FAYETTEVILLE STATE
UNIVERSITY
University Task Force for a
Comprehensive Faculty
Evaluation
July 2009
[The committee was charged by Chancellor T.J. Bryan, in March 2005, to “develop a comprehensive
faculty evaluation system to replace the existing instrument. The new instrument should be designed for
the purposes of providing detailed feedback to the faculty member for use in professional growth and
development and providing valid and reliable information to be used in personnel decisions such as
reappointment, promotion, tenure, merit pay, and post-tenure review processes.”]
I.
ADMINISTRATION
Chancellor(s) at Fayetteville State University during the Development of the Instrument:
March 2005 Dr. T.J. Bryan, Chancellor of Fayetteville State University appointed the
Task Force for a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation
2007-2008
Dr. Lloyd V. Hackley, Interim Chancellor of Fayetteville State University
2008-present Dr. James A. Anderson, Chancellor of Fayetteville State University
Provost(s)/Vice-Chancellor(s) for Academic Affairs during the Development of the Instrument:
2005-2006
Dr. Marion Gillis-Olion
2006-2008
Dr. Juliette Bell
2008 (July-September)
Dr. Carol A. Blackshire-Belay
2008 (September) - present Dr. Jon Young,
II.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
(2005-2007) Original Members of the Task Force
Ms. Soni Martin, (Chair)
Department of Performing and Fine Arts, College of Humanities and Social Sciences
Dr. Sherrice Allen, Department of Natural Sciences
College of Basic and Applied Sciences
Dr. Michael DeValve, Department of Criminal Justice
College of Basic and Applied Sciences
Dr. Claude Hargrove, Department of Government and History
College of Humanities and Social Sciences
Dr. Joseph Johnson, Dean of the School of Education
Dr. Petur Jonsson, Chair of the Department of Managerial Economics and Finance
School of Business and Economics
Dr. Bobbie Perdue, Department of Nursing (Summer/Fall 2006)
College of Basic and Applied Sciences
Dr. Tom Van Cantfort, Department of Psychology
College of Basic and Applied Sciences
Dr. Peter Valenti, Director
Fayetteville State University Teaching and Learning Center
Department of English and Foreign Language
(2006-2008) Sub-Committees
Nursing:
Dr. Sonja Wilson, Chair
Dr. Frankie White-Parson
Natural Sciences:
Dr. Jianshi Wu, Chair
Dr. Valeria Fleming
Dr. Abdirahman Abokor
Dr. Daniel Autrey
Dr. Erin White
Math and Computer Science:
Dr. Guanghua Zhao, Chair
Dr. Sambit Bhattacharya
Dr. Ping-Chu Chu
Dr. Gaitri Yapa
Psychology:
Dr. Daniel Montoya, Chair
Dr. Doreen Hilton
Dr. Chris Ike
Dr. Vivian Dzokoto
Criminal Justice:
Dr. Julie Schroeder, Chair
Dr. Bonnie Grohe
Dr. Michael DeValve
Dr. Lori Guevara
School of Business and Economics: Dr. Petur Jonsson, Chair
School of Education:
Dr. Linda Wilson-Jones, Chair
Dr. Marion Gillis-Olion
Dr. Frank Merchant
Dr. Vikki Armstrong
Dr. Coleen Walker
Dr. Joseph Johnson
Dr. Priscilla Manarino-Leggett
Dr. LaDelle Olion
English/Foreign Language:
Dr. Tim Ajani, Chair
Dr. Gary McConnell
Sociology:
Dr. Jilly Ngwainmbi, Chair
Dr. Akbar Aghajanian
Dr. Druann Heckert
Government and History:
Dr. Ngozi Kamalu, Chair
Social Work:
Dr. Annie McCullough Chavis, Chair
Area of Music:
Dr. Sheryl Linch-Parker, Chair
Dr. Neal Finn
Dr. Don Parker
Area of Speech/Theater:
Ms. Phoebe Hall, Chair
Ms. Susan Paschal
Mr. Dave Griffie
Mr. Stan Waring
Ms. Avis Hatcher-Puzzo
Dr. Harmon Watson
Area of Communications:
Dr. Todd Frobish, Chair
Area of Visual Art:
Ms. Soni Martin, Chair
Ms. Socorro Hernandez-Hinek
Mr. Jonathan Chestnut
Dr. Rollinda Thomas
Mr. Shane Booth
(2007-2008) Original Members of the Task Force
Ms. Soni Martin, (Chair)
Department of Performing and Fine Arts, College of Humanities and Social Sciences
Dr. Sherrice Allen, Department of Natural Sciences
College of Basic and Applied Sciences
Dr. Michael DeValve, Department of Criminal Justice
College of Basic and Applied Sciences
Dr. Petur Jonsson, Chair of the Department of Managerial Economics and Finance
School of Business and Economics
Dr. Tom Van Cantfort, Department of Psychology
College of Basic and Applied Sciences
Dr. Peter Valenti, Director
Fayetteville State University Teaching and Learning Center
Department of English and Foreign Languages
(2008-2009) Original Members of the Task Force
Ms. Soni Martin, (Chair)
Department of Performing and Fine Arts, College of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Sherrice Allen,
Department of Natural Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Petur Jonsson, Chair Department of Finance, Economics, Entrepreneurship and Marketing
School of Business and Economics
Dr. Tom Van Cantfort, Interim Chair of the Department of Psychology
College of Arts and Sciences
(2008-2009) Members of the Ad-Hoc Task Force Committee
Dr. Melissa Barlow, Department of Criminal Justice
College of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Todd Frobish, Area of Communications, Department of Performing and Fine Art
College of Arts and Sciences
Ms. Phoebe Hall, Area of Speech/Theater, Department of Performing and Fine Art
College of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Carolyn Jewell, Department of Marketing and Business Education
School of Business and Economics
Dr. Oliver Johnson, Department of Social Work
College of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Linda Wilson-Jones, Educational Leadership
School of Education
Dr. Priscilla Manarino-Leggett, Department of Elementary Education
School of Education
Dr. Gary McConnell, Department of English and Foreign Languages
College of Arts and Sciences
Dr. David Montoya, Department of Psychology
College of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Jilly Ngwainmbi, Department of Sociology
College of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Joseph Osei, Department of Government and History
College of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Sheryl Linch-Parker, Area of Music, Department of Performing and Fine Art
College of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Shelvy Bratcher-Porter, Department of Nursing
College of Arts and Science
Dr. Jianshi Wu, Department of Natural Sciences
College of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Rammohan Yallapragada, Department of Accounting
School of Business
Dr. Guanghua Zhao, Department of Math and Computer Science
College of Arts and Sciences
III.
