Date Prepared: April 27, 2006
VCAA Approval: __________
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY
DEPARTMENTAL TENURE, PROMOTION, AND RE-APPOINTMENT CRITERIA
AND
ANNUAL FACULTY EVALUATION GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES
Year(s) Effective: 2006-2007
SECTION I: Appointment, Re-appointment, Promotion, and Tenure
A. Introduction
The criteria, guidelines, and procedures contained herein are supplementary to Section 4 of
the current Faculty Handbook and the WCU Tenure Policies and Regulations as approved by
the Board of Governors, the provisions of which shall prevail on any matter not covered
herein by further allowable specification or on any point wherein this departmental document
is inconsistent with those provisions.
B. Criteria for Appointment, Re-appointment, Promotion, and Tenure
1. Earned Academic Degrees
Departmental requirements are the same as those stated in the Faculty Handbook
(Section II, 4.02.02, Section IV A).
2. Professional Preparation and Experience
a. Years of College-level Teaching Experience
(1) For appointment/re-appointment, or promotion in rank
The minimal departmental requirements are the same as those stated in the
Faculty Handbook (Section II, 4.02.02, Section IV B).
(2) For Tenure
The maximum number of years of continuous full-time probationary service
shall be seven years except as provided by the Faculty Handbook (Section II,
4.02.01, Section III.B. 1).
b. Other Experience and Professional Preparation
Full time research and/or administration will be considered
3. Quality and Effectiveness of Teaching
Criteria to be evaluated include content expertise, skill in the delivery and design of
instruction, and the management of the courses taught by each individual. How students
are evaluated, the relationship between the instructor and the students and the
facilitation of student learning will also be evaluated. Once all data have been collected,
the departmental AFE committee and the department head will review the data specifically addressing the dimensions listed above plus any other considerations that may be
pertinent to a discipline. The effectiveness of each individual as an instructor will then be
voted on each criteria using the scale in Section II.C of the Faculty Handbook.
Deleted: Evidence of Professional
Development, Research and Publications
4. Evidence of Scholarly Activities
Criteria to be evaluated include number, size, and quality of publications, recognition by
professional organizations (such as invitations to speak or participate in panel
discussions, election to office) requests for critical reviews of research proposals, and
requests to referee articles by other scientists. Participation in student research will also
be evaluated, including the production of student reports, thesis or articles. Other
evidence of research and publication might include evaluation by peers outside the
department and the University, presentation of papers at professional meetings, and
evidence of keeping abreast of developments in the discipline.
5. Quality of Role In, and Special Contributions to Institutional Affairs
Off-campus instruction and regional service, work with students, and activities at the
departmental, college, and university levels will be evaluated by criteria described in
Section II, 4.02.02, Section III.
6. Promise for Sustained Future Professional Achievement
In its consideration of each candidate, the department shall assess and be guided by the
individual’s promise for sustained future professional achievement based upon the
cumulative record in all of the categories listed above. Recommendations for
appointment/re-appointment and promotion to a rank shall be consistent with the
provisions of Section II, 4.02.02, Section III and IV of the Faculty Handbook. A
recommendation for the conferral of permanent tenure must be based on a thorough
assessment of the candidate’s cumulative record and promise for sustained achievement.
7. Institutional Needs and Resources
All recommendations on appointment/re-appointment, promotion, and tenure shall be
consistent with the needs and resources of the department.
2
C. Composition of the Departmental Re-appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee
The departmental advisory committee shall be constituted in a manner consistent with the
provisions of Section II, 4.02.02, Section VI A of the Faculty Handbook.
D. Procedures
1. Preparation of the Files of the Candidates
Files on each candidate shall be prepared according to the university guidelines
2. Procedures of the Departmental Advisory Committee on Re-appointment, Promotion and
Tenure are described in Section II, 4.02.02, Section VI A of the Faculty Handbook.
3. Other Procedures during and at the end of the Annual Consideration Process
An appeal of negative decision (request for reconsideration) may be initiated at the
conclusion of the consideration process as provided in Section VI of the WCU Tenure
Policies and Regulations.
