4A FACULTY EVALUATION MODEL
4A-1 SECTION 1. GENERAL INFORMATION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
This Faculty Evaluation Model has the following sections: principles and criteria upon which faculty evaluations are based (Section 4A-2); principles informing the roles of different parties in the faculty evaluation (Sections 4A-3 and 4A-4); evaluation procedures for each type of evaluation (Sections 4A-5 to 4A-12); and evaluation forms (Figures 4A.1 to 4A.10) and Calendars of Events for each type of evaluation (Tables 1-4).
This model covers evaluations of full-time faculty members and evaluations by faculty members of department chairs, but does not cover administrators or academic support personnel even though they may hold faculty rank. Full-time teaching faculty are those who teach at least nine semesters hours. Some faculty who would normally be considered full-time but who have been reassigned to other non-teaching duties are to adjust the weights in their self-evaluations to account for those other responsibilities. Performance in such non-teaching functions will be evaluated by whomever the faculty member reports to for those responsibilities.
Full-time faculty receive annual evaluations (Section 4A-7), as well as evaluations for promotion and/or tenure (Section 4A-8) and for first and/or second year contract renewal and advisory evaluations (Section 4A-9). Tenured faculty receive comprehensive, periodic, cumulative evaluation every five years, or five years from the last review related to tenure and/or promotion (Section 4A-12). Procedures for non-tenure-track faculty are also described (Section 4A-10). Faculty members are evaluated in three areas (teaching, scholarship, and service) to which flexible area weights are assigned (Section 4A-2). Overall evaluation is recorded on standard evaluation forms (Figures 4A.1, 4A.3, 4A.4), and measured in accordance with a four-category Standard Performance Rating Scale (Figure 4A.6). Overall performance ratings become the basis for annual recommendations for merit salary increases (Figure 4A.5), as well as for tenure, promotion, or contract renewal recommendations (Figure 4A.3). In this Model, the phrase "major evaluations" denotes evaluations for tenure, promotion, or contract renewal.
Librarians with faculty rank are evaluated under the provisions of the Faculty Handbook, Section 3-13, Policy Statement on Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure of Professional Librarians. Evaluation of library services, including performance of library personnel, is delegated to the Academic Support Services Sub-Committee of the Faculty Senate. Evaluations (first-year, annual, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review) of professional librarians with faculty rank will follow the same general procedures that are applied to teaching faculty, with exceptions dependent on the special responsibilities of librarians. Those responsibilities are outlined in general terms as criteria for appointment, promotion, and tenure in Section 3-13 of the Faculty Handbook.
Faculty members seeking tenure and/or promotion are advised to consult also Section 3-12 of the Faculty Handbook, which outlines University-wide criteria for tenure and promotion.
The underlying philosophy of this Model is that evaluation of faculty performance is a complex process which should promote a reasonable degree of equity and consistency for all individuals and academic departments. The Model should be implemented in a way that enhances faculty development and promotes faculty achievement and satisfaction, while also promoting the mission of The University of North Carolina at Pembroke.
As a means to help insure fairness, in all formal evaluations, a faculty member has the right to submit a rebuttal pertaining to any aspects of reports submitted by Deans, department chairs or Peer Evaluation Committees.
All phases of evaluation are to be guided by the principles set forth in Sections 4A-1 to 4A-3. Individual faculty members have latitude in the roles they assume as they fulfill their responsibilities to the University and its mission. The Model encourages flexibility in applying the principles and criteria for each area of faculty evaluation (Section 4A-2), allowing for the varying needs and traditions of different academic disciplines. The model also specifies procedures (Sections 4A-5 to 4A-11) that promote consistency in evaluation. This evaluation model will be reviewed periodically by the Faculty Evaluation Review Subcommittee and amended as the Faculty Senate deems appropriate.
While this Model attempts to be reasonably comprehensive with respect to policies and procedures, faculty members should also be familiar with other sections of the Faculty Handbook concerning tenure and promotion criteria (Section 3-12), grievance procedures (Section 4-1.3), and hearing procedures (due process: Section 3-4). Further, employment at the University and conduct as a faculty member are governed by sections of The Code of the University of North Carolina (copies of which are available from department chairs and the Office for Academic Affairs); faculty members should consult that document as well as the Faculty Handbook.
4A-2 SECTION 2. FACULTY EVALUATION: PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA
4A-2.1 Areas of Faculty Evaluation
For purposes of evaluation, all faculty responsibilities are divided among three general areas as specified in the opening sentence of The University of North Carolina at Pembroke Mission Statement in the University Catalog: "The University of North Carolina at Pembroke is a comprehensive University committed to academic excellence in a balanced program of teaching, research, and service." Some activities, such as grant-related work, may fall into several areas and should be evaluated accordingly.
