The Layne-Stephens Document
The Department Evaluation Protocol

Adopted by
 The Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Criminal Justice
for the Implementation of Peer Evaluation
at
The University of North Carolina at Pembroke
Approved by the department on 10 February 2000



Introduction
"For purposes of evaluation, all faculty responsibilities are divided among three general areas as specified in the ... [UNC Pembroke] Mission Statement: 'The University of North Carolina at Pembroke is 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" (4A-2.1 UNCP Faculty Handbook).

"As a minimum standard, candidates should be evaluated as satisfactory or above in all categories.  So far as possible, evidence of performance in these areas is to be objective and documented, with evaluations conducted by the candidates peers and appropriate administrators.  Each department's ranking of each of the following categories of evaluation will be used:  Scholarship and Service to ProfessionY University ServiceY Community ServiceY TeachingY and Plans for Professional Activities and Further Development@  (3-12 UNCP Faculty Handbook).   With respect to the specific language of the evaluation scales, the student evaluation Asatisfactory@ rating is consistent with the Faculty Evaluation Model here.  The rating of Aadequate@ (from the Standard Performance Rating Scale  Figure 4a.6  Faculty Evaluation Model) shall be considered equivalent to Asatisfactory@  wherever Aadequate@ appears in this document.

The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines to Peer Evaluation Committees in evaluating faculty members for tenure, promotion, and first year review.    Although the Faculty Evaluation Model provides for the establishment of Aoptional departmental evaluation plans@ (4A-6 UNCP Faculty Handbook), this document is not such an option.  This document is intended to implement the standing model, not modify it.  Section A gives further reference to  pertinent topics in the Faculty Evaluation Model.   Sections B and C outline procedural and interpretive recommendations.  These sections are further clarified by Section D which provides the evaluation scales.  Section E gives the timetable for a tenure review, as an illustration of all the timetables given in Tables 1-4 following Figure 4A.8 in the Faculty Handbook.   Clarifying Remarks conclude the document.
 
 

Section A.  Important References to the Faculty Evaluation Model text in the UNC Pembroke Faculty Handbook

These references point to the larger discussions in the Faculty Handbook and are not intended as a substitute for the full text.

 3-2 Academic Freedom.   AY will not penalize nor discipline members of the faculty because of the exercise of academic freedom in the lawful pursuit of their respective areas of scholarly and professional interest and responsibility.@

3-3 Academic Tenure.  AY a conferral of tenure requires an assessment of the faculty member's demonstrated professional competence, potential for future contribution, and institutional needs and resources.@

4A-12.3,C.  The Peer Evaluation Committee.  AY is responsible for preparing and submitting a Peer Evaluation Report to the Office for Academic Affairs.  This group is responsible for gathering appropriate information, assessing its implications, and formulating a coherent evaluation of the faculty member's performance.  The Peer Evaluation process must be independent of the department chair's evaluation.@

4A-3.1.  Annual area weights.   AY are taken into account by evaluators in developing overall performance evaluations.@

4A-3.1.  Rebuttals.  AIn all formal evaluations, the candidate has the right to submit a rebuttal pertaining to any aspect of reports submitted by the department chair or the Peer Evaluation Committee.@

4A-3.7.  The Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.   AYis responsible for making recommendations about a faculty member's salary increase, merit salary increase, tenure, promotion, and contract renewal to the Chancellor, based on recommendations and material submitted by the department chair and other evaluators."

4A-3.7.  Implementation climate.  AThe 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 Y.  These norms will necessarily represent some discipline-related variations across departments, especially in the area of scholarship.@

Figure 4A-6   Standard Performance Rating Scale  AYis to be used in evaluating each major area of responsibility: teaching, scholarship, and service.  Distinguished performanceY Very good performanceY Adequate performanceY Deficient performance.

Figure 4A-6.  Deficient performance.   AY consists of an overall pattern of success that is below an acceptable minimum.@

Tables 1-4 following Figure 4A.8 in the Faculty Handbook.    AThe events listed below are intended as guidelines only; dates are approximate and may be altered as conditions warrant.@

Section B.  Procedural Recommendations
Department of Sociology, Social Work & Criminal Justice

B-1.  A copy of the self-evaluation and resume of peer review candidates should be available for each committee member at the first meeting of the committee.

B-2.  At the first meeting the committee should establish a regular time for the committee to meet.  The committee should meet weekly excluding vacations after the second meeting until the committee's business is completed, completing its evaluation as expeditiously as possible.

B-3.  The Committee should sketch out in writing a peer evaluation narrative summary and have it prepared by the second meeting.