SECTION II: Annual Faculty Evaluation
A. Purpose
Application of the procedures, which follow, depends upon a number of ideas that can be
called a philosophy of faculty evaluation. As we understand the process, faculty evaluation
enables individual faculty members to improve their performance by making each individual
aware of strengths and weaknesses; it assists the administrator and advisory committees in
making decisions relating to faculty status; it promotes the continuing professional
development of faculty members; and it helps faculty members know how their work is being
evaluated.
We believe that in the matter of faculty evaluation no such thing as truly objective data can
be obtained. For example, one cannot for purposes of faculty evaluation, compare class
enrollment figures without regard for the time of day a particular section is taught, whether
the course is required, and a realistic assessment of the alternatives available to the students
enrolled, to mention only a few of the variables. One cannot compare publications without
regard for the field of specialty they treat the quality of the journal in which they appear, their
length and their value as new knowledge. Furthermore, we believe that the number of
variables affecting all the criteria suggested below is so great that one cannot assign a
realistic set of numbers to them. To devise a set of numbers that would attempt to include all
the variables would produce an unmanageable set, and to use a set of numbers that does not
account for all the variables lowers the quality of the decision based on them. In other
words, we believe that the best decision in matters of faculty status will be made by an
intelligent, sensitive, and fair-minded Department Head assisted by an Advisory Committee
3
operating on the basis of the criteria suggested below without any attempt to mathematically
weight, sum, and average the value of the various contributions made by each member of the
department. We suggest that the subtle mental weighting and averaging which we intend to
indicate by the term “administrative professional judgment” as used below is much more
accurate, acceptable, and equitable than any manageable system of mathematical weighting
could be. We believe it is essential to recognize the diverse abilities of the faculty since these
contribute to the overall mission of the department. While it is essential for each faculty
member to perform effectively as a teacher, it is unrealistic to expect every member of the
department to e equally active in the three areas of Teaching, Research, and Service. The
Department Head in consultation with the Faculty should decide what emphasis each
individual needs to place in the three areas relative to the effort of the department as a whole.
The Head is certainly in the best position (if he/she is not in the only position) to assess the
total contribution of each faculty member to the overall departmental effort.
B. General Guidelines
The evaluation is based on a “portfolio” or “individual contract.” The department will meet
each Spring Semester to discuss, coordinate and approve the contract for each individual.
There are two essential components to this plan. Firstly, a series of categories is used to
determine the areas in which the evaluation will take place. Secondly, the performance of
each individual in the established categories is evaluated. Tenured and non-tenured faculty
will be evaluated annually by the Department Head and the AFE Committee.
C. Criteria for the Evaluation
The criteria by which the faculty members will be evaluated are teaching, scholarly
productivity, and service. Categories are not listed in priority order.
1. Teaching
Faculty members should have the ability to create an atmosphere for learning and
stimulate learning by students. This ability can best be assessed through the use of
student evaluation of classroom performance and administrative professional judgment.
Student enrollment and hours in contact with students will be considered. Syllabi,
examinations, student evaluations, and other pertinent material should be provided.
CATEGORY
a.
b.
c.
d.
Large section courses for non-major students
Service and Core courses: 100-300 level
300-600 elective level courses
Courses involving individual instruction: Biol 480, 493, 498, 499, 593, 693, 699
4
2. Effectiveness as a Researcher and Producer of Scholarly Works
Faculty members should have the ability to add to knowledge. Criteria by which this
ability is judged include participation in research, number, size, and quality of
publications; recognition by professional organizations such as invitations to speak or
participate in panel discussions, election to office, requests for critical reviews of research
proposals, and requests to referee articles by other scientists; evidence of participation in
student research such as the production of reports, theses, or published articles;
evaluation by peers outside the department and the University; presentation of papers at
professional meetings, and evidence of keeping abreast of the developments in the
discipline.
CATEGORY
a.
b.
c.
d.
Publications
Grants
Presentation of papers at professional meetings
Involvement with undergraduate and graduate research
3. Service
Faculty members should have the ability to serve the University and the public in ways
appropriate to their discipline and an educational institution of our type. Administrative
professional judgment can appropriately be applied in this area of evaluation.
CATEGORY
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Student advisement
Departmental committees
College and University committees
Committees off campus
Seminars delivered
Support for public instruction
Professional consultation on behalf of the university
Departmental maintenance, Herbarium, Computer network, Greenhouse, cultures, etc.
