DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNEMNT AND HISTORY
POLITICAL SCIENCE PROGRAM
FACULTY EVALUATION GUIDELINES
November, 2009
I. Department Perspective
The following are general guidelines. The Department is made up of individuals with different strengths and
interests who may decide to focus their energies on one particular activity at certain times in their careers. In this
case the percentage value accorded teaching, research/scholarly activity and service may vary from year to year.
Both the faculty member and the chair, prior to the evaluation period, should agree upon the percentages; the norms
for these percentages are given below.
Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor
Teaching: 80%
Scholarship / Research: 10%
Service: 10%
Lecturer, Teaching Associate
Teaching: 80%
Scholarship / Research: 10%
Service: 10%
II. Evaluation Guidelines
In each category—Teaching, Scholarship and Service—the quality of the faculty member’s work will be the primary
consideration. Inherent in this consideration are factors such as productivity (e.g., the number of courses, advisees,
publications, committees, etc.), the intensity of work (e.g., the effort and scope of research, the scope and work load
of committees, etc.), and the impact of the work (assessed if possible by outcomes, e.g., performance of students in
subsequent courses/exams or after graduation, citations or adoptions of papers/books, significance of papers, effect
of reports/actions of committees on the University or regional community, etc.).
It is recognized that many activities cross over the general rubrics of Teaching, Scholarship and Service. For
example, Professional Service is often a good measure of a faculty member’s scholarly stature in his/her discipline,
and therefore should also be taken into account in evaluation under the Scholarship category (notable examples
include refereeing or editing for premiere journals, reviewing grants for major agencies, etc.). Likewise, scholarship
often has a direct impact on teaching (e.g., the development of new courses and/or new media-based material,
research with students, etc.).
III. Annual Evaluation Process (Conducted by the Chair)
1.
The Department Chair will meet with the entire department early in the academic year to discuss the
evaluation rubric and the unique characteristics of this department (types of research opportunities
available, quality of publications in this area, nature of teaching, definition of terms in department context,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
opportunities to assess teaching effectiveness, service opportunities, best practices and quality measures in
research, teaching and service, etc.). The department will openly discuss the workload of faculty within
the department and the resources available to faculty to assist in accomplishing their individual and
department goals.
The discussions will include a review of the evaluation rubrics and how they will be used to evaluate
performance in the department. Faculty members and the Chair will discuss the kinds of evidence that will
support the evaluation ratings in their department. The Chair should ensure that new faculty members
receive an orientation to the evaluation process in the department and the weights associated with each area.
Faculty will be given the opportunity to have interim conferences with the Chair to discuss progress toward
goals and/or revise goals.
Throughout the year faculty should collect evidence that reflects their performance in all three evaluation
areas.
Faculty members are encouraged to bring data, materials, evidence or artifacts to the evaluation conference
to demonstrate their accomplishments.
The Chair will meet with each department member prior to finalizing the evaluation to ensure all relevant
evaluation data has been considered.
Criteria for Rubrics*
Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor
Teaching: 80%
Scholarship / Research: 10%
Service: 10%
*note
Full detailed rubrics should be constructed by the department faculty evaluation committee.
THREE MAIN CATEGORIES OF CRITERIA FOR RUBLIRCS (TEACHING, SCHOLARSHIP, SERVICE)
1.
TEACHING (80%)
Teaching is a primary function for every faculty member in the Department of Government and History. As a vital part of a
faculty member’s duties, the following descriptors are intended to assist faculty members and their evaluators to carefully assess
teaching while using multiple forms of evidence.
Outstanding (5 pts)
There is evidence that teaching has been performed that is well above the level expected by faculty. These activities are of an
exceptionally high quality, meriting national or widespread recognition. Evidence includes extensive continuing time and effort.
The quality of teaching and related areas is consistently outstanding.
Very Good (4 pts)
There is evidence that teaching has been performed that is very good when compared to the level expected by faculty. These
activities are of very good, meriting high quality. Evidence includes substantial continuing time and effort. The quality of
teaching and related areas is consistently very good.
Good (3 pts)
There is evidence that teaching has been performed that is good when compared to the level expected by faculty. These activities
are good, meriting recognition of quality. Evidence includes continuing time and effort. The quality of teaching and related
areas is consistently good.
Limited Success (2 pts)
There is evidence that teaching has been performed has limited success when compared to the level expected by faculty. These
activities are limited and demonstrate limited quality.
Unacceptable (1 pt)
There is little or no evidence that acceptable teaching has been performed. Opportunities to provide acceptable teaching have not
resulting in positive teaching results.
2.
SCHOLARSHIP / RESEARCH (10%)
Creating and presenting research/scholarly activity is a critical function for every faculty member in the Department of
Government and History. As a vital part of a faculty member’s duties, the following descriptors are intended to assist faculty
members and their evaluators to carefully assess research/scholarly activity while using multiple forms of evidence.
Outstanding (5 pts)
There is evidence that research/scholarly activities have been performed that is well above the level expected by faculty. These
activities are of an exceptionally high quality, meriting national or widespread recognition. Evidence includes extensive
continuing time and effort. The quality of research/scholarly activity is consistently outstanding.
Very Good (4 pts)
There is evidence that research/scholarly activities have been performed that is very good when compared to the level expected
by faculty. These activities are of high quality, meriting regional or statewide recognition. Evidence includes continuing time
and effort. The quality of research/scholarly activity is very good.
Good (3 pts)
There is evidence that research/scholarly activities have been performed that is good when compared to the level expected by
faculty. These activities contain quality. Evidence includes sustaining time and effort. The quality of research/scholarly activity
is good.
Limited Success (2 pts)
There is evidence that research/scholarly activities have been performed that shows limited success when compared to the level
expected by faculty. Evidence includes limited time and effort.
Unacceptable (1 pt)
There is little or no evidence that research/scholarly activity have been performed. Opportunities to produce research/scholarly
activity have been rejected.
3.
SERVICE TO THE UNIVERSITY, PROFESSION, OR COMMUNITY (10%)
Providing service to the university, profession, or community is an important function for every faculty member in the
Department of Government and History. As a vital part of a faculty member’s duties, the following descriptors are intended to
assist faculty members and their evaluators to carefully assess service while using multiple forms of evidence.
Outstanding (5 pts)
There is evidence that service has been performed that is well above the level expected by faculty in terms of professional
contribution to the profession, university, K-12 schools, or the community. These activities are of an exceptionally high quality,
meriting national or widespread recognition. Evidence includes extensive continuing time and effort.
Very Good (4 pts)
There is evidence that service has been performed that is above the level expected by faculty in terms of professional contribution
to the profession, university, K-12 schools, or the community. Evidence includes substantial time and effort committed to service.
Good (3 pts)
There is evidence that service has been performed that is at the level expected by faculty in terms of professional contribution to
the profession, university, K-12 schools, or the community. There is evidence of a significant but not continuing level of time
and effort. Opportunities to provide service have been pursued.
Limited Success (2 pts)
There is evidence that limited service has been performed, but it is below the level expected by faculty. The faculty member
interacts minimally with the field and some opportunities to provide service have been rejected. Evidence includes limited time
and effort associated with service.
Unacceptable (1 pt)
There is little or no evidence that service has been performed. Opportunities to provide service have been rejected.