B-4.  The evaluation should be conducted in a collegial and responsible fashion

 B-5.  Reports and signatures.   AThe Committee should strive for consensus in developing its conclusions, and its report (including the completed Tenure, Promotion and Renewal Form) must reflect a majority opinion.  Nevertheless, a member of a Peer Evaluation Committee is obligated to object to any procedure believed to violate the provisions of the Model or to any conclusion believed to be inaccurate.  The Committee should then deliberate these objections, consulting the Model as appropriate.  When an issue cannot be resolved to each member's satisfaction, the Committee is obligated to investigate the matter more fully.  Inquiries can be made to the candidate, the department chair, the Faculty Evaluation Review Committee, or the Office for Academic Affairs at any time.  When a Ymember [holding a minority] opinion disagrees with the majority's final action on any matter, and believes that the overall evaluation has been affected, he or she is obligated to submit a narrative minority report detailing his or her position@ (4A-8.4,D UNCP Faculty Handbook).   Committee members should sign the narrative summary if it is an adequate summary of the discussions and peer evaluations even if they disagree with some of the specific content.   Any additional and separate reports should accompany the Committee Report as it is forwarded.   The evaluated faculty member's signature is necessary on all Committee evaluation reports.   A notation that the evaluated faculty member's signature indicates acknowledgement of the contents, not necessarily agreement, may accompany the signature.

B-6.  Committee members are expected to prepare and submit a peer evaluation, sign the narrative summary and cast a vote.  Individuals who feel that they cannot complete any one of these activities should decline to serve on a Departmental Evaluation Committee.

B-7. Department Faculty expect time lines to be met, generally, as outlined in the Faculty Evaluation Model referenced in Section A, above.  After the Department Chair has completed initial committee appointments, the committees may and should confer with the Chair in regard to the timeliness of the forwarding of documents, but all parties should remember that two separate evaluations and recommendations are being made, a Peer Review made by the Peer Review Committee, and a Chair Review.  These reviews are to be made independently of each other.  While convergence and agreement is helpful to decision makers outside the department, convergence and agreement within the department is not required by the Faculty Evaluation Model.
 

Section C.  Interpretative Recommendations
Department of Sociology, Social Work and Criminal Justice

C-1.  The Department recognizes the importance of research and related activities to the professional growth of individual faculty members, the Department, and UNC Pembroke as a whole.  The "area weight" variations required in the Faculty Evaluation Model allow both an individual and a departmental balance to be maintained.  Peer Review Committees will evaluate faculty members in terms of their indicated "weights" from year to year.

C-2.  The Department also recognizes the importance of scholarly and professional writing such as: publishing in referred journals, and other professional and scholarly publications.   In considering electronic as well as print publications, the process of peer review is more important then the medium.   Successfully completed publication of refereed material is always most desirable.   The tenuous nature of web links leaves Peer Review Committees with the necessity of  evaluating  electronic publications on a case by case basis until more widespread norms can be established.     All members of the Department are expected to engage in scholarly activities leading to successful publications.   Annual publications are not necessary, but all members of the Department are expected to develop a publication record and to publish at least occasionally.  Publications that focus on professional or teaching issues are considered as important as publications that report the results of research projects.   The written aspects of grants activities -- writing grant proposals, grant expenditure documentation, and grant component evaluation reports -- are considered professional writing and relevant to professional and scholarly competence.

C-3.  All members of the Department are expected to commit themselves to the pursuit of excellence in teaching.  This means that they should constantly strive to update the content they present in class, frequently evaluate the tools --  such as textbooks, transparencies, workbooks, class discussion exercises, tests, video media, and computer based teaching/learning techniques -- that they use in the classroom, and constantly strive to improve their methods of instruction.  This also means that they should welcome constructive comments and suggestions from their colleagues about their teaching.

 C-4.    Weights assigned to specific areas indicate emphasis rather than importance.  All areas are considered important even though some are emphasized more.   For example, professional and scholarly competence influences the quality of a faculty member's teaching and the degree to which a faculty member can competently represent the University in the surrounding community.  Because of its importance, every faculty member who is conscientious about maintaining and enhancing competence must publish at least occasionally in professional and/or scholarly journals.  Failure to do so is legitimate grounds for denial of promotion and non-recommendation for merit raises.  A faculty member who expects to receive promotions and recommendations for merit raises is expected to demonstrate a pattern of adequate or better level of performance on all of the criteria for evaluation given on the EVALUATION SCALES in Section D, below.  Faculty members should not focus exclusively on one or two activities with the hope that overwhelming excellence in one or two categories will make up for a deficiency in another category.  All of the criteria for evaluation are important.