Non-university professional service
The workload of Committee Chairpersons will be taken into account.
D. Methods to be used for evaluation of the Faculty Member on each of the Criteria
1. Teaching Effectiveness
The sources of data to be used for evaluation are: a) student evaluations, b) faculty selfevaluations, and c) peer evaluations including direct classroom observation of new and
non-tenured faculty.
5
Information from students for evaluation of a faculty member’s teaching ability will be
secured by means of a standard questionnaire developed by the department (attached) to
be distributed near the end of each course. A student, designated by the faculty member,
will collect the questionnaires and will then turn them in to the Head. The faculty
member will turn in to the AFE Committee a copy of each test given during the course, a
copy of the grades and course syllabi. The faculty member will be free to examine the
student evaluations after final grades are turned in. Clear and specific statements for the
evaluation of the performance of non-tenured faculty members will be provided in
writing and discussed by the Department Head prior to their initial appointment and on an
annual basis thereafter. A record of these discussions will be kept in the individual’s
personnel file. In addition to the regular evaluation of new and non-tenured faculty using
the standard questionnaire and other methods as described above, peer review ill be
carried out through the direct observation of classroom teaching. Appropriate and timely
feedback on these evaluations will be provided by the end of each semester. A second
source of student opinion concerning the classroom performance of a faculty member
may be sought by the Head at his/her own discretion. This will involve private individual
interviews conducted with a randomly selected number of students from any class taught
by any member of the department. This option, with concurrence of the Head, may also
be employed by the Advisory Committee. Graduate assistants are not used for instruction
in courses for credit hours, and are excluded from such evaluations.
2. Ability to add to knowledge and to serve the University, Students, Community and
Region
Each faculty member will be expected to furnish to the AFE Committee and the Head, in
writing, data bearing on his/her ability to serve the University and the public. These data
will include the Annual Faculty Report form that summarizes research and service
activities. The Head and the Advisory Committee will evaluate the performance of the
faculty member in research and service.
E. Composition of AFE committee
The committee will consist of the members of the TPR committee. The Department Head or
his/her designee shall serve as chair of the committee.
F. Procedures
The Advisory Committee will evaluate the faculty member in the light of their best judgment
and will provide their evaluations to the Department Head. In addition, the Head will draft
his/her own evaluation. This draft, as well as the draft of the committee, will be perused by
the faculty member prior to a conference with the Head during which these documents will
be discussed. Following this conference, the Head will work out a final evaluation of the
faculty member in written form and share it with the faculty member. As a minimum
requirement, the faculty member should sign the final evaluation to indicate receipt of it, but
should be provided the added opportunity of replying to indicate acceptance of it, or of
6
providing a rebuttal to be attached to the Department Head’s summary. These evaluations
will then be forwarded to the Dean. The procedures described herein depend heavily upon
the exercise of subjective professional judgment by the Head. This judgment will be based
on written but subjective data. The overall system within which these procedures will work
must rely heavily on mutual respect, trust, and confidence within administrative lines. We
believe this is as it should be and must be in any workable academic system
Copies of the evaluations provided by the AFE committee and the Department Head will be
placed in the personnel file of each faculty member and in the departmental file.
SECTION III: Preparation and Implementation
A. Preparation and Approval
1. These departmental criteria, guidelines, and procedures shall be prepared or reviewed and
revised each Spring Semester for the next academic year.
2. On the timetable announced by the Dean, the departmental document shall be submitted
to the Dean for review. The Dean shall endorse the document or recommend revisions.
The Dean should forward the approved documents to the VCAA for review, only when
the Dean is satisfied as to the quality and completeness of the document. The VCAA will
approve the document or recommend revisions and return it to the Dean and Department
Head. When revisions are needed, the Department Head will resubmit the revised
document for approval through channels as before.
B. Implementation
1. This document becomes effective for the academic year immediately following its
preparation or revision upon endorsement by the Dean and approval by the VCAA.
2. This document shall guide the department’s consideration of candidates during the year
within the framework of the timetable announced by the VCAA.
Approved:
____________________________________________________
Department Head
_______________________
Date
____________________________________________________
Dean
_______________________
Date
____________________________________________________
Provost
_______________________
Date
7