4A-11 SECTION 11. EVALUATION OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRS

A written annual evaluation report is prepared and presented to the department chair at least one day before the annual evaluation conference is to be held. At the evaluation conference, department chair signs the evaluation report and receives a copy.

The Office for Academic Affairs collects from each chair annual self-evaluations and supporting documentation, and may conduct classroom observations of the department chair's teaching. In evaluating a chair's performance both as a faculty member and as an administrator, the Office for Academic Affairs considers direct knowledge of the department chair's administrative performance, input from other administrators, and input from faculty, as well as documentation submitted by the department chair.

4A-11.1 Annual Evaluations of Faculty Responsibilities

Each department chair is evaluated annually by the Office for Academic Affairs. Procedures parallel those for annual evaluations of all faculty, except that the duties normally carried out by the department chair are handled by the Office for Academic Affairs (see Section 4A-7). A chair is evaluated in terms of teaching, scholarship, and service using area weights deemed appropriate for the department. There will, of course, be no merit salary increase recommendation from the department chair.

4A-11.2 Evaluation of Chairís Departmental Administrative Responsibilities

Department chairs' administrative responsibilities are taken into account by the Office for Academic Affairs as part of the department chairs' annual evaluation, although formal faculty assessments are not collected each year. Departmental chairs' administrative responsibilities are assessed as part of the procedure for renewable terms for department chairs (Faculty Handbook, Section 4-1.1b). Briefly, chairs are evaluated by the Office for Academic Affairs in the third year of service as chair, and in the fifth year of service as chair. At those times, the Office for Academic Affairs will seek input from the faculty concerning performance of the chair's administrative responsibilities and will distribute evaluation forms (e.g., Figure 4A-7) to each full-time faculty member in the department. The forms will be returned directly to the Office for Academic Affairs.

4A-11.3 Evaluations for Tenure and/or Promotion

Department chairs who may be candidates for tenure and/or promotion will be evaluated under the procedures in Section 4A-8, except that the Office for Academic Affairs will carry out the duties normally the responsibility of the department chair. Necessarily, however, there will be no recommendation from the department chair regarding the tenure and/or promotion decision.

4A-11.4 Probationary Evaluations; Advisory Evaluations

Department chairs in their first year of employment at the University will receive a first year comprehensive evaluation just as any other probationary faculty member does (see Section 4A-9). Procedures normally the responsibility of the department chair will be handled by the Office for Academic Affairs. Necessarily, however, there will be no recommendation from the department chair regarding reappointment.

Any department chair, just as any other faculty member, can call for an advisory evaluation. Advisory evaluations may be requested by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Advisory evaluations have no formal consequences for decisions about contract renewal, tenure, or promotion.

4A-11.5 Evaluation for Renewable Terms for Department Chairs

Department chairs are appointed for terms of five years. They may be continued in the chairís position for additional terms. Procedures for appointment and for evaluation of chairís with respect to term continuation and renewal are specified in the Faculty Handbook, Section 4-1.1b.


Figure 4A.1

Format for Evaluation Reports

These format guidelines give an overview of specific information that should appear in a faculty member's self-evaluation form, the department chair's evaluation report, the Peer Evaluation Committee's evaluation report, and the report of the Promotion and Tenure Committee. Area weights assigned to specific areas must sum to 100%. The following are the headings which should appear at the beginning of each evaluation area being discussed with the area weight listed to the right of the heading.

1). Introductory Heading - The introductory heading should appear at the top of the first page of the evaluation form and include the following information as listed below.

Faculty Member's Name____________________________________________

Current Professorial Rank __________________________________________

Current Academic Year Department __________________________________

Type of Form Self Chair Peer _______________________________________

Type of Evaluation (check all applicable) Annual _____ Tenure _____ Promotion _____

2). TEACHING Area Weight (50% to 70%) _________

a) Classroom activities. Discuss classroom work as it relates to how knowledge in a faculty member's discipline is covered (e.g., categories, principles, summaries), how the specific content of a discipline is imparted (e.g., facts, examples), the development of general student skills (e.g., communication, critical thinking, creativity, mathematics), how student learning is motivated (e.g., stimulating curiosity, confidence, and task-specific motivation), measures of student performance (e.g., examinations, papers, presentations, other projects), and future plans for development in the area of teaching.

b) Auxiliary teaching activities. Discuss evidence that grades have been submitted in a timely manner, how students are being advised, supplementary instructional time provided outside of class, the supervising of student research projects, working with colleagues to develop curricula, and plans for future development in this area.

