Promotion and Promotion Process
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Academic Year 2001 – 2002
October 22, 2001
Prepared by: Dr. Jack Rhoton, Chair of the Committee, Dr. Rhona Cummings,
Dr. H. Lee Daniel, Dr. Denee Mattioli, Dr. Jane Melendez, Dr. Elizabeth Ralston,
1
Proposed Faculty Evaluation Process for Promotion. Perhaps one of the
most difficult and most important responsibilities of the department chairperson is
the evaluation of faculty performance. Unfortunately, no magic formula has been
developed to make the evaluation process more simple or less painful. However,
an important component in faculty evaluation is communication with faculty
members regarding what is to be expected and what will be evaluated. This
communication will be in the form of the FAP/FAR/FAE (FAS, 2004-2005)
process. Even though there are several purposes for faculty performance
evaluation, one is to provide faculty a certain measure of how well they are doing
in their professional roles and how they can improve their performance. Other
critical factors relate to issues of promotion and promotion and, when
appropriate, merit pay.
For discussion purposes, we have outlined an evaluation process and
performance-rating system based on a four-point scale: Outstanding (4),
Above Average (3), Average (2), Below Average (1), and Unsatisfactory (0).
The next obvious question becomes “What is the differences between
outstanding and average? This is not an easy question to answer. However, the
example below takes into account the faculty member’s contribution in each of
the three areas –teaching, research and scholarly activities, and service. The
faculty member’s performance in each area is rated separately on a four-point
scale, and the ratings are weighted and evaluated based on each area
proportionately to effort expended. An example is provided below:
2
Rating of Faculty By Area of Performance and By Percentage of Fulltime Workload Assigned to
Each Area
Area of Performance
I – Performance
II – Assigned % of
Rating Point (RP)
Rating
Fulltime Workload
(I x II)
Teaching
4
70
280
Research
3
10
30
Service
4
20
80
Total
11
100
390
Rating Point Average (RPA) = Total of Rating Point = 390 = 3.9
Total of Assigned % 100
The following terminology may be helpful in understanding this performance
rating system.

Performance Rating (PR) – Based on a four point scale and are
used to differentiate “outstanding,” “above average,” “average”,
“below average,” and “unsatisfactory.”

Rating Points (RP) – Calculated by multiplying the performace
rating for that activity by the percentage of fulltime workload
assigned to that activity.

Rating Point Average (RPA) – Calculated by totaling the rating
points obtained for the areas of performance being evaluated and
dividing that total by the sum of the percentages of the fulltime
workload assigned to the three major areas.
A comprehensive list of activities in each of the areas of teaching, research and
scholarly activities, and service follows.
List of Activities for Promotion in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction
A. Teaching
1. Teaching Load
a. Graduate courses
b. Undergraduate courses
c. Directed, individual study, supervised research or supervised
teaching
2. Sources of evidence for evaluating teaching may include the following:
a. Systematic rating by students (SAI)
b. Chairperson evaluation
c. Content of course syllabi
d. Informal rating of course by students
3
e. Faculty member’s interest in teaching improvement activities
(workshops, etc.)
f. Informal feedback and opinions of alumni
g. Feedback from peer evaluator at another institution in the same
discipline
3. Supervisory committees or positions
a. Chair of master’s committee
b. Chair of doctoral committee
c. Member of master’s committee
d. Member of doctoral committee
e. Graduate student advisor
f. Undergraduate student advisor
B. Research, scholarly and creative activities (including ERIC)
1. Publications
a. Writing
(1) Article for refereed national or international journal
(2) Article for nonrefereed national or international journal
(3) Article for state journal
(4) Book with major publishing company
(5) Test with major publishing company
(6) Revised book
(7) section of book with major publisher
(8) Book with local publisher
(9) Section of book with local publisher
b. Editorial Activities
(1) Editor of Book
(2) Editor of national or international professional journal
(3) Editor of state professional journal
(4) Associate editor or reviewer for national journal
(5) Associate editor or reviewer for state journal
(6) Manuscript reviewer for major publisher
(7) Reviewer for federal agency
2. Research Projects
a. Author of project funded by outside agency
b. Author of project funded by university
c. Author of project submitted to outside agency but not funded
d. Author of project submitted to university but not funded
3. Papers and Speeches
a. Presented at national or international meeting, by invitation
b. Submitted to national or international meeting
c. Presented to regional or state meeting, by invitation
d. submitted to regional or state meeting
e. Presented at another institution, by invitation
f. Present at local meeting
C. Services
1. Committee activities
4
a. Chairperson of university committee
b. Member of university committee
c. Chairperson of school or college committee
d. Member of school or college committee
e. Chairperson of area or program committee
f. Member of area or program committee
g. Member of faculty senate
h. Officer of faculty senate
i. Chairperson of search committee
j. Member of search committee
k. Departmental reports
l. Program change proposals
2. Professional Activities
a. Chairperson of national committee
b. Member of national committee
c. Chairperson of regional or state committee
d. Member of regional or state committee
e. Officer at regional or national level
f. Officer at state level
g. Leader for in-service training
h. Organizer for workshop
l. Member of professional association
j. Attendance at professional meeting
k. Working with local school on related projects
l. Faculty sponsor of local chapter of honor society
m. Participation in local radio or television activities
3. Consulting
4. Open category (Faculty can write individual account of activities)
Proposed Faculty Evaluation Process for Promotion:
Promotion is awarded in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction
upon demonstration of competent performance. Evaluation for promotion
involves three components: teaching, research/scholarly activities, and service.
In addition, collegiality and participation as a citizen of the Department, College,
and University are an important part of performance. Promotion shall be awarded
only as a result of careful assessment over a period of time sufficient to judge the
faculty member’s documented accomplishments, ability, and productivity.
5
Teaching. The first step in the promotion decision process is an evaluation of
effectiveness of teaching. Effective teaching requires a thorough knowledge of
the subject, the ability to present material in a clear fashion, and the ability to
work with, motivate, and serve as a role model for students. The peer review
process for teaching will take many forms, for example: consideration of student
evaluations of teaching (both formal and informal), examination of syllabi, course
handouts, examinations and other course materials and examination of samples
of student work.
Research and Scholarly Activities: The purpose of research and scholarly
activities in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction is to make a
contribution to the body of knowledge in one’s discipline. For promotion to be
granted, a faculty member must have published, adding to the body of
knowledge within the discipline throughout his or her career. A short period of
intensive research activity in the year immediately preceding promotion
consideration is not an acceptable substitute for a continuous and progressive
record. Evidence of research and scholarly activities shall include, but are not
limited to: articles and papers published in professional journals, grant writing
activity, editorial work, works of performing arts, papers presented at meetings of
professional societies, current research and creative activity that has not yet
resulted in publication or performance and papers and speeches at state and
national meetings.
Service. The third component to be evaluated includes service to the
department, college and university. Evidence of service activities shall include,
6
but are not limited to: serving as member or chairperson of departmental,
college, or university committees. External community service may include work
for professional organizations and community, and state and federal agencies. It
must be related to the faculty member’s special professional expertise; the
normal service activities associated with good citizenship will not be evaluated as
part of the promotion process.
Based on the rating of faculty by area of performance and by percentage of
fulltime workload (described elsewhere in this document) assigned to each
area of teaching, research/scholarly activities, and service the faculty
member applying for promotion must achieve a Rating Point Average of 3
before being granted promotion.
7