FACULTY PARTICPANTS IN PILOT/NEW STUDENT EVALUATION FORM
(2007-2008) Pilot Test:
School of Business and Economics:
Dr. Dothang Truong
Dr. Amon Okpala
Dr. Baeyong Lee
Dr. Thomas G.E. Williams
School of Education:
Dr. Linda Wilson-Jones
Dr. Saundra Shorter
Dr. Charlotte Boger
Dr. Priscilla Manarino-Leggett
Department of Natural Sciences Pilot Project Participants:
Dr. Abdirahman Abokor
Dr. Cevdet Akbay
Dr. Sherrice Allen
Dr. Daniel Autrey
Dr. Valeria Fleming
Dr. Shubo Han
Dr. Booker Juma
Dr. John Mattox
Dr. Subir Nagdas
Dr. Rahi Gurcharan
Dr. Jonas Okeagu
Dr. James Raynor
Dr. Steven Singletary
Dr. Erin White
Dr. Darren Pearson
Dr. Jianshi Wu
Dr. Alex Umantsev
Department of Performing and Fine Arts:
Ms. Susan Paschal
Dr. Eugenie Almeida
Department of Math and Computer Science:
Dr. Dwight House
Dr. Deepthika Senaratne
Dr. Nicoleta Bila
Department of Government and History:
Dr. Juan Ma
Department of Nursing:
Dr. Sonja Wilson
Department of Psychology:
Dr. Vivette Allen
Dr. David Wallace
Department of English:
Dr. Jane Peacock
Department of Social Work:
Dr. Chester Dilday
Dr. Aminifu Harvey
(2007-2008) Administered the Student Perception of Instructional Effectiveness Form
Department of English and Foreign Languages:
Dr. Booker T. Anthony
Dr. Jane Peacock
Department of Natural Sciences:
Dr. Booker Juma
Dr. Subir Nagdas
Dr. Steven Singletary
Dr. Alex Umantsev
Department of Performing and Fine Arts:
Dr. Eugenie Almeida, Speech/Theater
Dr. Todd Frobish, Speech/Theater
Ms. Socorro Hernandez-Hinek, Visual Art
Dr. Don Parker, Music
Dr. Diane Phoenix-Neal, Music
Department of Nursing:
Dr. Sonja Wilson
IV.
RECOMMENDATION #1
The instrument for the annual evaluation of faculty should be a totally narrative assessment
process. This recommendation is based on the voting of the committee members in the Task
Force for a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation and the Ad-Hoc Committee for a Comprehensive
Faculty Evaluation. Thirteen (13) members voted in favor of a fully narrative instrument; and
five (5) members voted for a narrative combined with numbers.
Purpose of the Narrative Assessment Instrument:
The newly developed annual comprehensive assessment of faculty is in the spirit of collegiality,
accurate assessment, transparency, and accountability. Its purpose is to assist faculty in obtaining
their goals of being excellent teachers, outstanding scholars, and good citizens of the academic
community. The narrative faculty assessment system should guide the faculty towards
reappointment, promotion, and tenure, and assist in deciding meritorious awards.
The narrative assessment instrument places accountability on the faculty being assessed to “meet
expectations” in the roles of teaching, scholarship, and service by submitting annual goals and
objectives, completing a faculty annual(self-assessment) report form, and submitting a portfolio
of evidence to a peer review committee and the chair. Since the assessment is faculty driven, the
peer review teams have the responsibility of carefully reviewing a faculty member’s goals, the
faculty annual (self-assessment) report form, and the portfolio of the faculty member in their
acknowledgement of all ratings on the peer review assessment form by indicating “meets
expectations, exceeds expectations, or needs improvement.”
Paradigm Shift
The success of the instrument requires a paradigm shift in the thinking of faculty and
administrators at Fayetteville State University. The rating of “Meets Expectations” is not to be
viewed as mediocre or average, but that the faculty member is meeting the guidelines that are
moving them toward reappointment, promotion and tenure. The rating of “exceeds expectation”
would indicate highly exceptional and outstanding activities and service. The rating of “needs
improvement” is an indicator of an area in which a member of the faculty should focus on to
improve the following academic year. The rating of “needs improvement” should not be viewed
as punitive, but as an advisement to assist the faculty in meeting his or her goals and objectives
that should lead the faculty towards reappointment, promotion and tenure. Repeated assessments
of “needs improvement” would be an indication for negative consequences.
V.
RECOMMENDATION #2
The committee voted not to administer a beta test for the 2009-2010 academic year.
Recommendation to administer or not to administer a beta test was close in votes. The committee
voted nine (9) in favor of not conducting a beta test in 2009-2010. Eight (8) of the committee
members voted in favor of a beta test in 2009-2010.
Therefore, the new annual assessment of faculty would apply to all faculty in the academic year
2009-2010. Exemption: Faculty in their second year of a two year contract in 2009-2010 would
be exempt from the new instrument for that academic year and remain with the existing process.
By 2010-2011, one-hundred percent (100%) of faculty would be participating in the new annual
assessment of faculty instrument.
VI.
RECOMMENDATION #3
To ensure impartiality and fairness, the following forms were developed as university-wide
forms: Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives (Appendix A), the first page of the Faculty
Annual (Self Assessment) Report (Appendix B), the Standardized Peer Assessment Form
(Appendix C), the Faculty Assessment by Chair Form (Appendix D), the 5-Year Peer
Assessment Matrix (Appendix E), and the 5-Year Assessment of Faculty by Chair Matrix
(Appendix F).
Overall Purpose and Guidelines for Each Document:
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives (Appendix A)
Faculty goals for the academic year should be developed at the very beginning of the academic
year and recorded on the Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives.
The initiatives of the school/department/program should be discussed during the first
school/department meeting of the new academic year for a member of the faculty to be able to
integrate their selection of school/department/program initiatives into their goals and objectives
for the academic year.
The goals set forth by the faculty member should include individual goals and a selection of
initiatives by the school/department/program, or initiatives of the university. These stated goals
for the academic year drive the self assessment instrument and the peer assessment instrument at
the end of the academic year.
It was strongly advised by members of the pilot test that the goals of each member of the faculty
be reviewed by the peer review committee chair and the department chair in an effort to advise
the faculty member if he or she is being too ambitious or submitting less than acceptable goals
for the academic year. Each faculty member is ultimately responsible for projecting appropriate
goals.
Before writing their goals, all members of the faculty should be very familiar with their Faculty
Annual (Self Assessment) Report, the Standardized Peer Assessment Form, and the Faculty
Assessment by Chair Form prior to writing their goals. Equally important are the
school/department/program Expectations for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure, their
Annual Report Guidelines, and the Peer Assessment Procedure.
The completed Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives form is to be submitted to their respective
peer review committee chairs and their department chairs by the end of August of the new
academic year. The faculty member should receive a signed copy of their Faculty Annual Goals
and Objectives form, no later than the end of September of the new academic year, from the peer
review committee chair and the department chair.
Any part of the faculty member’s goals can be altered or changed during mid-year.
The Faculty Goals and Objectives form should be in fill able format and posted on the proper
web page.
First Page of the Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report (Appendix B)
The first page of the this document should be university-wide and reflect the following
information: academic program, academic year, faculty name, fall and spring semester course
numbers and titles, number of students in each course, student evaluation score in each course, if
the course entailed new preparation, the number of advisees in each semester, and other
(independent studies and thesis/dissertation).