3). SCHOLARSHIP Area Weight (10% to 40%) ________

a) Research. Discuss scholarly research for the period of the evaluation. In particular, there should be emphasis on (a) how knowledge has been developed, (b) the application of existing knowledge used to solve practical problems, (c) the application of professional knowledge and skill to an artistic problem if applicable, or (d) the completion of a special program of intellectual development. Include comments on future plans for development in this area.

b) Publication. Discuss scholarly works that have been disseminated within the faculty member's discipline. Examples across disciplines are exhibition of artistic work, editing grant applications, publication in scholarly journals, and publishing of works aimed toward student and general audiences. Also include comments on future plans for development in this area.

4). SERVICE Area weight (10% to 40%) ________

A faculty member may working in either or both of the following categories.

a) University Service. Comment about on-campus service provided during the period, including activities such as committee work, grant administration, consultations supporting the work of staff or faculty. Quality of service is very important (e.g., serving actively on a small number of committees is more valuable than serving minimally on many committees). Include comments on future plans for development in this area.

b) Professional service. Comment on the nature, scope, and effectiveness of service to the faculty member's profession. Include comments on future plans for development in this area.

c) External Service. Comment on the strengths and weaknesses of off-campus service during the period, including such activities as participation on professional committees and governing boards, providing professional consultation to schools, civic organizations, and government agencies, and providing leadership on public matters. Include comments on future plans for development in this area.

5). Anticipated Area Weights for the Next Academic Year - This section should only appear on the self-evaluation form. The following anticipated area weights as indicated below should be listed in this section.

Teaching (50% to 70%) ___________

Scholarship (10% to 40%) ___________

Service (10% to 40%) ____________

6). SYNTHESIS - This section will only appear in a department chair or Peer Evaluation Committee's evaluation form. In this section, the evaluator(s) determine the overall performance rating of the faculty member for the period covered. The quality of performance is weighed in relation to the faculty member's area weights. The final evaluation should (a) adhere to the guiding principles, (b) reflect equity within the department and among departments, and (c) allow a reasonable degree of flexibility in how a faculty member orients his or her effort.

a). Rationale of rating - This section clarifies the relationship between the various performance areas as listed in the University mission statement and the overall performance ranking given.

b). Overall rating of faculty member - Listed below are the ratings a faculty member will be assigned.

____________Distinguished performance
____________Very good performance
____________Adequate performance
____________Deficient performance

__________________________________
Date

__________________________________
Date

_____________________________________
Signature of Department or Committee Chair

_____________________________________
Signature of Department or Committee Chair


Figure 4A.2

Peer Evaluation Committee Nomination Form

Current Academic Year ____________ Department________________________

Faculty Member's Name ________________________________________________

Department Representatives. Nominate up to three members from within your department to serve on your Peer Evaluation Committee. (To the extent possible, they should be tenured. In small departments, you may nominate one tenured faculty member from an allied field outside the department. You may not nominate your department chair, other faculty members who are being considered for tenure and/or promotion during this academic year, or members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee.) Flexibility in appointments under these rules are allowable for first-year evaluations in small departments.

University Representative. Nominate one tenured faculty member from outside your department to serve on the Peer Evaluation Committee.

________________________________________________________________

Assured nomination. From the names appearing above, enter the name of the one individual whom you wish to be nominated automatically to the Peer Evaluation Committee.

________________________________________________________________________

____________________________        ________________________________________
Date                                                         Signature of Candidate


Figure 4A.3

Tenure, Promotion, and Renewal Form

Current Academic Year __________________ Department __________________________

Candidate's Name _________________________________________________________

Current Professorial Rank _________________________________________________

Number of Years at UNCP (including present year) ________________

Number of Years in Rank (including present year) _______________

Type of Decision (check each that applies) Promotion ____ Tenure ____ Renewal ____

Recommendations

Promotion: Approved ________ Disapproved _________ Not applicable _________

Vote of Committee (when applicable): Number For ________ Number Against ________

Remarks (optional) ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

Tenure: Approved ________ Disapproved _________ Not applicable _________

Vote of Committee (when applicable): Number For ________ Number Against ________

Remarks (optional)______________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

Renewal after probationary year: Approved ______ Disapproved ______
Not applicable________

Vote of Committee (when applicable): Number For ________ Number Against ________

Remarks (optional)______________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