Throughout Section 4A-2, the term "knowledge" is used as a broad summary term intended to include factual information, epistemological and empirical principles, artistic technique, empirical and interpretive methodologies, reasoning skills, and so forth.
4A-2.2 Evaluation of Teaching
A. Principles and Definitions
At The University of North Carolina at Pembroke, teaching is the single most important responsibility of regular full-time faculty members. According to our Mission Statement, The University of North Carolina at Pembroke "provides an intellectual environment created by a faculty dedicated to effective teaching, interaction with students and scholarship." Teaching thus receives an area weight of 50%-70% in a faculty member's evaluation, unless an exception is granted in writing (see Section 4A-7.1 A.1).
The teaching area has two components. Classroom teaching includes all activities involved in preparing and conducting the courses which a faculty member is assigned to teach. Auxiliary teaching activities may include submitting grades, supervising student research projects or other learning not directly tied to a class, administration of teaching-related grants, cooperating with colleagues in planning curricula, cooperating with university-wide and departmental curricular objectives, and pursuing professional growth as a teacher.
1. Classroom teaching effectiveness is evaluated in terms of six broad dimensions:
a. Imparting general knowledge: Effective teachers impart a sound and up-to-date understanding of the concepts, categories, principles, summaries, and other generalizations that apply to the topics within a course, providing a foundation for other learning. Even courses in applied techniques present conceptual frameworks, which may be communicated through demonstrations, exercises, and discussions as well as lectures. Typically, success in imparting general content is evidenced by students' capacity to explain what they have learned; to understand new information in the area; to apply their knowledge to new problems and contexts; and to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information.
b. Imparting specific knowledge: Effective teachers impart a representative, unbiased, selection of facts, examples, and other details that enrich a course's general content. In a successful course, specific content authenticates and illustrates concepts, stimulates the imagination, and presents logical relationships between specific and general content clearly.
c. Developing skills: Effective teachers develop students' capacity to perform various types of skills. Some of these skills reinforce course content. Other skills involve broader intellectual operations that underlie most university courses, such as creativity, oral and written communication skills, critical thinking, research methods, computer proficiency, and basic quantitative reasoning. Since many students need to develop basic skills, success in this area is an important component of effective teaching.
d. Motivating students: Effective teachers elicit from students a strong desire to learn. Motivated students prepare for class sessions, pay attention during class, participate in discussions, complete assigned work, rehearse skills, and study for examinations. Motivated students also show confidence, curiosity, and creativity; they strive for excellence in completing assignments; and they take an interest in non-required material and further course work in the area covered. Effective teaching practices to stimulate motivation are also addressed below.
e. Setting requirements and evaluating performance: Effective teachers fairly and accurately evaluate student learning while also providing students with specific feedback that promotes further learning. Performance standards are appropriate to course content and course level. Examinations, papers, and other assignments are sufficient, varied, and challenging; are appropriate to course content, course objectives, and students' background; and allow students to demonstrate their learning. Student work is graded carefully and returned in a timely manner with appropriate feedback. Student failure is handled constructively.
f. Success with effective teaching practices: Effective teachers provide syllabi with clear course objectives and requirements; use teaching techniques (e.g., lectures, demonstrations, exercises, and discussions) that are effective and appropriate to fulfill course objectives; meet their classes as scheduled; set high expectations and help students meet them; involve students in active and cooperative learning; and continually review and revise courses. Effective teachers are enthusiastic and intellectually involved, treat students with respect and courtesy, offer extra assistance to students, and encourage students to consult with them outside of class.
2. Auxiliary teaching activities are evaluated by criteria appropriate to these activities, such as submitting valid grades in a timely manner, effectively supervising student research projects or other learning not directly tied to a class, working constructively with peers to develop curricula, supporting University and departmental objectives, and participating in activities for professional development as a teacher.
1. Classroom teaching is typically documented by: copies of representative syllabi, tests, assignments, and handouts; samples of student work and the faculty member's response to the work; and Student Evaluation Reports (Section 4A-7.2 D).
For major evaluations (renewal, tenure, promotion), reports on classroom observations by the department chair and members of a Peer Evaluation Committee are required (see Sections 4A-8 and 4A-9 for procedures).
2. Auxiliary teaching activities may be documented by copies of student research projects, outlines of new curricula to which a contribution was made, and records of participation in activities for professional development as a teacher (workshops, seminars, conferences, etc).
4A-2.3 Evaluation of Scholarship
A. Principles and Definitions
Though teaching is their fundamental responsibility, all full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members are expected to have a balanced pattern of scholarship and service over the previous three years of employment at The University of North Carolina at Pembroke. Scholarship receives an area weight of 10% to 40% in a faculty member's evaluation unless an exception is granted in writing (see Section 4A-7.1 A.1). Scholarly work in progress, if appropriately documented, is recognized as a component of scholarship, but completed works of scholarship receive greater weight in evaluation. In promotion and tenure decisions, a consistent pattern of completed scholarly projects is expected.
