Faculty Performance Review Process
This document summarizes the standard procedures that were developed by the Academic Council to be used by all programs to evaluate faculty members. The Institute uses the Mentor application to track faculty accomplishments and work plan.
Timeline The online system is available year-round for faculty members to update with their accomplishments. In the spring, each school dean and center director is responsible for developing an internal timetable and communicating it to their respective faculty members to assure that adequate time is allowed for the faculty evaluation process.
by May 15 Faculty members meet with their supervisors to discuss their completed self-evaluations and prepare for future work plan.
by June 1 Deans and directors approve faculty evaluations, routing to the Office of the Provost for review.
by June 8 Provost reviews and approves faculty evaluations. The Office of the Provost communicates faculty evaluation scores to the Office of Human Resources.
July 1 Office of Human Resources sends letters to faculty communicating whether reappointment and/or salary merit raises have been awarded.
Performance Rating System Each category on the faculty evaluation for which a faculty member has some responsibility is given a performance score. Each of the performance scores is then weighted according to the percentage of total effort that is assigned to that area of responsibility. The simple sum of the weighted performance scores is the overall performance score. The online system will automatically calculate the overall performance score. For example:
|
Category
|
Performance Score
|
Weighting (% total effort)
|
Weighted Performance Score
|
|
Teaching
|
4
|
0.5 (50%)
|
2
|
|
Research
|
3
|
0.2 (20%)
|
0.6
|
|
Service
|
4.5
|
0.3 (30%)
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
4.0 = Overall Performance Score
|
The scoring system is based on an equal interval 5 point scale, where 5 represents “extraordinary performance” and 1 is “below expectations.” Scores may be given in 0.5 increments. This rubric assumes a "best fit" approach and allows supervisors to exercise professional judgment. All performance scores must be accompanied by explanatory comment.
Most importantly, these definitions are built around the assumption that a score of 3 is considered the expected level of excellent performance and defines a faculty member who fulfills all job responsibilities well. This is the standard we expect of all faculty. In the self-assessment, faculty must provide clear documentation and rationale to justify any score above 3.0.
Teaching Rating Scale
Significantly Exceeds Expectations = 5
Evidence of consistently outstanding classroom, clinical, and/or online teaching by exhibiting extraordinary leadership in curriculum and program development, including course development and evaluation.
Some examples of evidence:
- Contributions have value to the department/organization through tremendous and consistently positive impact.
- Identified by peers as outstanding and assiduous resource for others such as providing informal or formal training, guidance, or support.
- Acted proactively to take on higher levels of responsibility and leadership roles.
- Demonstrated formal or informal leadership skills and mentoring that have influenced growth in others and ensured their success in teaching.
- Anticipated problems in teaching and learning and has acted to create opportunities which address and avoid or minimize the problems.
- Established and achieved challenging goals which have resulted in growth in their teaching.
- Enhanced relationships, as well as the understanding and experiences of individuals and groups by providing constructive and behavior-based feedback to coach and support those who are different from one’s own self.
Exceeds Expectations = 4
Evidence of outstanding classroom, clinical, and/or online teaching, including course development and evaluation by exhibiting leadership in curriculum and program development.
Some examples of evidence:
-
Provided valuable contributions that have had a measurable and consistent positive impact on teaching within the department/organization.
-
Identified by peers and students to be a resource for others, such as by providing informal or formal training, guidance, or support.
-
Took on higher levels of responsibility by providing service in teaching and support of the mission of the organization.
-
Promoted capacity, productivity and effectiveness of teaching by self and others.
-
Took clear actions to confront inappropriate behaviors that violate the norms of an environment of inclusion.
Meets All Expectations = 3
Evidence of classroom, clinical, and/or online teaching, including course development and evaluation by providing overall effective performance in teaching.
Some examples of evidence:
-
Effectively prioritized work and consistently fulfilled all teaching responsibilities as expected.
-
Maintained a consistent level of performance.
-
Was a solid contributor to the overall teaching objectives of the department.
-
Kept current with new knowledge and technology, providing students and other faculty with adequate directions, and clear expectations and requirements with respect to applications of teaching.
-
Created relationships that encourage open dialogue and constructive expression of differences of opinion.
-
Acted and spoke in a manner that supports cross-learning about other viewpoints and experiences and facilitates this in the teaching arenas.
Inconsistently Meets Expectations = 2
Teaching includes problems in the classroom, clinical, and/or online, including course development and evaluation that have not been fully addressed
Some examples of evidence:
- Feedback from students and peers raises concerns about problematic elements in teaching, including classroom performance.
- Teaching efforts may require remediation or repetition.
- Minimal evidence of effective use of technology to engage students in learning.
- Little or no evidence of course review and further development of the course.
- Minimal efforts at improvement in teaching; may have avoided problems, or taken only single action to try to effect improvement without success and without consistent effort to improve.
Below Expectations = 1
Teaching is consistently problematic in the classroom, clinical, and/or online, including course development and evaluation.
Some examples of evidence:
- Evidence of problematic teaching in the classroom, clinical or online that has required direct supervision or intervention.
