may apply for promotion to assistant
professor. To be promoted to Assistant Professor, an Associate Faculty member should have a
professional record comparable to those who would be seriously considered for employment if
a Unit A Assistant Professor were to be advertised.” [33.1.d.1].
IV.
PAA
The PAA Points System (WIU/UPI Agreement 2007-2001) is an organizational reward system
designed to offer monetary incentive for strong (tenure/tenure-track) performances across the three
areas of responsibility: teaching/primary duties, scholarly/professional activities, and service
activities.
The mechanism for obtaining monetary reward is an objectively scored points system. For each
eligible activity performed by a faculty member, points will be awarded. Those points will
accumulate across the years until a faculty member exceeds a threshold of total number of points
required to earn a PAA.
All tenured/tenure-track faculty, beginning in PY1, are eligible for the PAA.
Faculty may submit their points for a PAA every year of their employment. The points continue to
accumulate from one year to the next, and the PAA will be awarded whenever the threshold of 35
points is met. Points applied toward a PAA must be submitted in the year in which they are earned
in order for them to count toward a PAA.
There is no limit to the number of PAAs earned over the course of a faculty member’s career. Once
a PAA is earned, the faculty member’s pool of points will set back to 0 (zero), and the process
toward earning a PAA will begin again.
See the Sociology & Anthropology Department’s PAA Activities document for full details on the
PAA parameters.
14
V. Educational Requirements
To be considered for tenure or promotion, a faculty member must have a terminal degree (Ph.D).
VI. Exceptionality
Faculty who do not satisfy EDUCATIONAL requirements may also apply for tenure and/or
promotion on the basis of exceptionality. In general, exceptionality will be defined as a
performance standard higher than superior and at such a high level that it truly offsets and
compensates for the absence of the terminal degree.
Department criteria state educational requirements for tenure and criteria for exceptionality.
[20.10.f.(1)]
A. Tenure or promotion to Associate Professor
1. Tenure or promotion to Associate Professor by exception in the area of Teaching/Primary
Duties requires a median score for a majority of previous semesters that indicates a high
degree of excellence in teaching (that is a composite mean of median scores of “4.50" for
all twenty items). Further, the rest of the teaching portfolio must provide evidence of
exceptional teaching as defined in terms that would include the following: large number of
course preparations, frequent large sections, evidence of writing in courses, positive student
feedback beyond the department teaching evaluation instrument, possible teaching awards,
and other relevant factors such as peer reviews that document the extraordinary features of
the teaching performance.
Course evaluation scores submitted by faculty members for courses taught prior to fall
2008 (and therefore utilizing the Survey of Student Opinion of Teaching scoring rubric
from a previous contract period) will be required obtain a median score for a majority of
previous semesters that indicates a high degree of excellence in teaching (that is, a
cumulative average of median scores of "8" for all twenty items).
2. Tenure or promotion to Associate Professor by exception in the area of
Scholarly/Professional Activity requires, while at WIU, at least four refereed journal
articles. If an individual faculty member can demonstrate the authorship and publication of
a book is of at least equal rigor and importance to the discipline, evaluators may consider
this activity as substituting for two of journal articles. Faculty members who submit coauthored publications must document a substantial contribution to the project. In general it
is expected that an applicant will have made a clear and important contribution to the
research literature in his or her discipline.
B.
Promotion to Full Professor
1. Promotion to Full Professor by exception in the area of Teaching/Primary Duties requires a
median score for a majority of previous semesters that indicates a high degree of excellence
in teaching (that is a composite mean of median scores of "4.75" for all twenty items).
Further, the rest of the teaching portfolio must provide evidence of exceptional teaching as
defined in terms that would include the following: large number of course preparations,
15
frequent large sections, evidence of writing in courses, positive student feedback beyond
the department teaching evaluation instrument, possible teaching awards, and other
relevant factors such as peer reviews that document the extraordinary features of the
teaching performance.
Course evaluation scores submitted by faculty members for courses taught prior to fall
2008 (and therefore utilizing the Survey of Student Opinion of Teaching scoring rubric
from a previous contract period) will be required obtain a median score for two-thirds of
previous semesters that indicates a high degree of excellence in teaching (that is, a
cumulative average of median scores of "8" for all twenty items).