Scholarship (scholarly research and/or scholarly publication) is defined as a set of disciplined intellectual activities that create or refine knowledge and exert influence through public dissemination in an academically respectable format. This definition of scholarship includes creative activity appropriate to the arts.
1. Scholarly research is defined as (a) creating basic knowledge, (b) compiling or synthesizing knowledge, (c) applying existing basic knowledge to the solution of practical problems, (d) applying professional knowledge and skills to artistic problems, or (e) completing a special program of intellectual development.
Scholarly research may include research involved in the dissemination of scholarship or the preparation of scholarly publications, as an editor or reviewer.
Attendance at professional conferences and workshops can contribute to a faculty member's scholarly research and may count among scholarly activities in a given year. Over time, however, conference attendance without scholarly publication (see below) in itself is not considered scholarship.
Preparation and administration of grants qualifies as scholarly research only insofar as it entails the activities cited above.
2. Scholarly publication is defined as employing accepted techniques to publicly communicate research to (a) scholarly audiences, (b) student audiences, or (c) general audiences. Although most scholarly publication is intended primarily for other scholars, a publication that informs a broader audience is acceptable as long as the format of the publication is appropriate to a discipline.
1. Specialized criteria: Scholarship is evaluated primarily against specialized criteria appropriate to the disciplines of each department and consistent with a department's evaluation plan. The quality of scholarly publication is typically ensured through a peer review process appropriate to its audience.
2. General criteria for evaluating scholarship include (a) significance, indicated by judged intellectual depth and scope, originality, and potential benefit to academia or society at large; and (b) peer review or recognition, indicated by publication in a refereed journal, publication in book form by a scholarly press or other recognized publisher, or presentation at a recognized forum for work in progress. National and international forums are typically accorded greater significance than regional ones. In tenure and promotion decisions, completed projects carry more weight than works in progress.
Typical documentation of scholarship includes copies of scholarly publications, books, conference papers, catalogs, or programs, and similar evidence of professional productivity in the faculty member's discipline. Less important is evidence of attendance at workshops, seminars, conferences, performances, or other activities even when they may directly contribute to a faculty member's scholarly or creative projects.
When such projects require longer periods of time to complete, a faculty member may provide evidence of significant progress toward completion, including paper presentations, contracts for book publication, or external peer comments on a paper or partial manuscript. In cases where the confidential nature of a research project prevents its wider dissemination, a faculty member should provide appropriate documentation.
4A-2.4 Evaluation of Service
A. Principles and Definitions
Though teaching is a fundamental responsibility, all full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members are expected to have a balanced pattern of scholarship and service over the previous three years of employment at The University of North Carolina at Pembroke. Service receives an area weight of 10% to 40% in a faculty member's evaluation unless an exception is granted in writing (see Section 4A-7.1 A.1).
Service is divided into three categories: University service, professional service, and external and community service. Faculty members may apportion their service activities among these categories as they deem appropriate or as they are needed by the University (e.g. required service to area public schools).
1. University service includes any University-related activities other than teaching and scholarship that promote the welfare of the University. Activities within and outside one's academic department (academic advisement of students, mentoring, preparation of grant applications, administrative activities associated with external grants and student activities, committee work and involvement in faculty governance, revision of curricula, preparation of accreditation reports, and similar voluntary activities not assigned as position responsibilities) may be considered University service.
Collegiality (willingness and ability to cooperate with colleagues) may be considered relevant to evaluation of service. If so, assessment of collegiality should be based solely on the faculty member's capacity to relate constructively to peers, including his or her impact on others' work.
2. Professional service consists of activities that benefit a faculty member's field of professional expertise. Professional service may include serving on professional committees and governing boards, serving as an officer in a professional organization, organizing and chairing sessions at professional meetings, and performing routine editing and reviewing. A professional activity for which remuneration is granted is evaluated as service only in cases where any compensation is very limited (e.g., expenses or a small honorarium).
3. External and community service connotes activities that are (a) charitable, and (b) performed for the benefit of individuals or groups separate from the University and from the wider profession. External service might include participating on committees and governing boards; speaking to non-professional audiences about topics in one's discipline; providing professional consultation to schools, civic organizations, and government agencies; or providing leadership on public matters related to the faculty member's discipline. An external service activity for which remuneration is granted is evaluated as service only in cases where any compensation is very limited (e.g., expenses or a small honorarium).
1. University service is evaluated when possible by results: advisees graduated without major difficulties, grant applications completed, grants successfully administered, activities of student organizations, valuable contributions to a committee's projects, completion of reports, gaining accreditation, and similar accomplishments. Listing committee membership as a form of service implies that one has fulfilled at least the basic responsibilities of membership.
