Faculty Evaluation The Second Most Important Chairly Task

1. Faculty EvaluationThe Second Most Important Chairly Task Greg Martin Department of Marketing and Economics Director, International Business Programs College of Business University of West Florida IAL Department Chairpersons Workshop June 12, 2007

2. What is It? An integrated management system with a dual purpose… • To grow and maintain exceptional faculty • evaluation is a developmental tool • To monitor, report, and improve our product • an evaluation of Departmental deliverables – what faculty produce is our product; therefore, we are also evaluating product quality

3. Why Sweat It? • It’s an Obligation • to our students • to our faculty (especially junior colleagues) • to our department • to our employers

4. The Very First Step • Study all published materials pertaining to faculty evaluation criteria and performance standards • contract language • university and college guidelines • AIM material on IAL website • other non-academic “applied” sources • This is basic self-protection (plus, you might learn something helpful)

5. Bad Things • Vague or ambiguous evaluation criteria • Lack of discriminative standards for criteria, resulting in no recognition for superior performance • Idiosyncratic reporting formats • Rambling narratives • The agonizing interview • Duplicative administrative reporting paperwork

6. Thinking Through the System Good Things Let’s be practical… • Developing Evaluation Criteria and Standards • Developing the Evaluation Process • Implementing the Process • Using the Results Then…

7. Tenure Promotion Sustained performance Criteria for… Standards for… • Tenure • Promotion • Sustained performance Annual Evaluation Criteria Annual Evaluation Standards Annual Evaluation Report Thinking Through the System

8. I. Develop Criteria & Standards • Define what gets evaluated (criteria) • Establish performance standards/ expectations for each criterion • Create descriptors (a metric) for differing performance levels • Integrate/cover other reporting requirements

9. What Gets Evaluated? • Teaching • Research • Service • Collegiality? • with a lack of clear standards, this might be the only thing – perceived or in reality • obviously, a formula for disaster

10. Evaluation Criteria UWF Collective Bargaining Agreement language on faculty performance evaluation criteria: 11.4 Criteria. The annual performance evaluation will be based upon assigned duties and will carefully consider the nature of the assignments, in terms, where applicable, of: (a) Teaching effectiveness, including effectiveness in presenting knowledge, information, and ideas by means or methods such as lecture, discussion, assignment and recitation, demonstration, laboratory exercise, practical experience, and direct consultation with students. The evaluation will include consideration of effectiveness in imparting knowledge and skills, and effectiveness in stimulating students’ critical thinking and/or creative abilities, the development or revision of curriculum and course structure, and adherence to accepted standards of professional behavior in meeting responsibilities to students. The evaluator make take into account class notes, syllabi, student exams and assignments, and any other materials relevant to the faculty member’s teaching assignment. (b) The teaching evaluation must take into account any relevant materials submitted by the faculty member, including the results of peer evaluations of teaching, and may not be based solely on student evaluations when this additional information has been made available to the evaluator. (c) Contribution to the discovery of new knowledge, development of new educational techniques, and other forms of creative activity. Evidence of research and other creative activity will include, but not be limited to, published books; articles and papers in professional journals; musical compositions, paintings, sculpture; works of performing art; papers presented at meetings of professional societies; and research and creative activity that has not yet resulted in publication, display , or performance. (d) The evaluation will include consideration of the faculty member’s productivity, including the quality and quantity of what has been done during the year, and of the faculty member’s research and other creative programs and contributions; and recognition by the academic or professional community of what is done. (e) Public service that extends professional or discipline-related contributions to the community; the State, including public schools; and the national and international community. This public service includes contributions to scholarly and professional organizations and governmental boards, agencies, and commissions that are beneficial to such groups and individuals. (f) Participation in the governance processes of the institution through significant service on committees, councils, and senates, beyond that associated with the expected responsibility to participate in the governance of the institution through participation in regular departmental or college meetings. (g) Other assigned University duties, such as advising, counseling, supervision of interns, and academic administration, or as described in a Position Description, if any, of the position held by the faculty member. Source: University of West Florida Board of Trustees / University of West Florida Chapter, United Faculty of Florida 2005-2008 Collective Bargaining Agreement, Printed December 2005.

11. Performance Standards • Relevant to evaluation criteria • Clear and unambiguous • Realistic • Discriminative • Created by faculty; guided by Chair • Measurable • Integrated with all parts of the System

12. T&P Standards • Baseline expectations for performance as a faculty member • Start with University guidelines • Interpret and add specificity • Responsibility of the faculty with guidance from Chair to “fit” with vision and mission of the Department • Discipline-neutral?

13. T&P vs. Evaluation Standards • Start with T&P and work backwards • e.g., if promotion to Associate Professor requires a minimum of five journal publications, then the standards for a “top” annual evaluation rating for Research should include at least one publication • Integrate Evaluation and T&P standards

14. Outstanding Outstanding Above Average Satisfactory Average Below Average Below Satisfactory Poor Performance Descriptors Example Annual Evaluation SP Evaluation

15. II. Develop the Process • University sets the deadlines and steps • Specified flow of materials back and forth, up and down, in and out, around and through… • However, we can specify (with faculty agreement) to some extent what those materials are and how they are formatted–the Performance Evaluation Portfolio

16. Example Portfolio Contents • Statement of Contributions (2-3 pgs) • Faculty Development Plan (2-3 pgs) • CV current to end of evaluation period • Course Syllabi • Complete Student Evaluations • Student Comment Release Form

17. Using Self-Appraisals • Faculty member applies the Departmental Standards in a self-appraisal and assigns a performance descriptor • “Based on departmental standards I rate my Research Performance as Average in 2006-2007.” (in Professional Development Plan) • Chair then simply Agrees or Disagrees • My experience: over 90% agreement; about 1/3 of disagreements resulted in upward revision

18. III. Implement the Process • Advance distribution of the calendar of deadlines • Distribution of template “fill in” files • Electronic submission of Portfolio required (except teaching evaluations, which the department should scan)

19. IV. Using the Results Annual Evaluation Report • Departmental Usage • Faculty Recognition • Merit Raise Policy • Sustained Performance Eval • Department Strategic Plan • Department Annual Report • Accreditation Data • Assessment Data • Yet Another Report… • Faculty Usage • Personal Recognition • Development Plan • Teaching Portfolio • T & P Portfolio

20. An Example of Leverage… • Departmental Strategic Plan: Research Outputs Assessment • “A minimum of 60 percent of faculty with contractual research expectations will earn a rating of “Outstanding” on the Annual Evaluation of their research performance. Performance standards are as specified in the Department's Standards for Annual Faculty Evaluations, Research and Scholarly Activities section.”