Participating Members of Committee:____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

Abstaining Members:_____________________________________________________________

_______________________               _________________________________
Date                                                      Signature of Chair

_______________________               _________________________________
Date                                                      Signature of Evaluated Faculty Member
                                                             (except for Promotion and Tenure Committee use)


DRAFT
Figure 4A.4
Student Evaluation of Instruction Form

Date__________ Professor______________________ Course #_____________

Course Title_______________________________ Expected Grade________

Your Year in School (circle one): Fresh. Soph. Junior Senior

Number of times you have been absent in this course (approx.)________

Your input plays a very important role in the evaluation of teaching at UNCP. Therefore, please give the most accurate statements and ratings that you can. To maintain the independence of your judgment, do not talk with other students as you complete this form. When you are finished, please pass the forms to a student selected by the class. He or she will collect all the forms, place them in an envelope, seal the envelope, and then deliver it to the department secretary. Your instructor will not be present as you complete the form, and he or she will never see any of the original forms. Instead, the instructor will receive a summary of their contents next semester. Do not include your name.

I. Written Evaluation. Describe your perceptions of this course. Focus especially on aspects of the course that you found valuable, and offer suggestions for improvements. These comments are considered quite valuable, so please weigh them carefully. Be accurate and give details. Feel free to use as much space as you need.

(continued on the back)


II. Ratings. Begin by finding the space marked NAME at the top of the answer sheet: enter the name of this course (NOT your name). Then rate the instructor on the following 15 statements, using the scale given below. Complete the first rating by filling in the appropriate bubble after the space for item 1 on the answer sheet. Continue in this manner until all of the statements have been rated. Use a dark pencil.

Scale:

(a) Strongly Agree

(b) Agree

(c) No Opinion

(d) Disagree

(e) Strongly Disagree

Statements:

1. Clearly communicated the course plan (objectives, grading and attendance policies, and schedule) 2. Made good use of the materials that students were required to purchase
3. Started and ended class at a dependable, appropriate time
4. Clearly explained specific topics through lectures, discussions, and demonstrations
5. Gave a coherent course (with different parts relating clearly to one another)
6. Related the course to general knowledge and to ideas from other courses
7. Was effective in getting students involved in class sessions
8. Stimulated a desire to learn outside of class and general intellectual curiosity
9. Challenged students and required a sufficient amount of work to achieve the course objectives
10. Was prompt in grading and returning work
11. Accurately measured students' performance through appropriate tests, papers, and other procedures
12. Followed reasonable standards in assigning letter grades to different levels of performance
13. Acted in a courteous and professional manner
14. Was available to students during office hours and for appointments
15. Had a positive, constructive attitude toward the subject
16. In general, taught the course effectively

Supplementary departmental questions are to following if requested.


Figure 4A.5
Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation Form

Current Academic Year __________________ Department _____________________

Faculty Member's Name__________________________________________________

Current Professorial Rank ________________________________________________

Number of Years at UNCP (including present year)_______________________

Number of Years in Rank (including present year) _______________________

Overall Recommendation for Merit Salary Increase - Annual merit salary increase recommendation should reflect the faculty members current year performance rating, the UNC Board of Governors' regulations on the dispersal of salary increase monies, and University-wide constraints set by the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and by the Chancellor.

Performance Rating: Check one:                    

Distinguished        ______
Very Good          ______
Adequate             ______
Deficient (explain) ______

Recommended Merit Salary Increase. Check one:

High        _______
Medium   _______
Low        _______
None      _______

Remarks (optional): __________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

______________________            ______________________________
Date                                                 Signature of Department Chair

______________________            ______________________________
Date                                                 Signature of Evaluated Faculty Member


Figure 4A.6
Standard Performance Rating Scale
Faculty Evaluation, The University of North Carolina at Pembroke

This scale is to be used in evaluating each major area of responsibility: teaching, scholarship, and service.

Distinguished performance consists of an exceptionally high degree of success in performing the various duties in the area. To earn a rating in this category, the faculty member should demonstrate exceptional creativity and involvement in performing all the responsibilities related to the area, and these efforts should result in a very high level of effectiveness relative to the opportunities available at the University.

Very good performance consists of an overall pattern of very substantial success in meeting the highest standards of faculty performance. The faculty member may be consistently very good in all domains or may be outstanding in several domains and only good in others.

