Protocol Revision, Adopted by English Faculty on January 17, 2014
Northern Illinois University
Department of English
PROTOCOL FOR ANNUAL MERIT EVALUATION IN TEACHING
This protocol shall guide the Department Council in its implementation of the department’s Guidelines:
Evidence, Criteria, and Procedures Concerning Personnel Decisions for the annual merit evaluation of
teaching. On the basis of this examination, they will make judgments as to the extent and quality of each
faculty member’s teaching activity. Judgments of quality shall be based on the criteria listed in the
Guidelines (I.A.). Those with fewer than two years’ service in this department shall be evaluated on the
basis of the evidence available.
In determining merit ratings, the Department Council shall assign point values to teaching elements in
accordance with scale and point values indicated below. The Council may, at its discretion, adjust
individual values up or down as appropriate in extraordinary circumstances. As with scholarship and
service, faculty are encouraged to provide additional evidence or provide narratives to demonstrate the
appropriateness of higher or lower point values. For teaching elements in which a range of points is
given, Council will ordinarily assume the lowest value in the range applies, unless the faculty member
provides additional explanation justifying a higher value.
PLEASE DO NOT LIST THE SAME ITEMS ON MORE THAN ONE OF YOUR ANNUAL REPORT
FORMS. If you have questions about which form is most appropriate for a particular item, please consult
with the department chair.
Merit scale:
Total points
Merit rating
80+
60+
35+
20+
0+
5
4
3
2
1
Teaching element
Regular teaching load
Summer course , including Oxford
Overload course during academic year
Mass section of course
MA exam
Ph.D. exam
Independent study supervised to completion, each, to a
maximum of 12
Honors capstone supervised to completion
MA thesis (give student name and date of completion)
Points awarded only at completion
Maximum of 30 points in this category
On committee, regular reading/commenting
On committee, read only at end
Directed
Ph.D. dissertation (give candidate name and date of
completion)
1
Point value
25
3
5
5
2
2
3
3
4
2
6-8
Protocol Revision, Adopted by English Faculty on January 17, 2014
Points awarded only at completion
Maximum of 30 in this category
On committee, regular reading/commenting
On committee, read only at end
Directed
Teaching element (continued)
URAP
Doctoral TA mentorship
Doctoral apprenticeship
Guest lecture
Pedagogical grants applied for
Pedagogical grants received
Pedagogical publications
Course development
Maximum of 8 in this category
New course added to catalog
New topics course or on-line course development
First time teaching existing course
Significant curricular development
Teaching seminars/workshops
Attended
Conducted
Teaching awards
Nominated
Awarded
“Most influential professor” letter (maximum 3)
Programmatic Advising (eg, for ESL or technical writing
students—please specify and do not list under service.
Advising student organizations should be listed under
service.)
Dean’s designee
Student accomplishments
Award
Peer-reviewed publication
External Conference paper given
Mentoring for admission to program (indicate what
program/where/extent of mentoring)
Student evaluation scores
Points assigned according to the table below. At its
discretion, the Council shall raise or lower points in the
light of written comments from undergraduate and
graduate courses. For mass courses, the average of the
combined sections’ scores will be used.
In the absence of undergraduate student evaluation scores,
the Council shall assign points at its discretion.
Other evidence in keeping with Guidelines I.
2
10
8
15
Point value (continued)
2
2
3
1
3-5
10
3-8
4
2
1
1-3
1-4
3-5
4-8
8-15
1
2-4
2
1
1
1
1
Council discretion
Protocol Revision, Adopted by English Faculty on January 17, 2014
Point Table for Student Evaluation Scores
Average of Individual’s
Undergraduate Scores
(rounded up)
Points
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Adding points for graduate courses
Based on the reading of graduate course evaluations:
High praise and nearly unanimous satisfaction
5 pts
General satisfaction with a few quibbles
3 pts
Unusually low satisfaction or severe problems
1 pt
The following section would be added near the bottom of the graduate evaluation form:
In addition to your comments above, please mark your overall level of satisfaction with this course:
_____ Highly satisfied
_____ Satisfied
_____ Less than satisfied
3