The UIS Faculty Personnel Process

1. The UIS Faculty Personnel Process Annual Performance Reviews Nathan Steele Chair, Personnel Policies Committee September 2018

2. Overview The Review Processes Criteria for Review The APR and Personnel File Questions and Discussion

3. The Faculty Review Process Article 4 of Faculty Personnel Policy Annual review required of all faculty Held to standards in Article 3 for professional evaluation Includes full, associate, assistant, as well as non-tenure track on annual appointment May include adjunct faculty by college policy Annual review used “to make decisions about reappointment, promotion, tenure, merit rating and campus level awards.”

4. The Faculty Review Process Annual Performance Reviews Yearly review – submitted in February for the previous calendar year. Goes to Department and/or Dean as well as personnel file (permanent) Outlines activities for the previous year in teaching, scholarship and service. Includes both qualitative and quantitative review. Colleges are the final word for the process of review

5. The Review Process:Submitting the APR By due date in Academic Personnel Calendar: For this year 2/21/2019 Faculty Files Office: Alicia Utterback, PAC 531; 206-7408 Narrative (for permanent file) Dean Narrative Department Personnel Committee Chair (dependent upon college process) Narrative

6. The Review Process APR Review Levels Department Personnel Committee College Level Personnel Committee Dean (final determination of extra merit, merit, or no merit) Candidate’s right to submit response at each level (within 5 business days) New procedure for objection to Dean’s final determination

7. The Review Process Objection to Dean’s review Appeal to Provost within five (5) days of receipt of Dean’s Decision Specify point of disagreement in letter Provide evidence to support disagreement Provide evidence of procedural error or discrimination Provost reviews evidence and file, decision communicated to all parties within ten (10) days of receipt

8. Criteria for Review Each of the Areas Reflected Upon in the APR Teaching Scholarship Service

9. Criteria for Review Teaching This criteria has the highest priority in the evaluation of faculty. “[T]eaching remains the central function and excellence in teaching continues as the overriding goal” at UIS. Faculty Personnel Policies Art. 3, Sec. 2 (A).

10. Criteria for Review Evaluation of Teaching Assessed through both quantitative and qualitative means. Quantitative – Formal Student Evaluations Questions 5-10, especially 8 and 10 Finer distinctions not important Address good and bad Take responsibility, be reflective Qualitative – Teaching materials, letters of support from students, advisees, and colleagues, course syllabi, assignment examples, etc.

11. Criteria for Review Evaluation of Teaching Include advising activities! Advising is “…a critical component of faculty duties, and … an important consideration in the evaluation of faculty.” FPP Art.3, Sec. 2(A). “Faculty shall…demonstrate that they are actively and effectively engaging in academic advising of students on an ongoing and consistent basis.” FPP Art. 3, Sec. 2(A). AST, thesis supervision Advising contacts and approaches Office hours Letters from students, colleagues Evaluations

12. Criteria for ReviewTeaching Types of Activities to Discuss: Curricular/program development; Honors; ECCE Special courses taught Independent study Development of teaching strategies Diverse, challenging teaching loads Guest lecturing Assessing instructional effectiveness Pedagogical innovation/experimentation Teaching awards/recognition Incorporating instructional technology Etc.

13. Criteria for ReviewTeaching Show your teaching is Purposeful Evolving Effective Be reflective Narrative should characterize what has happened, and project what will be done going forward to cultivate Up to the candidate to frame best case; cannot rely on reviewers to perceive without

14. Criteria for Review Scholarship Embraces the categories of scholarship outlined in the Carnegie Foundation Report, Scholarship Reconsidered, by Ernest Boyer. (Boyer Model)

15. Criteria for ReviewScholarship Wider perspective of scholarship that encompasses 4 categories: Discovery Traditional research, publications, creative contributions. Investigative. Asks “What can we learn/find?” Integration Inter- or multi-disciplinary research, interpretation, drawing together. Synthesizing. Asks “What do the findings mean?”

16. Criteria for ReviewScholarship Application Connects theory and practice Applied Research Asks “How can knowledge be applied to consequential problems? How can it be helpful to individuals and institutions?” Scholarship of Teaching Study of teaching process/methodology

17. Criteria for ReviewScholarship No unexplained jargon Explain its value Explain its contribution to the field External evidence Pay attention to departmental, college standards Don’t assume because your department is familiar that the Campus level committees will be; elucidate.

18. Criteria for Review Service Includes contributions to: Department College University Discipline Community Quantitative and Qualitative Professional Service Applying academic, professional skills

19. Criteria for Review - Summary For each category, don’t just list accomplishments Include qualitative impact Make your own best case in narrative Document in portfolio How does this represent excellence in teaching/scholarship/service? Burden of proof is on the candidate at all times Address recommendations from prior reviews

20. The Annual Performance Review Documents The “Vehicles” for your review Annual Performance Report (APR) Personnel (Permanent) File

21. The APR and Personnel File APR Narrative Self-evaluative summary. Review accomplishments for the period under consideration. Include discussions of teaching, scholarship and service. Teaching is excellent Scholarship and service together high quality, at least satisfactory in each (For tenure) Involves both qualitative and quantitative forms of assessment.

22. The APR and Personnel File Application narrative Some colleges have a template (e.g., CBM) If in doubt, ask chair or colleagues Discussion of long and short-term goals, philosophy (only necessary to be explicitly included in full if significant changes since last reappointment phase), methods and strategies for each area. Include a CV

23. The APR and Personnel File Personnel (Permanent) File Kept in the Provost’s office and represents a permanent place for appointment and professional advancement materials. Materials automatically placed in this file: student evaluations personnel actions correspondence sent directly to the provost concerning your performance. Narratives at 2 & 4 year review, tenure, promotion You may place materials in your personnel file, but you should be selective in what you place here. Should not be a dumping ground – but should only be used for major milestones in your career.

24. The APR and Personnel File Personnel (Permanent) File Companion to your portfolio – but unlike the portfolio, it is permanent. Periodically review your own file so you know how it looks to others. Review personnel policies for procedures concerning personnel files. (Article 1)

25. Helpful Materials Faculty Personnel Policy Articles 3, 5, 7, Appendix 10 (Portfolio Guidelines) Academic Affairs Web Page Campus Academic Personnel Calendar Distributed just prior to the start of Fall semester 2018-2019 Calendar

26. Helpful Resources UIS Ombudsperson Laurel Newman, lnewm1@uis.edu or ombuds1@uis.edu, 206-7000 or 206-7931 UIS UF Grievance Officer Deborah Anthony, danth2@uis.edu, 206-8340 Informal or formal grievance regarding annual review process Will help address problems/concerns that arise during the process Contact early – don’t wait! UIS Personnel Policies Committee Chair Nathan Steele, nathan.steele@uis.edu, 206-7928

27. Questions/Comments