Adequate performance consists of performance that generally meets minimum standards of faculty performance. This category is also earned when the faculty member is good in some functions and mildly deficient is others so long as the overall contribution to the University is adequate. Any deficiencies lie in secondary domains rather than in those directly impacting on the University's major functions.

Deficient performance consists of an overall pattern of success that is below an acceptable minimum.


Figure 4A.7

Department Chair Evaluation Form

Instructions: This form is for use by a faculty member in evaluating the department chair. The forms are distributed, collected, and assessed by the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Use the scale given below to rate your opinion of the department chair's performance during the past year. Assign a numeric rating ranging from 5 (excellent) to 1 (highly deficient) to each area. Since a rating by itself provides only limited information, you should also write comments in the space provided or on a separate sheet. These comments will be crucial in identifying specific strengths and weaknesses.

Scale: 5 Excellent; 4 Good; 3 Adequate; 2 Needs improvement; 1 Unsatisfactory

I. LEADERSHIP OF TEACHING ACTIVITIES: shows general optimism and enthusiasm toward the department's teaching responsibilities, encourages creativity, diversity, and dedication in teaching; facilitates the development of rigorous yet reasonable teaching standards, fosters the timely development and revision of curricula, discreet and balanced in handling student input; reduces interpersonal tensions and promotes genuine consensus in the area of teaching, innovative and flexible in solving practical problems related to teaching (e.g., printing, scheduling; and utilization of classroom and laboratory resources), inspirational as a model of good teaching, available to confer with faculty on these matters, and democratic in leadership style and the delegation of responsibilities in this area.

Rating________ Comments:

II. LEADERSHIP OF SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES: provides avenues for recognizing scholarly achievement within the department, promotes tolerance and understanding of different approaches to research within the department, fair in allocating departmental resources to support research, resourceful and cooperative in helping faculty members solve practical problems related to research (including the development of grant proposals), inspirational as a model of scholarly achievement, available to confer with faculty on these matters, and democratic in leadership style and the delegation of responsibilities in this area.

Rating________ Comments:

III. FACULTY EVALUATION: fair in setting aside personal feelings, loyalties, and philosophical considerations in conducting evaluations, reasonable in setting evaluation standards, accurate and thorough in reviewing the details of a faculty member's work, flexible in encouraging individualized patterns of overall achievement, conscientious in using evaluative criteria that are consonant with the guidelines of the Faculty Evaluation Model and the broad parameters of the disciplines represented in the department, diligent in handling the procedural details associated with evaluation, available to confer with faculty on these matters, and democratic in leadership style and the delegation of responsibilities in this area.

Rating________ Comments:

IV. REPRESENTATION OF THE DEPARTMENT: effective in communicating the department's concerns to the administration and the administration's concerns to the department, effective in representing the department to accrediting organizations and to potential students and faculty, diligent and resolute in seeking University resources for the department, stalwart in protecting the department's standards and integrity, and democratic in leadership style and the delegation of responsibilities in this area.

Rating________ Comments:

V. RECRUITMENT OF FACULTY: accurate in assessing the department's short- and long-term needs, diligent in announcing vacancies, processing applications, and meeting legal requirements, flexible in filling positions with the best available candidate, democratic in establishing recruitment procedures and making final decisions, and democratic in leadership style and the delegation of responsibilities in this area.

Rating________ Comments:


Table 1

Typical Calendar of Events for Annual Evaluations

The events listed below are intended as guidelines only; dates are approximate and may be altered as conditions warrant. Specific policies and procedures are found in the full Faculty Evaluation plan.

DATE EVENT OR DOCUMENT
August 14- April 14 Area Weight Discussion: A faculty member can discuss at anytime before submitting the Self-Evaluation Report the area weights to be assigned to specific areas of evaluation.
December Fall Student Evaluation: All faculty scheduled for student evaluations in the fall semester should conduct these evaluation the last week of class (Section 47-2 C). Department chairs compile Student Evaluation Reports.
April 1-14 Spring Student Evaluation: All faculty scheduled for student evaluations in the spring semester should conduct these evaluation during April 1 to April 14. For a discussion of which faculty are scheduled for spring semester evaluations, please see Section 47-2 C for discussion of the schedule of student evaluations. Department chair is responsible for compiling a summary of student evaluations.
April 14 Submission of Self-evaluation Report: A faculty member should submit their Self-Evaluation Report to the department chair by April 14 (Section 4A-7.1).
April 14-
May 15
Annual Chairís Evaluation Report and Faculty Conference: The department chair will prepare an annual Chair's Evaluation Report for each member of the department, and discuss this report and the Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation with the faculty member being evaluated (Section 4A-7.3).