2. Professional service is evaluated when possible by results: by the importance of contributions made, by how demanding activities were, and by how well objectives were achieved.
3. External and community service is evaluated when possible by results: by the importance of contributions made, by how demanding activities were, and by how well objectives were achieved.
Service must be documented by appropriate materials only when it is granted a large area weight (15% or more) in an annual evaluation or is offered as support for contract renewal or for promotion or tenure. In general, letters of appreciation from organizers of service opportunities should be used as documentation only if they indicate an exceptional contribution.
1. University service may be documented by materials such as lists of advisees or advisement appointments, copies of reports or grants prepared, minutes of meetings, and supporting statements by department chairs, committee chairs, or the Office of Grants.
2. Professional service may be documented by printed or widely distributed materials such as conference programs, flyers, or minutes of meetings, or by statements from chairs or presidents.
3. External and community service may be documented by printed or widely distributed materials such as conference programs, flyers, or minutes of meetings, or by statements from chairs or presidents.
4A-3 SECTION 3. PARTICIPANTS IN FACULTY EVALUATION: PRINCIPLES AND ROLES
All evaluators should be guided by the traditions of academic freedom. Also, all evaluators are required to maintain confidentiality about all the information and decisions involved, except for disclosures required by their formal reporting responsibilities.
4A-3.1 The Faculty Member Being Evaluated
The main kinds of evaluations of faculty members, which are explained in more detail in Section 4A-5, are as follows. Each full-time faculty member, even a faculty member not tenured or in a tenure-track position, receives annual evaluations. In addition, faculty members in tenure-track positions receive evaluations for tenure and for each promotion. Untenured tenure-track faculty receive first and/or second year evaluations and may receive advisory evaluations. Non-tenure-track faculty are evaluated annually and in their sixth year of employment (Section 4A-10).
Because of the complexity and specialized nature of academic work, a faculty member's self-evaluation should be a primary source of information about the goals, methods, and degree of success associated with his or her performance. Faculty members are responsible for representing their work accurately and providing appropriate documentation for their claims (see Section 4A-2).
Faculty members should have considerable freedom to allocate their time and effort in ways that use their competencies most productively, while still fulfilling their responsibilities to the University. To allow individual choices to play a meaningful role in self-evaluation, the faculty member indicates a set of annual area weights when completing a Self-Evaluation Report (see Figure 4A.1). These weights are taken into account by evaluators in developing overall performance evaluations.
In all formal evaluations, the candidate has the right to submit a rebuttal pertaining to any aspects of reports submitted by the Dean, department chair, or the Peer Evaluation Committee.
Students who take a faculty member's courses play a prominent role in evaluating the faculty member's teaching. They submit information on a Student Evaluation of Instruction Form (Figure 4A.4), from which summaries are compiled for each course, consisting of numerical data as well as all student comments. Student evaluations must be administered in a manner that conveys their importance and protects students' sense of freedom to give candid evaluations. Students should also have significant input in developing or selecting the instruments used to gather their evaluations of teaching (see Section 4A-7.2.A.).
Student evaluations by themselves do not provide sufficient information to validly judge a faculty member's performance as a teacher; hence, evaluation of teaching effectiveness involves a variety of types of documentation (see Section 4A-2.2. C.)
4A-3.3 The Department Chair
The department chair is responsible for (a) coordinating the evaluation process at the departmental level, (b) providing the primary administrative evaluation of the faculty member's performance, and (c) promoting the professional growth of the department's faculty. In years prior to tenure and/or promotion decisions, the department chair is strongly encouraged to provide each faculty member with constructive, timely guidance about the means by which any deficiencies can be corrected.
A Department Chair's Evaluation Report includes assigning performance ratings, recommending merit salary increases in annual evaluations, and reporting on classroom observation for major evaluations. In preparing the Department Chair's Evaluation Report for a faculty member, a chair should use the Format for Evaluation Reports (Figure 4A.1) and be guided by the Standard Performance Rating Scale (Figure 4A.6). Serious consideration must be given to the area weights on the faculty member's Self-Evaluation Report(s).
4A-3.4 The Peer Evaluation Committee
The Peer Evaluation Committee is responsible for preparing and submitting a Peer Evaluation Report in decisions involving tenure and/or promotion, as well as in first year and other contract renewal evaluations (see Section 4A-8.3 A. and 4A-8.4) and in post-tenure review evaluations (see Section 4A-12.3.C). The report is based on documentation submitted by the faculty member being evaluated, classroom observations, and external review if called for. The Peer Evaluation Committee is responsible for gathering appropriate information, assessing its implications, and formulating a coherent evaluation of the faculty member's performance. To retain the special value of their perspective, Committee's evaluation should be independent of the department chair's evaluation.