Standardized Peer Assessment Form (Appendix C)
Although additional descriptive text may be included in the Standardized Peer Assessment Form
depending on the school/department/program, the Standardized Peer Assessment Form itself is a
university-wide document to ensure equity and fairness.
The peer assessment process is integral to the success of this instrument. Assessment of faculty is
in the spirit of collegiality, accuracy, transparency, and accountability. Therefore, the assessment
purpose is to assist faculty in obtaining their goals of being excellent teachers, outstanding
scholars, and good citizens of the academic community. The narrative faculty assessment system
should guide the faculty toward reappointment, promotion, and tenure; and assist in deciding
meritorious awards.
For the peer assessment committee, any rating of “exceeds expectations” or “needs
improvement” must have a supporting narrative. It is highly recommended the peer assessment
committee complete the narrative for “meets expectations.” (The thoroughness of the peer
review committee is integral for the chair to keep his or her remarks and narrative short).
All documents should include the following statement in their Peer Assessment Procedure:
“In the event that the faculty member disagrees with the results on the Standardized Peer
Assessment Form, the faculty member will write a rebuttal to be submitted to the Department
Chair. This rebuttal should be submitted within 10 business days of receipt of the rating form.”
(See RECOMMENDATION # 6)
The Peer Assessment form should be in a fill able format and posted on the proper web page.
Faculty Assessment by Chair Form (Appendix D)
Although additional descriptive text may be included in the Faculty Assessment by Chair Form
depending on the school/department/program, the Faculty Assessment by Chair Form is
university-wide to ensure equity and fairness (see Appendix D). Chairs have the opportunity to
limit their comments if the peer review committee has been thorough in their assessment.
The original peer assessment should remain with the chair’s assessment form for record keeping,
documentation, awards, and merit pay. Copies of both assessments should be given to the faculty
member being assessed for their reappointment, promotion, tenure, and post-tenure portfolios.
If a faculty member does not agree with the chair’s assessment, he or she can follow the
procedure in place for the present instrument: “any member of the faculty who does not endorse
the evaluation by the Chair should request an audience with the Dean” for resolution (See
RECOMMENATION #6).
The Faculty Assessment by Chair Form should be in fill able format and posted on the proper
web page.
5-Year Summary Matrixes (Appendix E and F)
The 5-Year Peer Assessment Matrix (see Appendix E) and the 5-Year Faculty Assessment by
Chair Matrix (see Appendix F) does not replace the narrative assessment forms of the peer(s) and
the department chair. The matrix is only a quick summary review of the results of those two
narrative documents. Faculty should keep an accurate original of the two documents to travel
with the portfolio each year for the annual assessment process, include in the portfolio for any
personnel action, and include in the portfolio when competing for a university-wide award.
VII.
RECOMMENDATION #4
Understanding that a school/department/program includes discipline-specific standards and
activities, the following forms vary in language depending on the school/department/program:
Expectations for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure, the Annual Report Guidelines, the
Peer Assessment Procedure, and the Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report after page 1
(page 1 of Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report is university-wide).
Overall Purpose and Guidelines for Each Document:
Expectations for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure (See Appendix G through U)
Each school/department/program specifies its own discipline-specific guidelines and
expectations reappointment, promotion, and tenure. These guidelines are an attempt to assist the
faculty in their goals of obtaining reappointment, promotion, and tenure; but do not override
Fayetteville State University’s policy of reappointment, promotion, and tenure, the established
Procedures for Promotion and/or Tenure at Fayetteville State University, or the UNC Code.
All faculty, new and established, should have a copy of their discipline-specific Expectations for
Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure. The document should be posted on the proper web page.
Annual Report Guidelines (See Appendix G through Appendix U)
Each college/school/department/program specifies its own general philosophy and the
explanations that help guide the faculty in understanding discipline-specific activities and
performances
All faculty, new and established, should have a copy of their discipline-specific Annual Report
Guidelines. The document should be posted on the proper web page.
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report (See Appendix G through U)
The cover page of this document should be university-wide and reflect the following
information: academic program, academic year, faculty name, fall and spring semester course
numbers and titles, number of students in each course, student evaluation score in each course, if
the course entailed new preparation, the number of advisees in each semester, and other
(independent studies and thesis/dissertation) -see Appendix B.
Depending on the discipline, additional information may be added. The remainder of the
document should be discipline-specific with the understanding that the Standardized Peer
Assessment Rating Form and Faculty Assessment by Chair Form are filled out by looking at the
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report and the portfolio.
It is strongly recommended that the Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report be similar to the
Standardized Peer Assessment Form for expediency of rating by the peers and the chair.
The Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report form should be in fill able format and posted on
the proper web page
Peer Assessment Procedure (See Appendix G though Appendix U)
Each department or school has set up their own peer assessment procedure for selecting the peer
review committee(s). At the beginning of the semester, each faculty member should be clear on
the selection and structure of their peer review committee(s).
At the beginning of each academic year, all departments and schools should have the option of
voting to change the structure of their peer review committee(s). All changes should be noted in
the minutes from the school or department meeting.
All faculty, new and established, should have a copy of their discipline-specific Peer Assessment
Procedure. The document should be posted on the proper web page.
Forms Developed by each School/Department/Program:
The School of Business and the School of Education decided upon one instrument for their
Expectations for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure, their Annual Report Guidelines, their
Peer Assessment Procedure and their Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report. In reference to
the above forms, due to the diversity of the College of Arts and Sciences, each department
developed their own forms. In reference to the above forms, within the Department of
Performing and Fine Arts, each program developed their own forms.
Appendix G:
Appendix H:
Appendix I:
Appendix J:
Appendix K:
Appendix L:
Appendix M:
Appendix N:
Appendix O:
Appendix P:
Appendix Q:
Appendix R:
Appendix S:
Appendix T:
Appendix U:
VIII.
Forms for the School of Business
Forms for the School of Education
Natural Science (College of Arts and Science)
Math and Computer Science (College of Arts and Science)
English and Foreign Language (College of Arts and Science)
Criminal Justice (College of Arts and Science)
Psychology (College of Arts and Science)
Sociology (College of Arts and Science)
Government and History (College of Arts and Science)
Social Work (College of Arts and Science)
Visual Arts (Department of Performing and Fine Art, College of Arts and
Science)
Music (Department of Performing and Fine Art, College of Arts and
Science)
Speech and Theater (Department of Performing and Fine Art, College of
Arts and Science)
Communication (Department of Performing and Fine Art, College of Arts
and Science)
Nursing (College of Arts and Sciences)
RECOMMENDATION #5
The committee recommends a portfolio be required to accompany the Faculty Annual Goals
and Objectives form and the Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report. The portfolio is an
important accountability and verification system for the peer review committee and the chair
The school/department/program will decide if the portfolio will be a traditional binder or in an
electronic format. The set-up of the portfolio should follow the peer review assessment form so
the peer review committee does not have to search for documents.
IX.