- Indifference toward or unreasonable resistance to meeting teaching standards.
- Has not taken action toward intended improvements in teaching performance.
Service Rating Scale
Significantly Exceeds Expectations = 5
Evidence of consistent leadership in service activities at the Institute, community or professional organizations by providing service that significantly exceeds expectations for rank and seniority.
Some examples of evidence:
- Demonstrated extraordinary leadership in mentoring students and faculty.
- Provided substantial evidence of recognition for exceptional service to the program, school and Institute.
- Recognized for exceptional service to the Institute or the profession in leadership with completion of important projects, at regional, national/international level.
Exceeds Expectations = 4
Evidence of leadership in service activities at the Institute, community or professional organizations by exceeding expectations for rank and seniority.
Some examples of evidence:
-
Demonstrated leadership in mentoring students and faculty.
-
Provided substantial evidence of initiative and leadership in service that has resulted in meaningful outcomes for the program, school and Institute.
-
Assumed leadership roles which provided leadership within the profession at the local, regional, state or national levels.
Meets All Expectations = 3
Evidence of participation in service activities at the Institute, Community or Professional organizations by providing service that consistently meets expectations for rank and seniority.
Some examples of evidence:
- Provided evidence of overall effective performance in advising, and student mentoring.
- Demonstrated evidence of a commitment to service that has provided recognized benefit to the Institute, program, or profession at the local, regional or national level.
- Service provided offers recognized contributions to the profession, the program and the goals, mission and vision of the Institute.
Inconsistently Meets Expectations = 2
Minimal evidence of participation in service activities at the Institute, community or professional organizations relative to rank and seniority.
Some examples of evidence:
- Inconsistent evidence of meaningful activity in serving the school, program or Institute.
- Service provided is limited to the team or unit and does not impact or extend beyond the boundaries of the program or unit.
Below Expectations = 1
Lack of evidence of meaningful participation in service activities at the Institute, community or professional organizations relative to rank and seniority.
Some examples of evidence:
- Exhibited unprofessional behavior(s) during the provision of service activities.
- Inconsistent evidence of attempts to contribute or follow through with service activities relative to rank and seniority.
- Unreliable advising and frequent unavailability to students.
Scholarship Rating Scale
Significantly Exceeds Expectations = 5
Evidence of significant and rigorous contribution to scholarship by exceeding own goals/plan for scholarly activities and/or research.
Some examples of evidence:
- Significant and scholarly activities and/or research in peer-reviewed venues.
- Recognized nationally/internationally by colleagues and peers.
- Major research or scholarly achievements relative to rank and position.
Exceeds Expectations = 4
Evidence of consistent contribution to scholarship by providing evidence that scholarly activities and/or research is above expectations for rank and position.
Some examples of evidence:
- Established evidence of several significant achievements in publications and presentations that offer important contributions to the field.
- Scholarly activities and/or research consistent with established scholarly agenda and goals are met on time.
Meets All Expectations = 3
Evidence of contribution to scholarship by providing scholarly activities and/or research that meets expectations of rank and position.
Some examples of evidence:
- Annual plan for development of scholarly agenda described realistic and relevant goals that are commensurate with expectations of rank and position.
- Established evidence of consistent progression toward established scholarly agenda and goals.
Inconsistently Meets Expectations = 2
Minimal evidence of contribution to scholarship commensurate with rank and position expectation.
Some examples of evidence:
- Annual plan for development of scholarly agenda is incomplete or requires revision for realistic and relevant goals that are commensurate with expectations of rank and position.
- Evidence of progress toward established goals has been minimal and or inconsistent.
Below Expectations = 1
Evidence of scholarship and scholarly activity does not achieve expectations consistent with rank and position.
Some examples of evidence:
- Lack of disseminated scholarly activity.
- Lack of evidence of plan for development of scholarly agenda.
- Lack of progression toward goals in established scholarly agenda.
Administrative Responsibilities Rating Scale
Significantly Exceeds Expectations = 5
Evidence of outstanding administrative accomplishments that has gone well beyond what is expected in performing the assigned responsibilities.
Some examples of evidence:
-
Consistently took initiative and a leadership role in leading and completing administrative. responsibilities resulting in meaningful outcomes that benefit the program, school and Institute.
-
Recognized for innovative and strategic thinking.
Exceeds Expectations = 4
Evidence of administrative accomplishments that enhance the administrative function of the program or school.
Some examples of evidence:
Meets All Expectations = 3
Evidence of completion of assigned administrative responsibilities.
Some examples of evidence:
- Completion of all assigned administrative responsibilities has been timely and accurate.
- Administrative outcomes are thorough and effective.
Inconsistently Meets Expectations = 2
Evidence of marginal completion in assigned administrative responsibilities.
Some examples of evidence:
Below Expectations = 1
Evidence of inconsistent or repeated failure to thoroughly and effectively complete assigned administrative responsibilities.
Some examples of evidence:
- Lack of expected outcomes resulting from administrative responsibilities
- Precipitates climate where administrative responsibilities cannot be fulfilled