In preparing the Peer Evaluation Report for a faculty member, a Peer Evaluation Committee should use the Format for Evaluation Reports (Figure 4A.1) and be guided by the Standard Performance Rating Scale (Figure 4A.6). Serious consideration must be given to the area weights on the faculty member's Self-Evaluation Report(s).
4A-3.5 The Deans of Schools and Colleges
The Deans of Schools and Colleges are responsible for monitoring the evaluation process. After reviewing the materials submitted by the Department Chair, Peer Evaluation Committee (if provided), and the faculty member under review, the Dean will complete the Dean's Recommendation or Report form (Figures 4A.9-4A.12), which will then be forwarded, with the materials the Dean has reviewed, to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Academic units (for example, the library and the nursing program currently) that are not under the supervision of a Dean will submit evaluation reports directly to the Office for Academic Affairs.
4A-3.6 The Promotion and Tenure Committee
The Promotion and Tenure Committee advises the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs on matters of promotion and tenure. This University wide committee attempts to ensure a fair and consistent application of promotion and tenure standards. The responsibilities of the Promotion and Tenure Committee are to (a) gather the reports of the department chair and Peer Evaluation Committee, (b) request any additional information that it deems necessary, (c) examine all facets of the application, and (d) reach an equitable final decision. Responsibilities in the tenure and/or promotion process are discussed below (Section 4A-8.5).
A. Composition and restrictions on membership of the Committee:
1. The Committee will consist of five faculty members, one elected from each Faculty Senate division. The Committee on Committees and Elections will conduct faculty-wide elections for the divisional representatives under procedures outlined in the By-laws of the Faculty Constitution.
2. Membership is restricted to full-time faculty members; no department chair or other administrator shall be eligible to serve. Department chairs and administrators may act as resource persons to the Committee.
3. Only those faculty members with tenure and the rank of associate or full professor are eligible for election to the Committee.
4. Membership is for three-year staggered terms. A member may not succeed him or herself.
5. A member of the Committee (Promotion and Tenure) shall not serve concurrently on the Faculty Hearing Committee or the Faculty Grievance Committee or a Tenure and Promotion Peer Evaluation Committee, but shall be eligible to serve on First Year Peer Evaluation Committees.
6. No member may receive a major evaluation while serving on the Committee. A member who is to receive a major evaluation must resign from the Committee by September 21 of the year of the evaluation so that a replacement may be elected. If a member fails to resign by that date, his or her major evaluation is aborted.
7. No member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee shall serve concurrently on the Faculty Hearing Committee or the Faculty Grievance Committee or a Tenure and Promotion Peer Evaluation Committee, but shall be eligible to serve on First Year Evaluation Committees.
1. Committee leadership. At the final meeting in the spring semester, the Committee will select a chair and vice chair. The chairmanship rotates among divisions. The vice chair should represent the next division in the regular rotation. A member may serve as chair only once during his or her term. The chair is responsible for conducting meetings, insuring that all pertinent provisions of the Faculty Evaluation Model are followed, using standard parliamentary procedures in reaching decisions, insuring confidentiality of proceedings, and preparing and distributing the Committee's final reports. Should the chair abstain from a case, the vice chair will preside; the vice chair will also assist in preparation of final reports.
2. Coordination with the Office for Academic Affairs. At the first meeting of the fall semester, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs briefs the Committee on the results of the previous committee's recommendations and on the forthcoming candidacies to be considered. Throughout the year, the Committee chair serves as the liaison between the Committee and the Office for Academic Affairs for matters pertaining to promotion and tenure decisions.
3. Quorum requirements and abstentions. A quorum of four members is required to conduct preliminary meetings, and a quorum of all five members is required for final decisions. In any decision that involves a conflict of interest on the part of a member, that member is to notify the other members and abstain from all deliberations and votes on that decision.
4. Report preparation. In preparing the Tenure and Promotion Evaluation Report for a faculty member, the committee is to follow the Format for Evaluation Reports (Figure 4A.1); complete the Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form (Figure 4A.3); and be guided by the Standard Performance Rating Scale (Figure 4A.6). Serious consideration must be given to the area weights on the faculty member's Self-Evaluation Report(s). The Committee's final recommendation should be an independent judgment based on summaries of the overall record and the Committee's resolution of any disagreements between the candidate and other evaluators. The Committee should strive for consistency over time in applying criteria and making decisions.
4A-3.7 The Faculty Evaluation Review Subcommittee
The Faculty Evaluation Review Committee is responsible for representing the norms and values of the general faculty in all matters related to the Faculty Evaluation Model.