Signing and Returning Chair's Evaluation Report: The faculty member has three (3) working days after receipt of chair's evaluation to review the evaluation materials, and to sign and return one copy to the department chair.

Optional Rebuttal of Chair's Evaluation: The faculty member may submit a rebuttal of the Chair's annual evaluation to the Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs within 10 days after signing the report when there are areas of disagreement.

May 15 Submission of Chair's Annual Reports: The department chair should submit the annual Chair's Evaluation Report, attaching the faculty member's Self-Evaluation Report, any supporting documentation, Student Evaluation Report, and Annual Merit Salary Increase Recommendation to the Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs by May 15.
May-August Faculty Contracts: The Office of the Chancellor should send the next year's contract, and salary increase information, to faculty members by the start of the new academic year.


Table 2

Typical Calendar of Events for Tenure and/or Promotion

The events listed below are intended as guidelines only; dates are approximate and may be altered as conditions warrant. Specific policies and procedures are found in the full Faculty Evaluation plan.

DATE EVENT OR DOCUMENT
Apr 1-14 Spring Student Evaluation: Faculty members collect student evaluations (varies by surname, year-to-year).
Aug 21 Early Review Petition: The faculty member petitions for early review, if desired.
Sept 7 Evaluation Announcement: The department chair notifies faculty member and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the major evaluation.
Sept 21 Submission of Materials: The faculty member presents the department chair with documents required.
Sept 30 PEC Formation: The department chair announces the composition of the Peer Evaluation Committee (PEC).
Oct 7 External Review Initiation: If desired, external review of scholarly/creative work is initiated by either the faculty member or the PEC (through the department chair).
Classroom observations: Observations in the candidate's classes are carried out by the department chair and members of the PEC.
PEC Report: The PEC agrees on a recommendation and drafts a report.
Department Chair Report: The department chair writes and transmits his/her report to, and confers with, faculty member under review.
Report transmittal
+ 3 days
Faculty Signatures: The faculty member signs the reports from PEC and department chair, acknowledging content but not necessarily agreement.
Report transmittal + 10 days Optional Rebuttal: The faculty member may submit a rebuttal to the PEC and/or department chair's report, if desired.
Nov 15 Report Submission: Department chair and PEC submit reports to Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Minority PEC report (if any) submitted to Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Promotion and Tenure Committee (PTC) requests, if they desire, a counter rebuttal or corrected report responding to candidate's rebuttal to PEC or department chair report.
Mar 1 PTC Recommendation: The PTC chair submits the Committee's report to Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. PTC minority report, if any, submitted to Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs sends his/her recommendation for promotion and/or tenure to the Chancellor.
May Administrative Report: The Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs sends a report of Chancellor's decision, vote of PTC, and other information to candidate.


Table 3

Calendar of Events for First or Second Year Review

The events listed below are intended as guidelines only; dates are approximate and may be altered as conditions warrant. Specific policies and procedures are found in the full Faculty Evaluation plan.

DATE EVENT OR DOCUMENT
Sept 21 Faculty member presents department chair with documents required.
Sept 30 Department chair announces make-up of Peer Evaluation Committee (PEC).
Oct 7 Department chair gives PEC chair candidate's materials.

Classroom observations carried out by department chair, members of PEC.

Reports of classroom observations by PEC members submitted.

PEC deliberation on all materials, observations, etc., to reach a recommendation.

PEC report transmitted to faculty member.

Department chair transmits report to, confers with faculty member.

Report transmittal + 3 days Faculty member signs forms from PEC, department chair.
Report transmittal + 10 days [OPTIONAL] Faculty member submits rebuttal to report(s).
Jan 15 Department chair, PEC submit reports to Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Optional Minority PEC report submitted to Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs gives recommendation to Chancellor (HB 3-3.C.1), who makes the final decision (HB 3-3.C.1).

Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs informs candidate of final decision; HB 3-3.C.2. Written notice provided if reappointed.

Feb 15 By Feb 15 (Assistant or Associate Professor) of the first year or May 15 of the second year of the probationary appointment (Professor), if the decision is not to reappoint, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs provides written notice; HB 3-3.B.2 & 3 & 4.

[Academic Affairs HomePage] [Return to Table of Contents]

Last updated: August 18, 1997