RECOMMENDATION #6
A procedure should be in place for a member of the faculty who disagrees with the results of
the Peer Assessment Committee and/or the Assessment of Faculty by the Chair.
IX.1 In the event that the faculty member disagrees with the results on the Standardized Peer
Assessment Form, the faculty member will write a rebuttal to be submitted to the Department
Chair. This rebuttal should be submitted within 10 business days of receipt of the rating form.
IX.2 If a faculty member does not agree with the chair’s assessment, he or she can follow the
procedure in place for the present instrument: “any member of the faculty who does not endorse
the evaluation by the Chair should request an audience with the Dean” for resolution.
X.
RECOMMENDATION #7
The present Application Procedures for Promotion and/or Tenure at Fayetteville State
University will need to be revised and approved to fit the newly developed annual assessment
of faculty (See appendix V).
XI.
RECOMMENDATION #8
Merit pay and awards should be based the combined narratives of the self assessment, the peer
assessment and the chair’s assessment.
XII.
RECOMMENDATION #9
The existing documents for Teacher of the Year and the Board of Governor’s Award for
Excellence in Teaching will need to be revised (Appendix W.)
XIII.
RECOMMENDATION #10
The committee recommends 4 university-wide annual awards. (1) To continue the existing
Teacher of the Year, a comprehensive award that includes excellence in all three roles: teaching,
research/creativity, and service; (2) University Teaching Award includes exceptional
contributions and exceptional activities in the role of teaching as reflected in the section on
“teaching” in the Peer and Chair Assessments; (3) University Research/Creativity Award
includes exceptional contributions and exceptional activities in the section on research/creativity
in the Peer and Chair Assessments; (4) University Service Award includes exceptional
contributions and exceptional activities in the role of service as reflected in the section on
“teaching” in the Peer and Chair Assessments.
XIII.1 Those awards which do not have criteria written will need to be created. The existing
Teacher of the Year Award documents at Fayetteville State University will need to be changed to
fit the new annual assessment instrument.
XIII.2 Recommendations for the above awards should be nominated by the peer review
committee(s) and/or Chair(s), to be placed before each school or department for a vote at the
appropriate time. A majority of the faculty in each school or department should be in agreement
on the process.
Following the existing award process, the School/College Awards Committee should decide on
the School/College level of the above awards. The university-wide Teacher of the Year
Committee should assemble to decide on all of the above awards from the departments and
colleges/schools.
XIV. RECOMMENDATION #11
The newly developed instrument should be presented at the pre-school conference 2009-2010
and reviewed in each school/department at the beginning of the academic year so that each
member of the faculty is clear on all documents, procedure, and each individual
recommendation approved.
XV.
RECOMMENDATION #12
The newly developed instrument should be reviewed after the first year and every five years for
recommendations.
XV.1 Changes within the departments or schools that do not require changes to university-wide
assessment documents should be addressed after the first year and reviewed every five years.
XV.2 Any recommendations for changes to the university-wide assessment documents should
be addressed after the first year; approved by the departments, schools, Academic Affairs
Committee of the Faculty Senate, the Faculty Senate, the Provost, and the Chancellor. The
instrument should be reviewed every five years.
XVI. Summary Overview of the Process
All documents, research, and process can be viewed on the Task Force for A Comprehensive
Faculty Evaluation website at http://www.uncfsu.edu/facultystaff.htm. (Appendix X is a brief
overview and summary).
XVII. Summary of Votes and Concerns for the Instrument from Committees
(Appendix Y)
Appendix A
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
(3 Copies: Self, Chair, and Peer Review Committee)
For Academic Year _________________
(School/Department/Program) ___________________________________
By the end of August of each academic year, each faculty of the department shall identify their
goals and objectives for the upcoming academic year in each of the following categories. Faculty
submits their goals/objectives to be reviewed by their Chair and peer review committee. Chair is
required to give faculty feedback. Faculty can revise their goals and objectives mid-year.
Faculty Name: __________________________________________
Teaching goals and objective (All faculty will be assessed on Teaching 1.1-1.7):
Scholarly goals and objectives:
Service goals and objectives:
Specific university/school/department/program initiatives:
_______________________________________
Faculty Signature
___________________
Date
________________________________________
Dept. Chair Signature
___________________
Date
_______________________________________
Peer Review Committee Chair Signature
___________________
Date
Appendix B
FACULTY ANNUAL
(SELF ASSESSMENT) REPORT
(First Page Only)
FACULTY ANNUAL (SELF ASSESSMENT) REPORT
(School/ Department/Program) _____________________________________
Academic Year: __________________
Faculty Name: ___________________
TEACHING
Courses:
Number
Student New
Title
Students
Evaluation
Prep
Fall Semester:
______
________________
______
________________
______
________________
______
________________
______
________________
________
________
________
________
________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
____
____
____
____
____
Number
# Fall Advisees _________________ # of Advisee graduated in December ___________
Spring Semester:
______
________________
______
________________
_____
________________
______
________________
______
________________
________
________
________
________
________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
____
____
____
____
____
# Spring Advisees _____________ # of Advisee graduated in May ___________
Summer Sessions:
______
________________
______
________________
______
________________
______
________________
Independent Studies:
Thesis/Dissertation:
Other:
________
________
________
________
__________
__________
__________
__________
____
____
____
____
Appendix C
Standardized Peer Assessment Form
Standardized Peer Assessment Form
In each of the three faculty roles, rate each activity with an appropriate check. Any rating of “Exceeds
Expectation, Needs Improvement” or writing in NA (Not Applicable) in a text box requires an explanation.
1. Teaching (All faculty will be assessed on Teaching 1.1-1.7)
1.1 Currency of Course Content:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.2 Instructional Design, Delivery, & Improvement:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.3 Course Management:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.4 Faculty Pedagogical Development/Collaboration:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.5 Contributions to Learning and Outcome Assessments:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.6 Student Advising: (NA if faculty member does not teach in a degree program)
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.7 Improvements Made Based on Student Evaluations and/or Class Visitation Requested:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.8 Other:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
2. Scholarly/Creative Activities
2.1 Currency & Professional Development:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
2.3 Discipline Based (Basic/Applied) Research/Creative: (Faculty member engaged in
research/creative activities appropriate to discipline)
Exceeds Expectation
Meets Expectation
Justification:
Needs Improvement
2.4 Pedagogical Research/Creative: (Faculty member engaged in research/creative activities associated
with pedagogy)
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
2.4 Grant Writing: (Faculty member seeks, secures and/or managing external grant funds to support
research/creative activities)
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
2.5 Other:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
3. Service
.
3.1 Department Service:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
3.2 School/College Service:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
3.3 University Service:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
3.4 Community & State Service:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
3.5 Service to Profession or Discipline:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
3.6 Other:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
_______________________________________________
Chair, Peer Review Committee
________________
Date
_______________________________________________
Faculty Signature
Approve _______________ Disapprove_____________
_________________
Date
Appendix D
Faculty Assessment by Chair Form
Faculty Assessment by Chair Form
Faculty ________________________________________________________
School/Department/Program _______________________________________
In each of the three faculty roles, rate each activity with an appropriate check. Any rating of “Exceeds
Expectation, Needs Improvement” or writing in NA (Not Applicable) in a text box requires an explanation.