2. Promotion to Full Professor by exception in the area of Scholarly/Professional Activity
requires, while at WIU, an authored scholarly book and at least eight refereed journal
articles. If an individual faculty member can demonstrate the authorship and publication of
a book is of at least equal rigor and importance to the discipline, evaluators may consider
this activity as substituting for two of journal articles. A maximum of two books may be
used to substitute for four journal articles. Faculty members who submit co-authored
publications must document a substantial contribution to the project. In general it is
expected that an applicant will have made a clear and important contribution to the research
literature in his or her discipline.
VII. Student program assessment results will not be used in the evaluation of faculty performance.
[20.4.b.1.c]
16
APPENDIX A
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY
SURVEY OF STUDENT OPINION OF TEACHING
Please read and evaluate the items of this questionnaire thoughtfully and honestly. The information
from this survey is used to help the department evaluate your instructor. He or she will receive a
summary of class ratings and comments. Information on each separate class of the instructor will be
withheld until the end of the semester. None of the information will identify any student individually.
A) Please do not sign your name on the questionnaire or the score sheet.
B) Please do not bend the score sheet.
C) Please do not write on this document.
WHAT THE NUMBERS MEAN
(1)
NOT APPLICABLE OR DON'T KNOW This score indicates that the statement does not
apply to this course, this instructor, or you are simply not able to give a knowledgeable response.
(1.5 or 2.0) POOR This score indicates that you think "poor" comes closest to expressing your opinion
in completing this statement.
(2.5 or 3.0) UNSATISFACTORY This score indicates that you think some degree of unsatisfactory"
comes closest to expressing your opinion in completing this statement.
(3.5 or 4.0) GOOD This score indicates that you think some degree of "good" comes closest to
expressing your opinion in completing this statement.
(4.5 or 5.0) EXCELLENT This score indicates that you think "excellent" comes closest to expressing
your opinion in completing this statement.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please pencil in only one circle for each question on the answer sheet.
17
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The clarity with which the
instructor presented his or her
objectives for the course was:
EXCELLENT
GOOD
UNSATISFACTORY
POOR
NOT APPLICABLE
OR DON’T KNOW
1.
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
The instructor's use of the class
time has been:
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
The availability of the instructor
to consult with students has been:
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
The instructor's concern about
students progress has been:
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
The instructor's helpful comments
on papers or exams has been:
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
The agreement between the
announced objectives of the
course and what is actually taught
has been:
The instructor's awareness of
when students don't understand
the material has been:
The instructor's use in lectures of
materials from outside the
textbook has been:
The instructor's encouragement of
students to think for themselves
has been:
10. The instructor's use of challenging
questions or problems for
discussion has been:
18
12. The instructor's preparation for
each class has been:
13. The clarity of the information on
how students are to be evaluated
has been:
14. The instructor's summaries and
emphasis of major points in
lectures or discussions has been:
15. The stimulation of this course to
my own interest in the subject
area has been:
16. The scope of this course and the
amount of material covered:
17. The degree to which examinations
reflect the important aspects of
the course has been:
18. The extent to which the instructor
has inspired me to work hard in
this course has been:
19. The instructor's openness to other
viewpoints has been:
20. The degree to which the instructor
is accomplishing his or her
objectives for this course is:
EXCELLENT
GOOD
UNSATISFACTORY
POOR
NOT APPLICABLE
OR DON’T KNOW
11. The freedom I feel in class to ask
questions or express my opinion
has been:
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
19
STUDENT COMMENTS
1.
Your instructor would like to know if there is something you believe he or she has done especially
well in the teaching of this course.
2.
What is the most interesting or important lesson you learned from this course?
3.
Additional comments:
20
APPENDIX B
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION FORM
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
The Department Criteria provides for chairperson/peer evaluations at the request of the individual
faculty member or the department chairperson. The following guidelines are required for the classroom
observation to be initiated:
1) The department's Classroom Observation Rating Form (see attached) must be used in all
chairperson/peer evaluations.
2) The faculty must use this sheet or form to request the chairperson/peer evaluation. It must be
submitted to the department chairperson by the end of the third class week of the semester. It must
be completed three weeks before the final exam week.