When the current provisions of the Faculty Evaluation Model do not provide adequate instruction on a specific procedural matter, the party involved may request an ad hoc ruling from the Faculty Evaluation Review Committee. This ruling is binding unless superseded by action from the full Senate within thirty days. Any ruling made in a given academic year shall apply to all similar cases in that year.
4A-3.8 The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is responsible for making recommendations about a faculty member's salary increases, merit salary increases, tenure, promotion, and contract renewal to the Chancellor, based on recommendations and materials submitted by the department chair and other evaluators. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is also responsible for establishing and maintaining a general climate conducive to successful implementation of the Faculty Evaluation Model and for fostering conditions in which high levels of faculty achievement can occur.
1. Recommendations about salary and about tenure, promotion, and contract renewal: In reviewing department chairs' salary recommendations, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should balance the need for institutional accountability with the need to provide equitable opportunities for annual merit salary increases. In cases of tenure, promotion, and contract renewal, the recommendation of the Provost and Vice Chancellor to the Chancellor should provide the faculty member with a fair, reasonable decision that serves the interests of the University.
2. Implementation climate: The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is responsible for collaborating with department chairs to develop a uniform set of norms for interpreting the meaning of the Standard Performance Rating Scale (Figure 4A-6). These norms will necessarily represent some discipline-related variations across departments, especially in the area of scholarship. Beyond such variations, no department chair should be permitted to use standards that deviate from the general norms and practices of the University. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs may modify deadlines in the evaluation process as circumstances warrant.
3. Promoting faculty achievement: The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should facilitate scholarship and faculty development. The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should encourage department chairs to schedule teaching assignments judiciously and appropriately, and to award reassigned time to faculty members as necessary. Working with the Faculty Research and Development Committee and the University's Office of Grants, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should promote a healthy program of both internal and external funding for scholarly and creative work.
4A-3.9 The Chancellor
As Chief Executive Officer of the University, the Chancellor is responsible for facilitating the work of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and others in implementing the Faculty Evaluation Model and promoting faculty achievement. The Chancellor receives, reviews, and acts upon all evaluative materials provided by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. After reviewing the materials produced by the final evaluation process, the Chancellor takes actions regarding salary and employment.
4A-4 SECTION 4. THE FACULTY'S EVALUATION OF UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION
The faculty has a significant role in contributing to the general direction of the University, and effective administration of the University depends on a healthy dialog between the faculty and the administration. Therefore, the faculty shall periodically submit to the Chancellor formal evaluations of administrators and ongoing administrative processes.
4A-5 SECTION 5. PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING FACULTY: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The evaluation procedures described in this section are designed to attain the following objectives:
(a) provide every faculty member with adequate information on how evaluations will be conducted;
(b) promote a reasonable degree of equity and consistency both within and among departments;
(c) provide procedures that allow a reasonable degree of flexibility for faculty; and
(d) define the relationship between the various components of an evaluation and the final decision of the evaluator.
New faculty members should be informed of the evaluation procedures during their orientation to the University and should be encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Faculty Evaluation Model.
4A-5.1 Annual Evaluation
The annual evaluation provides the basis for merit salary increases and ongoing administrative supervision of faculty. It consists of a Self-Evaluation Report, Student Evaluation Report, Chair's Evaluation Report, an Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation, the Dean's Recommendation for Annual Salary Increase, and a recommendation by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Every full-time faculty member is evaluated annually. Faculty members on leave of absence are not evaluated, and part-time faculty are evaluated by department chairs using procedures developed by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Procedures are explained in Section 4A-7 and the Calendar of Events is shown in Table 1. Annual evaluation reports from previous years are used in evaluations for contract renewal, tenure, and promotion.
4A-5.2 Evaluation for Tenure and/or Promotion
Evaluations for decisions concerning tenure and/or promotion of tenure-track faculty include a Self-Evaluation Report, Student Evaluation Report, current-year Chair's Evaluation Report (with Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form), prior-year Chair's Evaluation Reports, Peer Evaluation Report (with Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form), Promotion and Tenure Committee Evaluation Report (with Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form), the Dean's Report for Tenure/Promotion, and a recommendation by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
All Assistant and Associate Professors are evaluated for tenure and/or promotion no later than their sixth year of employment at the University. All faculty applying for promotion receive a major evaluation. Non-tenure track faculty receive a major evaluation in their sixth year of employment (Section 4A-10). Procedures are explained in Section 4A-8 and the Calendar of Events is shown in Table 2.
A faculty member being considered for promotion who is a member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee must resign that membership by September 21, if he or she is to be considered for a promotion in that academic year. A faculty member whose application for promotion has been denied must wait two years before reapplying.