1. Teaching (All faculty will be assessed on Teaching 1.1-1.7)
1.1 Currency of Course Content:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.2 Instructional Design, Delivery, & Improvement:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.3 Course Management:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
1.4 Faculty Pedagogical Development/Collaboration/Collegiality:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.5 Contributions to Learning and Outcome Assessments:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.6 Student Advising: (NA if faculty member does not teach in a degree program)
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.7 Improvements Made Based on Student Evaluations and/or Class Visitation Requested:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
1.8 Other:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
2. Scholarly/Creative Activities.
2.1 Currency & Professional Development:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
2.2 Discipline Based (Basic/Applied) Research/Creative: (Faculty member engaged in
research/creative activities appropriate to discipline)
Exceeds Expectation
Meets Expectation
Justification:
Needs Improvement
2.3 Pedagogical Research/Creative: (Faculty member engaged in research/creative activities associated
with pedagogy)
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
2.4 Grant Writing: (Faculty member seeks, secures and/or managing external grant funds to support
research/creative activities)
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
2.5 Other:
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
3. Service
.
3.1 Department Service
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
3.2 School/College Service
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
3.3 University Service
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
3.4 Community & State Service
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
3.5 Service to Profession or Discipline
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
3.6 (Administrative) Regularly Attends Meetings
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
3.7 (Administrative) Completes Administrative Assignments in a Timely Manner
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
3.8 (Administrative) Regularly Meets Office Hours
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
3.9 Other
Exceeds Expectation
Justification:
Meets Expectation
Needs Improvement
SIR Average _______________________
Comments:
Semester/Year_____________________
SIR Average _______________________
Comments:
Semester/Year_____________________
Chair’s Signature________________________________ Date __________________
Faculty Signature ________________________________ Date __________________
Agree _________
Disagree _________
Appendix E
5-Year Peer Assessment Overview Matrix
(Example)
5-Year Peer Assessment Matrix
Matrix is only an overview of the rating which was assigned. Matrixes should accompany the faculty each year to
the peer assessment committee, chair assessment and any personnel actions.)
Faculty/Rank: _______________________________________________________
School/Department/Program:
________________________________________
2009-2010
Year
2010-011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
19
19
19
TEACHING
1.1 Currency of Course Content
1.2 Instructional Design/
Delivery and Improvement
1.3 Course Management
1.4 Faculty Pedagogical
Development/Collaboration
1.5 Contributions to Learning &
Outcomes/ Assessments
1.6 Student Advising
1.7 Improvements Based on SIR/
Class Visitation Requested
1.8 Other
M
M
M
M
E
E
NA
NA
SCHOLARLY RESEARCH/CREATIVE ACTIVITIES
2.1 Currency and Professional
Development
2.2 Discipline Based
Research/Creative
2.3 Pedagogical Research
2.4 Grant Writing
2.5 Other
M
M
E
NA
NA
SERVICE
3.1 Department Service
3.2 School/College Service
3.3 University Service
3.4 Community &State Service
3.5 Service to Profession or
Discipline
3.6 Other
M
M
M
NI
E
NA
Peer Reviewer Initials/Date
Faculty Initials/Date
Total # Exceeds Expectations
Total # Meets Expectations
Total # Needs Improvements
Total # Not Applicable
Total = 19
4
9
1
5
19
19
LEGEND: E=Exceeds Expectations; M=Meets Expectations; N=Needs Improvement; NA=Not applicable
Appendix F
5-Year Faculty Assessment by Chair Matrix
(Example)
5-Year Faculty Assessment by Chair Matrix
Matrix is only an overview of the rating which was assigned. Matrix should accompany the faculty each
year to the peer assessment committee, chair assessment and any personnel actions.
Faculty/Rank: _____________Jane Doe_________________________________
School/Department/Program: _________________________________________
2009-2010
2010-011
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Year
TEACHING
1.1 Currency of Course Content
1.2 Instructional Design/
Delivery and Improvement
1.3 Course Management
1.4 Faculty Pedagogical
Development/Collaboration
1.5 Contributions to Learning
&Outcomes/ Assessments
1.6 Student Advising
1.7 Improvements Based on SIR/
Class Visitation Requested
1.8 Other
M
M
M
M
E
E
NA
NA
SCHOLARLY RESEARCH/CREATIVE ACTIVITIES
2.1 Currency and Professional
M
Development
2.2 Discipline Based
Research/Creative
2.3 Pedagogical Research
2.4 Grant Writing
2.5 Other
M
E
NA
NA
SERVICE
3.1 Dept. Service
3.2 School/College Service
3.3 University Service
3.4 Community &State Service
3.5 Service to Profession or
Discipline
3.6 Regularly Attends Meetings
3.7 Completes Administrative
Assignments in a Timely Manner
3.8 Regularly Meets Office
Hours
3.9 Other
Chair Initials/Date
Faculty Initials/Date
Total # Exceeds Expectations
Total # Meets Expectations
Total # Needs Improvements
Total # Not Applicable
Total = 22
M
M
M
E
E
M
M
NI
NA
5
11
1
5
22
22
22
22
22
LEGEND: E=Exceeds Expectations; M=Meets Expectations; NI=Needs Improvement; NA=Not applicable
Appendix V
Present Application Procedures for
Promotion and Tenure at Fayetteville State
University
Present Application Procedures for Promotion and/or Tenure
at Fayetteville State University
Tenure policies and Regulations
The Fayetteville State University Tenure Policies and Regulations documents sets forth
the general provisions for the initiation, review, and approval of appointments, reappointments,
promotions, and tenure of faculty at Fayetteville State University. These provisions, when
enacted, have the potential to insure the requirements of affirmative action and academic due
process. The purpose of this Guide is to serve as a reminder of established procedures and to
request that faculty exercise uniformity in the application process. It is essential that faculty
members, after having fulfilled the terms and conditions of the current rank and appointment,
offer the required documentation to support the application for change of status.
The following advice regarding documents to support the application process for
promotion and/or tenure should prove helpful to faculty.
Documents to Support Reappointment, Promotion and/or Tenure
In addition to the information on the Comprehensive Evaluation Form 5-Year Peer Matrix and
5-Year Faculty Assessment by Chair Matrix, it is recommended that each faculty member
present the following documents to his or her department chairperson to support the request for
promotion and/or tenure:
1. A letter to Department Head requesting a change in status;
2. An original letter of recommendation from the academic department
chairperson and the respective dean which supports the validity of invalidity of the request;
3. A current resume;
4. Copies of student evaluations, peer evaluations peer and department chair assessments,
and other documents to demonstrate effective teaching;
5. Copies of materials to demonstrate significant contributions to curricular
improvement, research, scholarly publications or artistic activity, and
professional societies;
6. Copies of materials that attest to University service; and
7. Copies of documents that illustrate involvement in community/public service.
Format
The documents submitted should be clearly indexed, separated according to categories,
and presented in a loose leaf binder that accommodates well the materials to be considered.