C-5.  Peer Review Committees are formed for First Year Reviews, and Reviews for Tenure, Promotion, and Post-tenure Evaluation.  The Faculty Evaluation Model is intended to be flexible enough to handle evaluations at different periods in the career of a productive faculty member.  At each point a review includes an evaluation of how well a candidate has performed professionally, and, in some respects, is also an estimate of whether this professional performance can be reasonably expected to continue.  Faculty members should not be recommended for promotion when their teaching evaluations are unsatisfactory or their professional performance has been deficient.
 

Section D.  EVALUATION SCALES

Teaching:  Student Evaluations*

Unsatisfactory (1 pt)   Below 3.0
Needs Improvement (2 pts)  3.0 - 3.49
Satisfactory (3 pts)   3.5 - 3.49
Superior (4 pts)    4.0 - 4.49
Distinguished (5 pts)   4.5 or above

*Based  on administering the "Student Evaluation of Instruction 15-item questionnaire to classes on the semester rotations set up by the Department.  Overall score on each item equals the total number of scores divided by the number of students responding to each item.  If deemed useful, each class may be scored individually:

Scale:    "Strongly Agree" =  5;  "Agree" = 4;  "No Opinion" = 3;  "Disagree"  = 2; "Strongly Disagree" = 1

NOTE:  This scale reflects evaluation criteria determined at a University wide level.   References to student evaluations are made by in the evaluations of both the Chair and the Peer Review Committee, as well as in the self-evaluation of the faculty member under review.   As with all evaluation scales, an attention to any overall pattern of performance is important.

Teaching: Classroom Effectiveness

Evaluation criteria:  Observations from classroom visits, course outlines, exams, examples of student work, textbook selections, supplemental materials,  evidence of course revisions, new courses developed, variety in teaching methods and techniques.  As with all evaluation scales, an attention to any overall pattern of performance is important.
 
 
Distinguished 
Very Good
 Adequate*
Deficient
Imparting general knowledge: 
(  )
  (  )
 (   )
 (   )
Imparting specific knowledge: 
 (   )
 (   )
  (  )
  (  )
Developing skills: 
 (   )
  (  )
 (   )
 (   )
Motivating students: 
  (  )
 (   )
 (   )
  (  )
Setting requirements and evaluating
performance: 
  (  )
 (   )
 (   )
  (  )
Success with effective teaching practices: 
  (  ) 
  (  )
 (   )
(  )

Teaching:  Professional Development

Evaluation criteria:  Submitting grades in a timely manner, effective supervision of student research projects not tied directly 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 (4A-2.2 Evaluation of Teaching). As with all evaluation scales, an attention to any overall pattern of performance is important.

Distinguished Very Good Adequate* Deficient
Timeliness in meeting deadlines:              (     )                 (    )                    (    )                  (    )
Supervision of student projects:                       (     )                 (    )                    (    )                  (    )
Curriculum development:                       (     )                  (    )                   (    )                  (    )
Workshops, seminars, conferences:                     (     )                  (    )                   (    )                  (    )

*Note:   The rating of Aadequate@ (from the Standard Performance Rating Scale  Figure 4A-6  Faculty Evaluation Model) shall be considered equivalent to Asatisfactory@  wherever Aadequate@ appears in this document.   See 3-12 UNCP Faculty Handbook):  AAs a minimum standard, candidates should be evaluated as satisfactory or above in all categories.@
 

Professional and Scholarly Competence:  Publications, Papers and Other Professional Writing

Evaluation criteria:  (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 (including electronic media), publication in book form (including book chapters) 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 (4A-2.3 Evaluation of Scholarship).  As with all evaluation scales, an attention to any overall pattern of performance is important.

(     ) Distinguished.
Publications in refereed professional journals, professional monographs or books and/or successful grant acquisition in the disciplinary field, approximately annually over the evaluation period..

(     ) Very Good.
At  least one  professional publication, or several papers presented at the annual meetings of professional societies, or other popular publications, including book reviews and/or grants writing activity in the disciplinary field.

(     ) Adequate
Made at least one presentation before a professional society and/or engaged in grants writing activity in the disciplinary field, annually during the current evaluation period.

(     ) Deficient
Infrequent or no completed scholarly work.

Note:  AWeb based@ publications will be evaluated in terms of their scholarly value as indicated in the traditional criteria outlined above.  In general, the format of the publication should be appropriate to the discipline.
 

 Professional and Scholarly Competence: Participation in Professional Societies and Related Activities

(     ) Distinguished.
Active participation with frequent attendance at annual meetings; and office holding in professional societies, e.g.: journal editing,  frequent contributions and  service as an officer, committee member, program organizer (chair of session, discussant, round table convener, or related activity), peer-reviewing for professional publications, or other active roles in professional activities.  As with all evaluation scales, attention to any overall pattern of performance is important.

