I've been asked to provide information on how I plan to perform faculty evaluations this year

Evaluation Process for AY 2003

I've been asked to provide information on how I plan to perform faculty evaluations this year. We are following the procedure outlined in the working document we used last year, which is available (along with the appropriate forms) at

http://www.spsu.edu/arts/facultyeval.html

Here's a summary.

1. Submit the following to your program head by March 10:

(a) copy of the approved Faculty Expectations Form for the current year (this is the form you and I agreed to last Spring)

(b) the Annual Activity Report for the period being evaluated (March 2002 - Feb 2003), this may include a narrative in support of any of the four areas of performance.

(d) Teaching Assessment Form - list concerns or suggestions from recent student evaluations and plans of action for responding, and list actions that were taken to respond to previous concerns or suggestions from student evaluations

(e) an initial draft of the Faculty Expectations Form for the upcoming year, include specific program-related expectations, such as lab or course coordination responsibilities. Do not include your scholarship or professional growth plans here.

Program heads will make a copy of your packet for their review and forward the original to my office.

2. I will review the materials and consult with the department heads, who will independently review the materials.

3. I will schedule individual meetings with each of you to discuss the evaluation and to finalize the Expectations form for the upcoming year

Although I am including the program heads in the process, I am still doing the evaluations and making the salary recommendations. It is in you interest to make sure I am aware of your accomplishments this year. When you prepare your status and activities report, please elaborate on any items you think are noteworthy. For example, if you served on a committee that met every week for a semester, indicate as such.

The evaluation is based on the four areas of faculty performance, which are weighted according to your faculty status.

T1 T2 T3

Teaching 40% 50% 60%

Service 25% 25% 25%

Scholarship 22.5% 12.5% 0%

Professional growth 12.5% 12.5% 15%

and development

Teaching - this evaluation is heavily based on your SIR reports. I look at the scores (especially the overall means and the overall evaluation)and compare individual scores to the combined program and institution scores. Unless you provide other relevant information, the SIR score is what I base the teaching part of the evaluation on. Other factors I'll include in my evaluation could include development of pedagogical materials, reports from peer observations, testimonials from students, etc.

Service - A "normal" service load should include at least one program service activity and one school or university activity (or a similar mix of activities). Activities include, but are not limited to, committee memberships. Activities for which release time is granted count here. To score superior in Service, you should be involved in an above-average number of activities or be involved in activities which demand an unusually large commitment of time.

Scholarship - Except for T3 faculty, I expect to see some documentation of activity in this area on your S&A report. I don't expect that everybody will have something significant to report every year, but I do expect at least a progress report, i.e., documentation that you have something in the works. See the draft P&P on Faculty Activities (http://www.spsu.edu/arts/aa/draftfacactivities.html) for the criteria on which scholarship is evaluated. To earn a score of "superior" you will need a publication in a nationally recognized journal, a book, or an accomplishment of similar significance.

Professional Growth and Development - this one is the hardest for me to evaluate, because in a given AY, faculty don't have equal access to development opportunities or funding. I generally won't give an unsatisfactory in this area unless there is a history of neglect. To earn a score of "superior" you should have participated in documentable activities (short courses, graduate work, workshops, etc.) of at least ten days total duration. Activities which are evaluated by performance are weighted more heavily than those which are evaluated by attendance.