Promotion and Tenure
VERIFICATION FOR MEETING CRITERIA
These guidelines and their included criteria for promotion and/or tenure must be
accumulated from the last requested and approved personnel action. “Last personnel action” is
defined as “initial appointment to a faculty position, granting of tenure, or granting of a
promotion.”
Verification of the criteria (accumulated points for service and scholarly activity, refereed
journal publication, and average teaching performance rating) must be made at the departmental
level and clearly displayed for perusal by all levels of review above the departmental level.
If a request for a personnel action is approved, publications, points for service and
scholarly activities, and average teaching performance ratings accumulated after the date of the
requested action, but before the date of implementation of the approved personnel action, can be
applied towards the next anticipated personnel action.
CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION ACCORDING TO RANK
From Assistant Professor to Associate Professor:
Must have accumulated 30 points in University/Community Service and
Research/Scholarly Activities
PLUS
Publish one (1) article in a refereed journal
Publish one (1) article in refereed journal/creative equivalencies where applicable
PLUS
Have an average Teaching Performance rating of 3.75 or higher for the period of time at
the rank of Assistant Professor.
Have peer and chair assessment ratings which consistently show evidence of “meeting
expectations” as outlined in the school/department/program reappointment, promotion,
and tenure guidelines according to rank.
From Associate Professor to Professor:
Must have accumulated 40 points in University/Community Service
and Research/Scholarly Activities
PLUS
Publish two (2) articles in refereed journals
Publish two (2) articles in refereed journals/ creative equivalencies where applicable
PLUS
Have an average Teaching Performance rating of 4.00 or higher for
period of time at the rank of Associate Professor.
Have peer and chair assessment ratings which consistently showsevidence of “meeting
expectations” as outlined in the school/department/program reappointment, promotion,
and tenure guidelines according to guidelines according to rank.
CRITERIA FOR TENURE ACCORDING TO RANK
While at rank of Assistant Professor: (No tenure at this rank)
Must have accumulated 30 points in University/Community Service
and Research/Scholarly Activities.
PLUS
Publish one (1) refereed journal article
PLUS
Have an average Teaching Performance rating 3.75 or higher for the
period of time at the rank of Assistant Professor
While at rank of Associate Professor:
Must have accumulated 40 points in University/Community Service
And Research/Scholarly Activities
PLUS
Publish two (2) articles in refereed journals
Publish two (2) articles in refereed journals/ creative equivalencies where applicable
PLUS
Have an average Teaching Performance rating of 4.00 or higher for
the period of time at the rank of Associate Professor.
Have peer and chair assessment ratings which consistently show evidence of “meeting
expectations” as outlined in the school/department/program reappointment, promotion,
and tenure guidelines according to guidelines according to rank
While at rank of Professor:
Must have accumulated 40 points in University/Community Service
And Research/Scholarly Activities
PLUS
Publish three (3) articles in refereed journals during the last five
years including one (1) since the last personnel action
Publish three (3) articles in refereed journals during the last five
years including one (1) since the last personnel action/ creative equivalencies where
applicable
PLUS
Have an average Teaching Performance rating of 4.00 or higher for
the period of time at the rank of Professor.
Have peer and chair assessment ratings which consistently show evidence of “meeting
expectations” as outlined in the school/department/program reappointment, promotion,
and tenure guidelines according to guidelines according to rank.
Compliance with Minimum Criteria
for Personnel Action Requests
at the Rank of Assistant Professor
Name
Request for
Promotion
to
Associate
Professor
or
Tenure
Points
for
Service
and
Scholarly
Activity
30 points
required
Average
Teaching
Performance
Rating
for Period
Number
of
Refereed
Journal
Articles
3.75
required
Chair
Assessment
of Faculty
Showing
Consistent
Evidence of
Meeting
Expectations
at This Rank
1 article
required
Plus
Peer
Assessment
and Chair
Assessment
Summary
Matrixes
Number of
Other
Publications
(nonrefereed,
book
chapters)
Number
of
Grants
Compliance With Minimum Criteria
for Personnel Action Requests
at the Rank of Associate Professor
Name
Request for
Promotion
to Professor
or
Tenure
Points
for
Service
and
Scholarly
Activity
40 points
required
Average
Teaching
Performance
Rating
for Period
Number
of
Refereed
Journal
Articles
4.00
required
Chair
Assessment
of Faculty
Showing
Consistent
Evidence of
Meeting
Expectations
at This Rank
2
articles
required
Plus
Both Peer
Assessment
and Chair
Assessment
Summary
Matrixes
Number of
Other
Publications
(nonrefereed,
book
chapters)
Number
of
Grants
Criteria Compliance of
Tenure Requests at the Rank of Professor
Name
Points for
Service and
Scholarly
Activity
40 points
required
Average
Teaching
Performance
Rating
for Period
4.00 required
Chair
Assessment
of Faculty
Showing
Consistent
Evidence of
Meeting
Expectations
at this Rank
Plus
Both Peer
Assessment
and Chair
Assessment
Summary
Matrixes
Number of
Refereed
Journal
Articles
3 in the last
5 years
including 1
since the
last
personnel
action
required
Number of
Other
Publications
(non-refereed,
book
chapters)
Number of
Grants
Appendix W
Revision of Existing Awards Documents:
Teacher of the Year
and
Board of Governor’s Excellence in
Teaching
2006-2007 Example
FAYETTEVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY
TEACHER OF THE YEAR
Levels of Awards
Departments (including University College)
Schools/Colleges
University
$
500.00
1,000.00
4,000.00
At each level of award, the nominees must adhere to the eligibility requirements below:
Eligibility for Selection
1.
Tenure or non-tenured full-time faculty.
2.
A member of the faculty at FSU for a minimum of three years.
3.
They must have an average of 4.50 or better on the Comprehensive Evaluation for each
for the previous three years. Must have peer and chair assessment ratings with evidence
of consistently meeting expectation in combination with exceeding expectations.
4.
They must be teaching in the academic year when selected.
5.
They must be teaching at least two courses each semester.
6.
A minimum average rating of 4.25 on the student evaluations for each of the previous
three years.
Selection procedures and Guidelines
The Campus-wide Selection Committee will include the following: four faculty members (one from each
college or school), one student, one alumnus, and the four academic deans. The Special Assistant to the
Chancellor will chair the committee.
1.
The department chair will identify department faculty who satisfy the minimum
requirements.
2.
Each department may nominate one faculty member.
3.
Nominee is selected by vote of department faculty.
4.
The departmental nominee must submit a portfolio of materials from the past three
years for review by the selection committee. The portfolio must include the following
materials:
a.
Copies of syllabi and other relevant materials that the faculty member has
developed.
b.
Copies of all peer-teaching evaluations during the last three academic years.
c.
A copy of the nominee’s resume.
d.
Three names of colleagues from whom the committee may request letters of
support.