4A-5.3 First and/or Second Year Evaluation for Contract Renewal and Advisory Evaluations
All faculty, including non-tenure-track faculty, receive a major evaluation in their first year of employment at the University. In subsequent years, a major evaluation for untenured faculty is optional at the discretion of the faculty member or department chair. Peer evaluations of visiting faculty are at the option of the department chair and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
Evaluations after the second year (but prior to tenure and/or promotion evaluation) may be initiated by a tenure-track faculty member or by his/her chair anytime during the tenure-track process and will be advisory in nature.
For additional information and procedures see Section 4A-9 and the Calendar of Events in Table 3.
4A-6 SECTION 6. OPTIONAL DEPARTMENTAL EVALUATION PLAN
The general objectives of the Faculty Evaluation Model (Sections 4A-1 to 4A-4) may be attained by other methods. Departments that prefer to modify criteria or procedures are strongly encouraged to develop a Departmental Evaluation Plan. That plan may provide specific criteria as supplements to the Principles and Criteria (Section 4A-2), and may substitute alternatives for the Format for Evaluation Reports (Figure 4A.1), the Student Evaluation of Instruction Form (Figure 4A.4), and the Department Chair Evaluation Form (Figure 4A.7). In developing any alternative Student Evaluation of Instruction Form, a department should obtain input from its students.
An acceptable plan must (a) adhere to the guiding principles and procedural objectives in this document; (b) conform to all deadlines established herein; (c) produce a final output that can be expressed in terms of the Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form (Figure 4A.5) and the Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form (Figure 4A.3); (d) be approved by a two-thirds majority of the department's full-time faculty; and (e) be approved by the Faculty Senate. Departmental plans are required to be reasonably consistent across time so that no individual's evaluation is affected by temporary, arbitrary, or radical changes. The Office for Academic Affairs will maintain a file of all approved departmental plans for examination by all faculty members.
4A-7 SECTION 7. PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL EVALUATION
Every faculty member is evaluated every academic year. The annual evaluation includes a(n): (1) Self-Evaluation Report, (2) Student Evaluation Report, (3) Chair's Evaluation Report, (4) Chair's Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation, (5) the Dean's Recommendation for Annual Salary Increase, and (6) recommendation of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Procedures for compiling these reports are listed below. The Calendar of Events for Annual Evaluations appears in Table 1.
4A-7.1 Faculty Self-Evaluation Report
In the Self-Evaluation Report, the faculty member must discuss his or her teaching, scholarship, and service. In addition, each component is assigned an area weight reflective of the time, effort, and accomplishments in each area. The following sections present guidelines to assist the faculty member in compiling the Self-Evaluation report. These guidelines are intended as a general overview of the specific information that should appear in a faculty member's Self-Evaluation Report both in terms of area weights and subheadings (see Figure 4.1.).
A. Area Weights
1. Allocation of area weights: A faculty member must specify an area weight for each of the three areas of evaluation. For faculty with a regular 12-hour teaching load, these percentages must conform to the following ranges: teaching, 50% - 70%; scholarship, 10% - 40%; and service, 10% - 40%. For any given academic year, the sum of these weights must equal 100%. Faculty members with unusual teaching loads are to adjust the ranges appropriately. A request for an exemption from these standards must be submitted in writing and approved by the chair of the faculty member's department. Exceptions to these standards will be granted in reference to department needs. Grounds for an exemption may include, for example, additional teaching duties, administrative or grant activity, or retraining and retooling in the methodology appropriate to a faculty member's discipline. Faculty members may discuss their area weights with the department chair at any time prior to completing their self-evaluation.
2. Adjustment of area weights. When circumstances create special demands on a department, a chair may require a faculty member to adapt his or her pattern of responsibilities to meet such demands. The department chair must inform the faculty member in writing of the circumstances and the adjustments required. The faculty member may then adjust his or her area weights on the Self-Evaluation Report as he or she deems appropriate.
If the department chair is concerned that a prior pattern of area weights is not generating a record adequate for tenure in the department, the chair should recommend that a faculty member adjust his or her weights in future years.
Adjustments in area weights may also be needed if a faculty member's teaching load is reduced to allow for other types of activities, such as research or administrative responsibilities.
B. Format of Faculty Self-Evaluation Report
The faculty Self-Evaluation Report should be structured so that subheadings indicate the items reported and indicate appropriate area weights for each subheading. See Figure 4A.1 for an example of how the report should be structured and the subheadings listed.
4A-7.2 Student Evaluations of Instruction
Students evaluate the teaching of all teaching faculty. Results are summarized in a Student Evaluation Report. In the following sections, the procedures, format, and reporting of these student evaluations are discussed.
