Instructions: Chairpersons are to use the university minimum measurements defined in the faculty evaluation point system for ratings Ratings of "Needs Improvement" and "Unsatisfactory" requires a plan for improvement, a follow up review, and/or possible sanctions. All areas of evaluation should reflect the faculty member's performance expected at their academic rank. All faculty types participate in the annual review process unless, a faculty member is undergoing Third Year Review for Pre-Tenure faculty, Tenure and Promotion Review, or Post-Tenure Review evaluation processes.
Scoring Instructions: Minimum university expectation for Effectiveness in Teaching is Meets Expectations (2) in at least eight of the areas listed below each year with verifiable artifacts. Special Note: Evaluations by students/administrators/peers are required for a faculty members. Category will be mean (average) scored across all items present in the dossier. Category scores less than "2" will require a Performance Improvement Plan and subject to sanctions. Evaluations from students Evaluation by school/unit administrator Direct observation of faculty by peers and/or school/unit administrator Use of teaching portfolios as developed by schools/units Accessibility to, and rapport with students Innovative teaching methodology and the use of research in instruction Evidence of contributions to student career development Quality and standards as developed through consultation with colleagues to meet the objectives set forth in the course syllabus Initiative in developing or experimenting with media and materials Additional evidence of effective teaching
Exceeds Expectations (3) Meets Expectations (2) Needs Improvement (1) Unsatisfactory (0)
Scoring Instructions: Minimum university expectation for Scholarly Activity is Meets Expectations (2) in at least five of the areas listed below each year with verifiable artifacts. Category will be mean (average) scored across all items present in the dossier. Category scores less than "2" will require a Performance Improvement Plan and subject to sanctions.
Publications in refereed journals Publications in non-refereed journals Publication of a book or monograph Competitive research grant awards Publication of a chapter in a book Book or Journal Editor Published book reviews Published journal abstracts Publication of workbooks used in conjunction with instruction Publication of refereed proceedings Publication of cases Software developed for use in instruction (validated by external reviewers) Creative Works and Projects See discipline specific benchmarks published in the Faculty Handbook (2019) Appendices where appropriate
Exceeds Expectations (3) Meets Expectations (2) Needs Improvement (1) Unsatisfactory (0)