5.
e.
Three names of former students and/or alumni from whom the committee may
request letters of support.
f.
Average scores of student evaluations for each course for the previous three
years. Verification of scores will be obtained form the Office of Institutional
Research.
g.
Copies of Comprehensive Evaluations for the previous three years.
h.
Copies of articles, papers from the past three years, etc. or pictures or
recordings of creative works.
i.
Programs, letters or brochures to indicate service from the past three years.
Additional data of teaching effectiveness may be sent to the selection committee to
include the following:
a.
b.
Videotapes of classroom teaching.
Classroom observations by committee members.
6.
Departmental finalists are the pool of candidates from which the school/college level and
the university level awards will be made.
7.
Please do not submit supporting documents older than three years since the committee
will be looking at supporting materials between 2003-2006.
Timetable
1.
Deadline for receiving all portfolios for Departmental Award nominations in the
respective departmental office is March 9, 2007.
2.
Nominations and supporting documents for the Schools/Colleges Awards should be sent
to the office of the respective Dean by April 2, 2007.
3.
Names of department award finalist and supporting documents should be submitted to the
campus-wide selection committee for the University Award by April 13, 2007.
4.
The campus-wide selection committee will begin screening nominations April 20, 2007.
5.
Recommendations to Chancellor April 27, 2007.
FAYETTEVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY
TEACHER OF THE YEAR AWARD RATING FORM
NAME________________________________________RANK/TITLE:_________________________
ADDRESS:___________________________________________________________________________
HOME TELEPHONE#________________________________BUSINESS
TELEPHONE#__________
PART I. Comprehensive Evaluations Chair Assessment of Faculty
2003-2004
2004-2005
Score
Narrative
(translated into a score)
Score
Narrative
(translated into a score)
2005-2006
Score
Narrative
(translated into a score)
Comprehensive Evaluation Average Score: Chair Assessment of Faculty (Translated into an
Average Score)
PART II. Student Evaluations
Fall 2003 and Spring 2004
Average
Fall 2004 and Spring 2005
Average
PART III. Peer Evaluations Peer Assessment Form
Average 2003-2004
Average 2004-2005
Narrative
Narrative
(translated into a score)
(translated into a score)
Fall 2005 and Spring 2006
Average
Average 2005-2006
Narrative
( translated into a score)
Peer Evaluation Average Score: Peer Assessment (Translated into an Average Score)
PART IV. PORTFOLIO
SCORE:
PART V. SUMMARY
Average Rating/score
Part I. Comprehensive
Evaluations
Chair Assessment of Faculty
Part II. Student Evaluations
Part III. Peer Evaluations
Peer Assessment
Part IV. Portfolio
COMPOSITE RATING:
2006-2007 Example
Percentage
20
20
20
40
Average
Rating/Score X%
FAYETTEVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY
BOARD OF GOVERNORS’ AWARD
FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING
Eligibility for Selection:
To be eligible for the Board of Governors’ Teaching Award, the nominee must meet the
following criteria:
1. Have tenure.
2. Have taught at FSU for at least seven years.
3. Have an average of 4.50 or better on the Comprehensive Evaluation for each of
the previous three years. Have Chair Assessment of Faculty forms which shows evidence of
consistently meeting expectations and exceeding expectations in appropriate faculty roles
3. Have taught in the academic year when selected.
4. Must have taught at least two courses each semester.
5. Have not previously received the award.
7. Have obtained a minimum rating of 4.25 on student evaluations for each of the
previous three years.
Selection Procedures and Guidelines
The Campus-wide Selection Committee will include: representation from the
administration, faculty, student body and alumni. The Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs will chair the committee.
Nomination
1.
Faculty, students, administrators and alumni are eligible to nominate
persons for consideration and send their names to the Campus Selection
Committee Chair. Letters of nomination should include strong evidence of
why the nominee should be considered for this award.
2.
Nominations made by persons external to the campus should be sent to the
Selection Committee Chair. The Chair will send the nominations to the
appropriate department to determine eligibility.
3.
All nominees who meet the eligibility criteria must submit the following
data:
a.
A type-written statement of approximately two to four pages
which articulates each finalist’s teaching philosophy and
methods to achieve educational goals.
b.
A copy of the nominee’s resume.
c.
A copy of the Chairperson’s Excellence in Teaching Rating Form.
d.
A summary of student evaluations for each course from the past
three years. Verification of scores will be obtained from the
Office of Institutional Research.
e.
Copies of all peer teaching evaluations during the last three years.
Copies of all peer assessments during the last three years.
f.
Copies of peer assessment summary matrix and the chair assessment of faculty
summary matrix with appropriate initials.
g.
Three letters of support from former students and/or alumni.
h.
Three letter of support from colleagues.
i.
Copies of syllabi and other relevant materials that the faculty
member has developed for three different courses that the member
has taught. Syllabi for courses taught must correlate with the
student evaluations submitted.
j.
Other teaching materials developed by the nominee which may
include videotapes of classroom teaching.
4. Additional data on teaching effectiveness may be collected by the Selection Committee to include:
a.
Classroom observations by committee members.
b.
Survey of alumni and current students via telephone.
1.
Deadline for nominations is January 8, 2007. Faculty may
apply without nominations.
2.
Deadline for submitting all portfolios and supporting data to
the Campus - wide Screening Committee is January 22, 2007,
no exceptions.
3.
Committee will begin screening nominations January 23,
2007.
4.
Recommendation to Chancellor Bryan January 26, 2007.
5.
Notify finalist January 29, 2007.
6.
Recommendation to President Bowles February 1, 2007.
Timeline
Allocation
Board of Governors’ Award for Excellence in Teaching - $7,500
PART I.
Components of Effective and Excellent Teaching
SCORE:
PART II.
Peer Evaluations Peer Assessments
Average 2003-2004
Average 2004- 2005
Average 2005- 2006
Narrative score
Narrative score
Narrative score
Peer Evaluation Average Score:
PART III.
Fall 2003 and Spring 200 4
Average
Student Evaluations
Fall 2004 and Spring 2005
Average
Fall 2005and Spring 2006
Average
Student Evaluation Average Score:
PART IV.
Portfolio
SCORE:
PART V.
Summary
Average Rating/Score
Percentage
20
Part I. Components of Effective and
Excellent Teaching
20
Part II. Peer Evaluations
20
Part III. Student Evaluations
40
Part IV. Portfolio
COMPOSITE RATING:
Average
Rating/Score
X%
Appendix Y
Summary of Votes
and
Signature Sheets by
School/Department/Program
School/Department/Program Voting Results (comments where applicable)
School/Department/Program
Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
Annual Report Guidelines
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
Peer Assessment Procedure
Standardized Peer Assessment
Faculty Assessment by Chair
Five Year Matrixes
Comments:
Approved
24
24
24
23
24
23
23
23
Disapproved
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
Abstained
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
School/Department/Program
Approved
Disapproved
Abstained
School of Business and Economics
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
17
1
3
Annual Report Guidelines
17
1
3
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
17
1
3
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
17
1
3
Peer Assessment Procedure
17
1
3
Standardized Peer Assessment
17
1
3
Faculty Assessment by Chair
17
1
3
Five Year Matrixes
17
1
3
Comments: At the time of voting, 21 faculty were present at the meeting. Faculty
expressed intention to continue to fine tune their instrument during the next academic
year.