(     ) Very Good.
Membership in professional societies, with regular attendance at annual meetings; and occasional contributions of service as an officer, committee member, program organizer (chair of session, discussant, round table convener, or related activity), occasional peer-reviewing for professional publications, or other occasional roles in professional activities.

(     ) Adequate
Membership in a professional society or societies, with occasional meeting attendance, and intermittent service and office holding..

(     ) Deficient
Infrequent or no evidence of involvement.

Service to the University:  Committee and Related Work

University service includes any University-related activities other than teaching and scholarship that promote the welfare of the UniversityYwithin and outside one's academic department, including: advisement, mentoring, grant activity, committee work, faculty governance, curricula revision, accreditation reports and similar voluntary activities not assigned as position responsibilities (4A-2.4 Evaluation of Service).  As with all evaluation scales, an attention to any overall pattern of performance is important.

(     ) Distinguished.
Membership and regular service on more than two committees; evidence of significant contributions to major issues confronted by the University and its sub-units; major sponsorship of at least one extracurricular activity; and/or successful grants acquisition and administration.

(     ) Very Good.
Active membership on at least two committees, occasionally to hold office and/or participate in sub-committee work; successful advisement of graduating students; participation in some University sponsored activities .

(     ) Adequate
Membership on at least two committees, regular attendance in Departmental meetings and graduation exercises.

(     ) Deficient
Infrequent or no evidence of involvement.
 

Note: ACollegiality (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@ (4A2.4 Evaluation of Service).
 

 External and Community Service

(     ) Distinguished.
Active membership and regular service in two or more community groups; with evidence of significant contributions to major issues confronting the community, the state or the nation; significant service to community organizations over a period of years, such as on-going work in public schools or public health, mental heath, church based community assistance programs or local government organized emergency response services; and/or successful grants acquisition in field useful to community life.

(     ) Very Good.
Active membership in at least two community organizations, with  occasional significant contributions, as above.

(     ) Adequate
Membership in at least two community organizations, with occasional active support given, as above.

(     ) Deficient
Infrequent or no evidence of involvement.

Note:  Service activities for which remuneration is granted is evaluated as service only in cases where any compensation is very limited (e.g., expenses or small honorarium) (4A-2.4 Evaluation of Service).

Section E.     Illustrating Timetable

Timetables vary depending on the nature of the review  (First Year, Promotion, Tenure, Post-tenure) and are given in detail in the Tables following 4A-11 in the Faculty Evaluation Model.

Based  on Table 2: Typical Calendar of Events for Tenure and/or Promotion

Note accompanies the table: The events listed below are intended as guidelines only; dates are approximate and may be altered as conditions warrant.

April 1-14 Student evaluations.

Aug 21  Early Review Petition, if desired.

Sept 7 Chair notifies faculty member and the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of major evaluation.

Sept 21  Faculty member presents Chair with self-evaluation and other documents as required.

Sept 30   Peer Evaluation Committee (PEC) formed, as announced by the Chair.

Oct 7  External review may be initiated.

Classroom observations made.

PEC Report.  The Committee agrees on a recommendation and drafts a report.

The Chair writes and transmits his/her chair evaluation report to, and confers with, faculty member under review.

 RT+3 Report Transmittal  + 3 days   --  The faculty member signs the reports from the PEC and departmental chair, acknowledging content but not necessarily agreement.

RT+10 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 Department chair and PEC submit reports to Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.  Minority PEC report (if any) submitted to Provost and 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 The PTC chair submits the Committee's report to the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.  PTC minority report, if any, submitted to Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.  Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs sends his/her recommendation for promotion and/or tenure to the Chancellor.

May Administrative Report.  The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs sends a report of Chancellor's decision, vote of PTC, and other information to candidate.
 

Clarifying Remarks:

In the preparation of this document every effort was made to include pertinent language and evaluation criteria, as well as references to the parent document,  The Faculty Evaluation Model, in each section detailing a review.   Some further clarifications are now made.

Re:  Student Evaluations of Faculty Teaching.   Teaching evaluations should include a narrative summary of the extended written comments made by the students.

Re:  Patterns of Activities as Reflected on the Evaluation Scales:

Annual chair evaluations will employ the same review criteria scales as multi-year promotion, tenure, and post-tenure reviews, but will take into consideration both preceding patterns and current year's accomplishments and achievements.

For the purposes of annual chair evaluations and merit pay recommendations no one shall be evaluated in any performance area exclusively upon the basis of the activities and events of that year alone.  The pattern of performance from prior years also must be factored into the evaluation.

First Year Reviews will consider recent accomplishments and achievements in one's prior employment or status.

CERTIFIED Approved by the unanimous vote of the Department faculty in attendance at their meeting on 10 February 2000.