3) The department chairperson must use this sheet to initiate and inform the instructor of a chairperson
classroom evaluation. It must be submitted three weeks before the final exam week and completed
before the final exam week. The department chairperson reserves the right of selecting the class to
be evaluated. A chairperson request requires the Department Personnel Committee (DPC)
chairperson to use this sheet to inform the instructor of a classroom evaluation. The instructor may
select a department colleague who must use this sheet to inform the chairperson of a classroom
evaluation. The classroom evaluations will be completed before the end of the semester. There will
be no unannounced classroom evaluations. The instructor will decide if classroom evaluations occur
in one, two or three class periods.
4) Faculty members may select up to 10 additional items for classroom evaluation. They must conform
to the Classroom Observation Rating Form and they must be submitted to all classroom evaluators
within one week of the requested date of evaluation. Different classes may employ different items.
All evaluators must employ the same Classroom Observation Rating form for a particular class.
5) Classroom evaluators must complete the Classroom Observation Rating Form within one week of
the class visitation and submit to the department chair. The department chair provides the original
Classroom Observation Rating Forms to the instructor within two weeks.
6) A copy of the Classroom Observation Rating Form is placed in the department's personnel file and
can be employed in making personnel decisions.
21
Person Requesting Classroom Observation:
Instructor:
Date:
Signature
Department Chairperson:
Date:
Signature
DPC Chairperson:
Date:
Signature
Department Colleague:
Date:
Signature
Semester
Class(es) that can be evaluated:
Class
Period/MWF or TTh
Announced
Unannounced
(
)
( )
(
)
( )
(
)
( )
If you wish optional items for evaluation identify the items (for each class if desired). Date to be
submitted to chairperson must be within one week of above request.
22
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION RATING FORM
PART I
Instructor:
Observer:
Class:
Date of Visit:
Number of students present in class:
Time:
TO THE OBSERVER: Assess the instructor's performance in each area by using a five-point scale, 1
being low, 3 average, and 5 high. Then flesh out your assessment by writing comments, noting specific
details or examples in the space provided after each item. The back of the sheet may be used if
additional space is needed.
1. The instructor seemed well prepared for this class. (Circle one)
Comments:
2. The instructor made effective use of class time—i.e., was well
organized and had a clear purpose in mind for each segment
of the period. (circle one)
Comments:
3. The relationship between this class period and the overall
structure and goals of the course (as indicated by the
course syllabus) was clear. (Circle one)
Comments:
4. The instructor's mode of delivery (lecture, discussion, smallgroup activities, workshop, student reports, etc.) effectively
communicated the content of the lesson. (Circle one)
Comments:
Notes on back of page:
_____ Yes
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
_____ No
23
5. The instructor's "classroom presence" —e.g., general demeanor,
voice, eye contact, facial expressions, gestures—enhanced the
clarity and interest of the presentation. (Circle one)
Comments:
1
2
3
4
5
6. The instructor demonstrated flexibility in responding to class
situations. (Circle one)
Comments:
1
2
3
4
5
7. The instructor conveyed and generated enthusiasm toward
the subject. (Circle one)
Comments:
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
8. The instructor used appropriate innovative techniques to
enrich the students' understanding of and involvement in
the lesson. (Circle one)
Comments:
9. The instructor seemed to have good rapport with the
students in this class, and responded effectively to their
questions. (Circle one)
Comments:
10. The students were receptive to the instructor's teaching
and seemed able to understand the aims and content of
the lesson. (Circle one)
Comments:
Faculty may provide up to ten additional evaluation items.
Notes on back of page:
_____ Yes _____ No
24
PART II
The instructor's main strengths in the class period were:
PART III
Areas that could be improved include:
25
APPENDIX C
Graduate Advising Evaluation Form
Part I
Please mark the response that best reflects your judgment about the Graduate Committee Chair's
advising activities.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1. Advising is clear.
Comments:
5
4
3
2
1
2. Advising is helpful.
Comments:
5
4
3
2
1
3. Advisor is accessible.
Comments:
5
4
3
2
1
4. Advisor is interested in my
career development.
Comments:
5
4
3
2
1
5. Advisor is knowledgeable about
Graduate School requirements.
Comments:
5
4
3
2
1
Part II
Please make any recommendations you think would improve Graduate Student Advising. (Please return
to the Department Secretary.)
26