School/Department/Program
School of Education
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
Annual Report Guidelines
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
Peer Assessment Procedure
Standardized Peer Assessment
Faculty Assessment by Chair
Five Year Matrixes
Comments:
Approved
49
50
51
52
52
52
48
52
Disapproved
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Abstained
1
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
Department of Performing and Fine Arts (4 Programs)
Approved
Disapproved
Abstained
PFA Program: Communications
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
Annual Report Guidelines
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
Peer Assessment Procedure
Standardized Peer Assessment
Faculty Assessment by Chair
Five Year Matrixes
Comments:
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PFA Program: Visual Art
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
Annual Report Guidelines
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
Peer Assessment Procedure
Standardized Peer Assessment
Faculty Assessment by Chair
Five Year Matrixes
Comments:
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PFA Program: Music
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
Annual Report Guidelines
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
Peer Assessment Procedure
Standardized Peer Assessment
Faculty Assessment by Chair
Five Year Matrixes
Comments:
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PFA Program: Speech/Theater
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
Annual Report Guidelines
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
Peer Assessment Procedure
Standardized Peer Assessment
Faculty Assessment by Chair
Five Year Matrixes
Comments:
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
School/Department/Program
Department of Criminal Justice
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
Annual Report Guidelines
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
Peer Assessment Procedure
Standardized Peer Assessment
Faculty Assessment by Chair
Five Year Matrixes
Comments:
Approved
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Disapproved
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Abstained
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
School/Department/Program
Approved
Disapproved
Abstained
Department of Social Work
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
6
1
1
Annual Report Guidelines
8
0
0
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
8
0
0
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
8
0
0
Peer Assessment Procedure
8
0
0
Standardized Peer Assessment
8
0
0
Faculty Assessment by Chair
8
0
0
Five Year Matrixes
6
1
1
Comments: Communicated by one faculty member, “only tenured faculty should have
served as a committee member on this Task Force.”
School/Department/Program
Department of Nursing
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
Annual Report Guidelines
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
Peer Assessment Procedure
Standardized Peer Assessment
Faculty Assessment by Chair
Five Year Matrixes
Comments:
Approved
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Disapproved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Abstained
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
School/Department/Program
Department of Natural Sciences
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
Annual Report Guidelines
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
Peer Assessment Procedure
Standardized Peer Assessment
Faculty Assessment by Chair
Five Year Matrixes
Comments:
Approved
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Disapproved
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Abstained
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
School/Department/Program
Approved
Disapproved
Abstained
Department of Psychology
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
12
0
0
Annual Report Guidelines
12
0
0
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
12
0
0
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
12
0
0
Peer Assessment Procedure
12
0
0
Standardized Peer Assessment
12
0
0
Faculty Assessment by Chair
12
0
0
Five Year Matrixes
12
0
0
Comments: Approval by acclamation: A vote was called upon the faculty and no one
responded. Another email was sent out stating that a “no response” would be counted as
an approval of the documents.
School/Department/Program
Approved
Disapproved
Abstained
Department of English
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
21
0
0
Annual Report Guidelines
1
14
7
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
1
14
7
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
1
14
7
Peer Assessment Procedure
1
14
7
Standardized Peer Assessment
1
14
7
Faculty Assessment by Chair
1
14
7
Five Year Matrixes
1
14
7
Comments: Members are confused by the discrepancy they saw, at that time, in the Post
Tenure Review Instrument coming through the Faculty Senate, which may or may not
call for annual assessments. Also, several members were under the impression that each
department would write its own instruments, and were disappointed to be given overly
elaborate forms - forms which they feel have not changed much except for the
interspersed narratives that members of EFL already provide.
School/Department/Program
Approved
Disapproved
Abstained
Department of Government and History
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
5
10
8
Annual Report Guidelines
5
10
8
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
5
10
8
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
5
10
8
Peer Assessment Procedure
5
10
8
Standardized Peer Assessment
5
10
8
Faculty Assessment by Chair
5
10
8
Five Year Matrixes
5
10
8
Comments: (1) The majority who disapproved did not approve of a “narrative”
instrument, therefore would not approve the remaining documents. (2) Those who
disapproved voiced concerns indicated a narrative “left too much room for subjective
judgment, especially at the department level.”
School/Department/Program
Department of Sociology
Guidelines for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
Annual Report Guidelines
Faculty Annual Goals and Objectives
Faculty Annual (Self Assessment) Report
Peer Assessment Procedure
Standardized Peer Assessment
Faculty Assessment by Chair
Five Year Matrixes
Comments:
Approved
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Disapproved
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Abstained
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Summary of Concerns from the Faculty Senate Committees
Academic Affairs of the Faculty Senate
After presenting the completed narrative from the Task Force for a Comprehensive Faculty
Evaluation to the Academic Affairs of the Senate on April 2, 2009, the following
recommendations were duly noted:
Concerns about classroom visitation
(1) Classroom visitation procedure should be included in the Annual Review Guidelines
by each school/department
(2) The results of the classroom visitation should be part of the 'university wide peer
assessment' document in the section on teaching
(3) Peer Reviewers should attend a CITL workshop
Beta Test
It was unanimous, all seven members of the committee present voted for the university to
conduct a Beta Test of the new instrument during the 2009-2010 academic year.
Faculty Evaluation and Development Committee of the Senate
After presenting the completed narrative from the Task Force for a Comprehensive Faculty
Evaluation to the Faculty Evaluation and Development Committee of the Senate on April 14,
2009, the following recommendations were duly noted:
Revise the Chair’s Assessment of Faculty Form
On the Chair’s Assessment of Faculty form, there should be a “Chair specific” section
added to the form - “Faculty Administrative Duties/Assignments.” Within the category
faculty should be assessed on the following duties:
- Regularly attends scheduled meetings
- Completes administrative assignments in a timely manner
-Regularly meets office hours
- Other
Faculty Senate Meeting
The Faculty Senate met on April 16, 2009 and did not have a quorum to vote on the
instrument. The Senators present openly discussed their preference for a Beta Test.
General Faculty Meeting
Dr. Jon Young, Provost and Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, called a general
faculty meeting on May 11, 2009 to vote on a Beta Test for the newly developed
instrument by the Task Force and Task Force Ad-Hoc Committee for a Comprehensive
Faculty Evaluation since the April Faculty Senate meeting did not have a quorum.
The votes were counted by members of the committee and resulted in 99 members of the
faculty voting to undertake the Beta Test in the 2009-2010 academic year and 13 against
the Beta Test.
Submitted to Dr. Jon Young, Interim Provost and Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs
by:
________________________________________________
________________
Soni Martin, Chair
Date
Task Force for a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation