Regarding the Annual Performance
Review of Faculty
College of Arts and Sciences, University of Vermont
Prepared by Dr. Antonio Cepeda-Benito, Dean
2
Regarding the Annual Performance Review – ACB working document 1/30/15
Table of Contents
A Guide to Review and Revise Annual Faculty Evaluation Guidelines .................................3
Mission, Goals, and Priorities............................................................................................3
Process and Procedures ....................................................................................................3
Purpose, Scope, and Expectations.....................................................................................3
Period of evaluation ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Load distributions across teaching, service, and research/creative activities .......................................4
Defining Excellence.......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Multidisciplinary Contributions, Engagement, Contributions to Diversity and Globalization.........4
Chair’s Communication in the Annual Review ...................................................................5
Annual Review ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Meeting with the Department Chair ......................................................................................................................... 5
CAS Governing Principles to Assess Teaching ....................................................................6
Example of Teaching Evaluation Guidelines ......................................................................7
Mission, Goals, and Priorities............................................................................................8
Domains of Teaching Effectiveness ...................................................................................8
Sources of assessment ......................................................................................................9
Student ratings ..................................................................................................................................................................9
Peer Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................ 10
Nature of the Peer Assessment .....................................................................................................................................10
Frequency of the Peer Assessment ..............................................................................................................................11
Self Assessment .............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Chair’s Assessment and Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 12
Regarding the Annual Performance Review – ACB working document 1/30/15
3
A Guide to Review and Revise Annual Faculty Evaluation Guidelines
The present guide does not attempt to represent the only pathway to the review and revision of
performance evaluation guidelines. There may be other more or less granular ways to develop and
revise appropriate guidelines for individual departments. Nonetheless, the Guide’s intent is to offer
a (possibly incomplete) menu of options that are not prescriptive but offered for faculty
consideration.
The Guide is a “working document” intended to be modified and improved using feedback from the
faculty gathered through their department chairs. In addition, program directors, as well as the
Faculty Standards Committee and the Academic Planning and Budget Committee, are invited and
encouraged to provide input and contribute to the adequacy, helpfulness, and completeness of the
Guide. To facilitate the gathering and organization of the feedback, please send your comments,
questions, and suggestions to Sarah Gilmore at [email protected].
Mission, Goals, and Priorities
The process of reviewing the essential goals and priorities of the department can be a very
meaningful exercise and an opportunity to reflect on the departmental mission, as well as to
reassess goals and their prioritization. In the end, faculty evaluation and RPT guidelines are useful
and valid to the extent they help the department achieve its mission.
Process and Procedures
Define a timeline and process to revise, edit, and publicize the departmental guidelines. (Note that
changes to guidelines cannot be forced retrospectively to include the current evaluation period.)
It might be helpful to define other time windows for important steps in the annual process; for
example:
•
When is the activity report due in the chair’s office?
•
When is the written review by the department chair normally due?
•
When should the department chair be available to discuss individual evaluations?
If the chair consults with a faculty-advisory committee, consideration should be paid to the
•
process to select individuals serving on the committee,
•
length of terms and rotation schedule, and
•
role, purpose, and operation of the committee (e.g., Does the committee advise the chair in
the awarding of performance-based raises? How do the committee and chair communicate?
Please make sure that what you propose is in alignment with the CBA.)
Purpose, Scope, and Expectations
Period of evaluation
•
The CBA dictates a three-year window with greater focus on the most recent 12-month
period. However, departments may explain how the two previous years are considered or
integrated. In CAS, the evaluation period is the calendar year.
4
Regarding the Annual Performance Review – ACB working document 1/30/15
Load distributions across teaching, service, and research/creative activities
•
Taking into account the mission, goals, and priorities of the department, what are the
optimal parameters (ranges) for load distributions across the different faculty tasks (i.e.,
what % effort or weight should be attached to teaching, advising, service, and research and
other creative activities)? (In most departments the load distribution is 40% teaching, 40%
research/art, and 20% service—consider how you account for advising [it is included under
teaching in the CBA] and whether 20% service is appropriate for your unit.)
•
Faculty exceptions to the normal load distributions are allowed in the CBA (e.g., reducing
research effort to increase the time dedicated to teaching or service). Therefore, it is
advisable for departments to detail how changes in these distributions will be handled, both
in terms of the percentage allocation as well as any performance expectation changes for
percentage allocations that deviate from the normal load.
Defining Excellence
•
In addition to expectations for (amount of) productivity, guidelines should list (identify) the
most important and relevant indicators of quality and impact for research, teaching,
advising, and service. A direct assessment of quality might include a direct assessment of the
work produced (i.e., a deep review of the work) or quality that might be inferred or
presumed (e.g., prestige of the publication or the performance or exhibition venue).
Although evidence of impact might be difficult to assess for recent work, nothing prevents
faculty and chairs from asserting actual and potential impact (e.g., an invitation to speak at a
prestigious conference to illustrate a new teaching technique can be an indicator of both
actual and potential future impact). The granularity with which excellence is examined will
vary from discipline to discipline; however, the guideline should be specific enough to
achieve a high level of agreement across independent raters within the discipline.
Departments could consider the extent to which the guideline conforms to national
standards and expectations within the discipline, but also within the context of the
department’s mission and characteristics (e.g., relative emphasis or balance expected
between teaching and research).
•
Does an overlap exist between areas of performance? For example, being the editor of a
prestigious journal can be considered a service to the profession but is also an indicator of
the individual’s status in the field.
•
Departments may categorize, or rank order, the prestige or impact of different types of
accomplishments. For example, evidence of extraordinary accomplishment may come from
publishing a book in a top university press, or becoming the editor of a highly respected
journal, or being invited to perform, or exhibit, at a highly prestigious, internationally
renowned theater or museum.
Multidisciplinary Contributions, Engagement, Contributions to Diversity and
Globalization
Within teaching, research, and service, there can be products of a multidisciplinary, collaborative,
and interdisciplinary nature, as well as products that advance CAS engagement with the community,
and CAS inclusive goals with relation to diversity and globalization. Departments may want to
Regarding the Annual Performance Review – ACB working document 1/30/15
5
discuss the extent to which their annual faculty evaluation guidelines (and their RPTs) address these
types of contributions. For example,
•
Guidelines could identify quantity, quality, and impact of these products within each of the
areas of faculty performance.
•
In principle, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary work should be valued neither less nor
more meaningful than disciplinary work. The guidelines provide an opportunity to explain
how multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary works are considered and evaluated within the
department.
•
If the current college activity report is missing important categories or types of products
relevant to specific disciplines or departmental practices,
o
Consider what else may go into the activity report (e.g., teaching portfolio).
o
Consider the usefulness of including a self-assessment and future expectations for
each broad area of contribution (teaching, scholarship, service). Self-assessments, if
concise and uniformly structured, could be particularly helpful to improve
communication between the chair and the faculty— especially in large departments.
Chair’s Communication in the Annual Review
Annual Review
For each faculty member, Chairs could include the following in the performance review:
•
Describe the individual’s performance overall and in each of the various areas (teaching,
research, service, diversity, etc.).
•
Relate their level of performance to any particular expectations stated in the previous
annual performance review. Consider placing individual performance into a comparative
context by referring to departmental norms. (This feedback could be particularly helpful to
individuals who are at risk of falling below departmental norms.)
•
Assess progress towards achievement of next higher rank.
•
Include expectations for future performance. Are there any changes in (or a need to reemphasize) specific expectations for the faculty member (e.g., obtaining external funding)?
•
Discuss load distribution for the upcoming academic year and associated major
responsibilities (e.g., important service roles within the department; distribution of courses
over the academic years).
•
Explain how salary increases for the upcoming year are to be calculated.
Meeting with the Department Chair
At least every-other year, there should be an opportunity for a personal meeting to discuss the
written review and expectations for the upcoming year(s), except for faculty in a probationary
period, for whom the in-person meeting is annual. (Departments may consider simply using the CBA
language here.) Departments are encouraged to discuss and come up with how they wish to
address deficiencies in case of an unsatisfactory evaluation in any of the areas of performance.
6
Regarding the Annual Performance Review – ACB working document 1/30/15
CAS Governing Principles to Assess Teaching
The evaluation system will be compatible with the overall mission, goals, and structure of the
college, but also flexible enough to encompass various disciplines, audiences, goals, and teaching
methodologies.
The process for developing guidelines to evaluate teaching effectiveness should be collaborative and
include the dean, department chairs, faculty, and students. The following should be observed:
o
o
o
o
o
The teaching evaluation model must not contradict the CBA.
The Dean will communicate the college contingencies for submission and approval.
Faculty members must be integrally involved in choosing the indicators of teaching
effectiveness.
Students should understand how their feedback informs the teaching evaluation process.
Administrators, faculty, and students should understand the utility and limitations of the
model.
The evaluation system should reflect the complexity of teaching and should include the assessment
of the relevant domains; for example:
o
o
o
o
The course content and the course design element (e.g., course objectives align with
program learning outcomes; effective activities and assignments). (See also CBA 14.5.e.i:
evidence of the capacity to structure the course and its assignments in ways that promote
student learning.)
The instructional delivery of the course (e.g., engages student participation and facilitates
discussion effectively). (See also CBA 14.5.e.i: evidence of the ability to present course
materials clearly and effectively.)
Grading and assessment of learning outcomes (e.g., appropriate rigor and expectations,
monitors progress effectively). (See also CBA 14.5.e.i: evidence of the employment of
strategies to assess students’ learning . . . .)
Classroom management (e.g., create learning environments that welcome, challenge, and
support all students). (See also CBA 14.5.e.i: evidence of an ability to stimulate students’
intellectual interest and enthusiasm.)
The sources or methods of assessment must include
o
o
o
o
Self-reflection and assessment,
Students’ feedback,
Peers’ assessment, and
Chair’s assessment and evaluation.
Ideally, the evaluation of teaching shall allow for both formative (constructive) feedback and a
summative (overall performance) evaluation. Formative feedback fosters individual improvement.
The formative feedback may include a discussion of future goals and strategies for meeting these
goals. Summative evaluations simply assess the degree to which institutional standards are met or
surpassed.
Regarding the Annual Performance Review – ACB working document 1/30/15
7
Example of Teaching Evaluation Guidelines
Please note that this is not a template for required use. Rather, its aim is to provide a prototype or
model that complies with the CAS Governing Principles to Assess Teaching that was submitted to the
Provost’s Office. The CAS model proposes to gather data from four sources: students, peers, self,
and the chair. Taken together, all of the data should be sufficient to assess all of the domains
defined by the CBA.
In the current example, the chair gathers all of the data and uses her or his experience and “good”
judgment to determine whether faculty either do not meet, meet, or exceed expectations. (This is
the summative aspect of the annual evaluation.) Departments may instead decide to give the chair
fewer degrees of freedom and to establish specific guidelines to help the chair analyze and interpret
the data and to reach an annual summative conclusion. The teaching guideline may also spell out
specific teaching mentoring strategies, or may simply indicate how the process has a “formative”
component. For example, in the current example, the evaluation could be assumed to have a
formative component because faculty need to demonstrate self-reflection, there is a peer feedback
process, and the faculty member consults with the chair to set goals for the upcoming year. The
assumption is that the evaluation process makes it impossible for the instructor not to learn.
Regarding RPT vs. Annual Evaluation Guidelines: RPT processes evaluate an individual’s performance
to date, including cumulative performance as well as patterns of performance, to determine
whether the individual has met minimum departmental expectations for tenure or promotion, as
well as to guess or predict the individual’s commitment, and ability, to continue performing at a high
level well into the future. The annual evaluation process focuses on the last year but includes
consideration of what was done in a three-year window. The current document, or Example of
Teaching Evaluation Guidelines, addresses the annual performance review process. It assumes that
each year there will be new data from the students, self, and chair. It assumes that peerassessments will not be necessary every year because title and rank afford faculty the privilege of
satisfying the “peer-assessment” test. Nonetheless, departments should decide how often, if ever,
tenured faculty and senior lecturers undergo future “peer-assessments” of teaching. A word also
about “self-assessment”: In my experience many faculty already include a written summary of what
they may have done that is new news in any particular year. I’m not proposing that faculty must go
beyond a brief update, if the department considers more is not needed. What I am suggesting is that
departments have a conversation about what the self-assessment should consist of.
Remember, you have flexibility in how elaborate or in-depth you want to go. Use this example as
you see fit, and thank you!
8
Regarding the Annual Performance Review – ACB working document 1/30/15
Mission, Goals, and Priorities 1
The Department of __________________ values faculty committed to undergraduate (and
graduate) education. Our tenure-track faculty are active scholars and incorporate insights from their
scholarship (or creative art) into their teaching and interactions with students. Likewise, our nontenure-track faculty remain connected to current advances in their fields and many choose to be
scholarly active. We are teacher-scholars. We ______________
[possible example]
•
•
•
•
Encourage students to process information deeply in ways that promote critical analysis and
understanding;
Foster, individually and collectively, students’ problem-solving ability by assigning tasks that
require the integration and synthesis of information and skills with prior learning;
Help students develop systematic and deliberate approaches to examine new phenomena
and see things from different perspectives;
Provide opportunities for students to participate in research, creative activities, and other
scholarly pursuits.
[In the creative/performing arts, alternative or additional language might include that the
department]
•
•
•
Is committed to shaping and directing a student’s creative expression, such that it becomes a
deep, personal, and empirical experience.
Seeks to foster the process of a student’s artistic inquiry, as well as acquisition knowledge,
experience, technique, and skill.
Values a faculty member’s ability to stimulate students’ intellectual and artistic interest.
Domains of Teaching Effectiveness
Here are areas where faculty should be expected to evidence mastery and consistency:
• Instructor’s competence (per CBA: intellectual competence, integrity and independence;
evidence of knowledge of the field).
• The course design element (includes CBA’s evidence of the capacity to structure the course and
its assignments in ways that promote student learning).
1
This is just an example I made up. I encourage you to draft a statement that is inclusive of tenuretrack and non-tenure-track faculty and fits your department’s identity.
Regarding the Annual Performance Review – ACB working document 1/30/15
9
•
The instructional delivery of the course (includes CBA’s evidence of the ability to present course
materials clearly and effectively).
•
Grading and assessment of learning outcomes (includes CBA’s evidence of the employment of
strategies to assess students’ learning . . .).
Classroom management (includes CBA’s evidence of an ability to stimulate students’ intellectual
interest and enthusiasm).
•
•
Mentoring and advising. (See Department’s Advising Model.)
•
Commitment to continual improvement (includes CBA’s evidence of a willingness to consider
suggestions that emerge from peer review of one’s teaching; evidence of the ability to work with
other faculty members in designing and delivering a curriculum that fosters student learning).
Faculty could also provide evidence of excellence in teaching through significant contributions in
one or more of the following:
•
Alignment with college and departmental priorities (i.e., substantive contributions to improve
the heft and quality of our high-impact [HIP] offerings).
•
Contributions to the scholarship of teaching.
•
Teaching awards and recognitions.
•
Development of new courses and major revisions of existing courses.
Sources of assessment
The evaluation of teaching performance includes input and feedback from students, assessments
and evaluations from peers, a self-assessment by the instructor, and the overall summative
evaluation by the chair. Faculty must also show evidence of pursuing formative evaluation feedback.
Student ratings
Student-teaching ratings could point to outstanding teaching, could suggest performance
achievement within departmental norms, or could suggest possible shortcomings in the faculty
member’s ability or commitment to teach. Whichever the case might be, the chair will look at other
sources of evidence before concluding that faculty meet, do not meet, or exceed expectations for
teaching.
The process and procedures associated with the collection and analysis of student ratings are as
follows:
•
•
•
Students are given the opportunity to provide quantitative and qualitative feedback using the
[Department’s Name] Student-Teaching Rating Form.
Describe here the administration procedures: is it online or in person? Who administers the
forms and communicates with the students? What are the students told about the process?
How are the forms collected and kept?
Describe here how the data will be handled, analyzed, and interpreted. (For example, the scores
are entered in a database that allows for the classification of scores by instructor, course level,
10
•
Regarding the Annual Performance Review – ACB working document 1/30/15
course enrollment, etc. For each course, each faculty member, and the department as a whole,
scores distributions for percentages of students who are [e.g., very dissatisfied (1), dissatisfied
(2), neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (3), satisfied (4), and very satisfied (5)] are computed by
course level and course size. [In addition to or instead of, departments could also calculate
mean averages and standard deviations for each course and faculty member.] Individual faculty
scores in each course are then compared to departmental norms, but taking into consideration
the appropriate contextual variables).
Describe here how qualitative feedback will be analyzed and evaluated. For example, qualitative
feedback is primarily meant for the benefit of the instructor, but it can also be used to clarify
numeric ratings. Student feedback could help assess the following domains:
o Course design and, possibly, teaching effectiveness (includes CBA’s evidence of the capacity
to structure the course and its assignments in ways that promote student learning).
o Instructional delivery of the course and classroom management (includes CBA’s evidence of
the ability to present course materials clearly and effectively).
o Grading and assessment of learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of teaching
effectiveness (includes CBA’s evidence of the employment of strategies to assess students’
learning . . .).
Peer Assessment
Faculty peers normally assess the instructor’s competence, the appropriateness of the course design
and instructional delivery, including grading and assessment of learning outcomes. The frequency of
peer evaluation is normally related to the rank and career-stage of the faculty member, or as
determined by the Chair when student-teaching ratings, self-assessments, and chair’s observations
suggest a peer-assessment could help. (Departments may be more specific about what triggers a
“peer assessment.”) Individual faculty members may also request additional peer assessments.
Nature of the Peer Assessment 2
Describe the frequency and process for conducting a peer evaluation. For example, each peer
evaluation will focus on the assessment of at least one course. The assessment will normally include
an examination of the course syllabus and at least [one/two] classroom observation(s). Each peer
evaluation may include the following:
Pre-review Dialogue: The instructor being reviewed establishes a context for the course by, for
example, explaining and giving the reasons for the content, objectives and learning outcomes of
the course, the design and organization of the course, rationale for homework assignments, and
the examination and grading system. Any questions or concerns noted in this process are raised
and addressed. The instructor and reviewer decide which classes over the upcoming semester
will be observed.
2
Reviewers are encouraged to follow the following tips from Temple University:
http://www.temple.edu/tlc/resources/handouts/peer_review/12_tips_for_peer_review_Handout.p
df
Regarding the Annual Performance Review – ACB working document 1/30/15
11
Review Itself: The observer examines the syllabus and other instructional materials and
observes [one/two] class session(s). The observer takes notes and interprets the instructional
materials and her/his observations regarding (for example) competence, instructional delivery,
course management, alignment of course design with learning objectives, appropriateness of
assignments, appropriateness of examinations and grading.
Post-review Dialogue/ Documentation/ Reflection: The reviewer provides constructive and
action-oriented feedback that includes specific examples. The instructor reflects, makes (and
records) decisions or plans for moving forward (based on the feedback received). A written
review addressing each of the important domains is provided to the instructor and submitted to
the Department Chair (within [two/three] weeks of the observation).
Frequency of the Peer Assessment
Most faculty will not undergo a peer evaluation every year. However, it is highly recommended that
a does not meet expectations review in teaching should automatically trigger a peer assessment. In
addition, faculty may request to be peer-assessed out of cycle. Below are some suggestions or
examples for possible cycles:
Assistant Professors within their first six semesters of teaching at UVM are normally subject to
[two/three] peer assessments. After the second reappointment, Assistant Professors are subject
to at least [one/two] peer assessment(s).
Associate Professors normally undergo one peer assessment every [X] academic years. The RPT
Guidelines of the department require that candidates for promotion to Full Professor have at
least [one/two] peer assessment(s) within the [two/three] year period that precedes the review
year.
Full Professors normally undergo one peer assessment every [X] years [or, undergo a peer
assessment only if needed as determined by the chair or as requested by the faculty member].
Lecturers and Senior Lecturers [per CBA] must have at least one formal peer review every
four years. Such review may be extended to the fifth or sixth year in order to coincide with
the expiration of a faculty member’s appointment.
Self Assessment 3
Description of what is expected for the self-assessment piece—note that much of it can be recycled
annually or simply answered in a few sentences.
For example, the self-assessment may include
•
A description of the faculty member’s advising and mentoring practices.
•
A brief reflective statement about major lessons learned (including any professional
development pursued) and how the lessons learned were applied to the courses taught.
3
A webpage filled with a rich list of resources and links to help with reflective thinking can be found
at SMU: http://www.smu.edu/Provost/CTE/Resources/Reflect
12
•
Regarding the Annual Performance Review – ACB working document 1/30/15
Any relevant information related to
o
o
o
o
Alignment with the priorities of the college and department.
Contributions to the scholarship of teaching.
Teaching awards and recognition.
Development of new courses and major revisions of existing courses.
•
A self-evaluation or one-sentence statement affirming the extent to which the instructor
believes departmental standards have been met or surpassed. (This could be very helpful—it
provides an opportunity to clarify expectations.)
•
The length of the self-assessment will normally be no more than [500] words.
Chair’s Assessment and Evaluation
Describe how the chair goes about conducting the evaluation and giving feedback to the faculty. For
example, the Chair gathers all sources of information, including any relevant knowledge or
information learned in his/her role as chair, and evaluates the information to examine and comment
on:
1) Adherence to the teacher-scholar model,
2) Strengths and weaknesses,
3) Interest shown in student intellectual growth, and
4) Overall classroom performance.
The chair provides and explains, briefly, the reasons for the summative conclusion (does not meet,
meets, or exceeds expectations), as well as a list of expectations or recommendations, if any, for
future performance. The chair and the faculty member meet after the faculty member has had the
opportunity to read the evaluation. The faculty member can write a rebuttal, and the chair may
respond to the rebuttal. If new information or new arguments are compelling, the evaluation may
be amended through addenda. (Prior documents cannot be rewritten.)