A. Policies for Student Evaluations
All course instructors (full- or part-time faculty, department chairs, or administrators who teach) are evaluated by students in all their classes during one semester of each academic year. The Student Evaluation of Instruction Form must be approved by the Senate of the Student Government Association and the Faculty Senate (see Figure 4A.4). A department may add up to five supplementary items or scales to this form without approval from the Senate. Alternatively, a department may develop a substitute Student Evaluation of Instruction Form in lieu of the general form. Any alternate forms must be approved by the Faculty Senate.
B. Collection Procedures for Student Evaluations
Instructors being evaluated by students must employ the following evaluation procedures. First, the class is to select a student who will distribute the forms, collect the completed forms, place them in an envelope, and return the sealed envelope to the department secretary. Second, the faculty member must be absent from class while the evaluations are completed. Third, the faculty member being evaluated must not tabulate the student evaluations. Fourth, the faculty member must not receive any report on his or her evaluations until grades for the current semester have been submitted; verbatim evaluation statements will be transcribed when possible. Faculty members are encouraged to conduct student evaluations at the beginning of a class session, to allow adequate time to complete them.
Graduate courses are evaluated following procedures approved by the Graduate Council and the Faculty Senate. Student evaluations for graduate courses are submitted to the faculty member's department chair and included in the Chair's Evaluation Report. Department chairs will promptly forward tallies and transcriptions of all comments from student evaluations of graduate courses to the Dean of Graduate Studies for distribution to the appropriate program coordinator.
C. Schedule of Student Evaluations
All first-year faculty are to be evaluated by students in both fall and spring semesters. Other faculty members are to be evaluated once a year on the following schedule:
Academic years that begin in an odd-numbered year (e.g., fall, 1995-spring, 1996)
Faculty whose last names begin A - M are evaluated in the fall semester
Faculty whose last names begin N - Z are evaluated in the spring semester
Academic years that begin in an even-numbered year (e.g., fall, 1996-spring, 1997)
Faculty whose last names begin N - Z are evaluated in the fall semester
Faculty whose last names begin A - M are evaluated in the spring semester
D. Preparation of Student Evaluation Reports
A quantitative summary of the ratings in each course is prepared as soon as possible and transcripts of student comments are prepared when possible. The faculty member being evaluated must not prepare the quantitative summary or the transcript of comments. The department chair must retain the raw Student Evaluation of Instruction Forms for as long as these may be required for future evaluation reviews.
After grades have been submitted, the faculty member receives copies of the quantitative summaries and copies of the transcribed student comments if available. The faculty member may examine the original comments in the department chair's office.
The department chair prepares the Student Evaluation Report, based on both undergraduate and graduate student evaluations, to be included in the annual Chair's Evaluation Report, by summarizing in a narrative the quantitative summaries and individual comments given by students.
4A-7.3 Annual Chair's Evaluation Report
As specified in Section 4A-5, each department chair must compile an annual Chair's Evaluation Report for each faculty member in the department. This report consists of the (a) faculty member's Self-Evaluation Report, (b) Student Evaluation Report, (c) chair's narrative evaluation, and (d) Chair's Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form. In the following sections, the Chair's Evaluation Report and the Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form are discussed.
A. Policies for Annual Chair's Evaluation Report
Each chair must compile and submit to the Office for Academic Affairs an annual Chair's Evaluation Report for each faculty member he or she supervises. This report should discuss the faculty member's teaching, scholarship, and service. This report should conform to the general guidelines of the Format for Evaluation Reports (Sections 4A-7.1; Figure 4A.1), with the addition of: (1) a narrative synthesis of the faculty member's performance, (2) an overall rating of the faculty member using the Standard Performance Rating Scale (Figure 4A.6) , and (3) a signature section for the department chair and faculty member being evaluated. The information appearing in the annual Chair's Evaluation Report for a faculty member will be drawn from (a) the faculty member's Self-Evaluation Report, (b) student evaluations, and (c) the department chair's observations on teaching, scholarship, and service. Even when a major (e.g., first-year) evaluation has been conducted earlier in the academic year, a separate annual evaluation is required for purposes of a merit salary increase recommendation, since most of the year's work will have been completed after the earlier major evaluation.
The department chair is required to obtain the faculty member's signature on the Chair's Evaluation Report and the Annual Merit Salary Increase Form. In both instances, the signature merely acknowledges having reviewed the report and form, but does not indicate agreement with their content.
B. Chair's Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form
The department chair's recommendation on the Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form (Figure 4A.5) is based on information developed in the annual Chair's Evaluation Report for each faculty member, and must reflect the UNC Board of Governors' regulations for the dispersal of salary increase monies and the constraints set for The University of North Carolina at Pembroke by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and by the Chancellor. The recommendation is to correspond to the overall performance rating contained in the Chair's Evaluation Report, as indicated by the relationships below.
Overall Performance Rating
Recommended Merit Salary Increase
[Academic Affairs HomePage] [Return to Table of Contents]
Last updated: August 25, 2000