1. NHS Faculty Evaluation Workshop April 14, 2009

2. Overview I.Introduction (Part I) EvaluationEvaluation TenureTenure PromotionPromotion Evaluation TimelineEvaluation Timeline II.Comprehensive Review Policy and Procedures III.Dossier Preparation (Part II) IV.Questions

3. Faculty Evaluation Assessment – from Latin, assidere (to sit beside) Faculty and administrators work together to establish standards of performance and the rules of evidence Faculty and administrators work together to establish standards of performance and the rules of evidence Focus of evaluation – collection, analysis, and interpretation of evidence of faculty progress toward tenure and promotion Focus of evaluation – collection, analysis, and interpretation of evidence of faculty progress toward tenure and promotion

4. More than Measurement Evaluation also involves issues of: Value Value Quality Quality Effectiveness Effectiveness Judgment Judgment And includes: Self-reflection Peer judgment Institutional standards

5. Context of Evaluation (Dual Roles) 1.Individual role (faculty growth and development) Feedback for faculty member with goal of better understanding of own work and ways to improveFeedback for faculty member with goal of better understanding of own work and ways to improve Information to guide faculty developmentInformation to guide faculty development Guide for career pathingGuide for career pathing

6. 2.Institutional role (meet institutional needs) Avenue to judge faculty performance in light of university’s expectationsAvenue to judge faculty performance in light of university’s expectations Information re: personnel decisions (retention, tenure and promotion)Information re: personnel decisions (retention, tenure and promotion) RewardsRewards Institutional controlInstitutional control Context of Evaluation (Dual Roles)

7. Performance Areas Faculty members at the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) have workload assignments and are evaluated in following areas:Faculty members at the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) have workload assignments and are evaluated in following areas: 1.Instruction/teaching 2.Scholarship/professional activity 3.Service Performance areas are defined in section 2- 3-401(2) of the Board Policy ManualPerformance areas are defined in section 2- 3-401(2) of the Board Policy Manual

8. Forms of Evaluation in NHS Annual review Based on calendar yearBased on calendar year Normally occurs in January or FebruaryNormally occurs in January or February Informs reappointment decisionsInforms reappointment decisions Comprehensive review Tenure and/or promotionTenure and/or promotion Pre- and Post-tenurePre- and Post-tenure Graduate Faculty appointment or reappointmentGraduate Faculty appointment or reappointment

9. Tenure Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: 1.Freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and 2.A sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability “Freedom and economic security, hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society” AAUP Statements and Reports

10. Tenure The following statement from UNC Board Policy regarding tenure is quite clear about its purposes and implementation [2-3-902(1)]: “The purpose of tenure is to create an environment in which the concept of academic freedom is protected. The decision to grant or not grant tenure is influenced by the desirability of maintaining a continuing collegial and professional relationship between the candidate and his or her peer professionals”

11. Promotion The following statement from UNC Board Policy regarding promotion is also quite clear about its purposes and implementation (2-3-901): “Promotion at the University provides a mechanism for the recognition of personal contributions of faculty members to the mission of the institution and its reputation as well as a professional contribution of the advancement of the state of the art and the society at large”

12. Comprehensive Review Process 1.School/Program Area review 2.Dean review 3.Provost review 4.President review 5.Board of Trustees review

13. School/Program Area Review Faculty ReviewFaculty Review Director ReviewDirector Review Both evaluate candidate using specific standards re: instruction, professional activity, and service valued by the disciplineBoth evaluate candidate using specific standards re: instruction, professional activity, and service valued by the discipline Eval. Comm. and Director evaluation memo to candidate and DeanEval. Comm. and Director evaluation memo to candidate and Dean

14. Dean Review Dean reviews all application materials, including the candidate’s curriculum vitae, dossier and narrative statements, the school/program area faculty vote and recommendation, and director evaluation and recommendationDean reviews all application materials, including the candidate’s curriculum vitae, dossier and narrative statements, the school/program area faculty vote and recommendation, and director evaluation and recommendation Dean’s evaluation memoDean’s evaluation memo

15. Evaluation Conference Committee Convened by the DeanConvened by the Dean Members are the Dean, School Director, and Program Area Faculty or their designeeMembers are the Dean, School Director, and Program Area Faculty or their designee Purpose is for conflict resolution when there is a recommendation disagreement among thePurpose is for conflict resolution when there is a recommendation disagreement among the voting faculty, the School Director, and the Dean Reexamines evaluation materials If consensus cannot be reached then individual recommendations are forwarded to the CAOIf consensus cannot be reached then individual recommendations are forwarded to the CAO

16. Evaluatee Feedback Evaluatee will receive evaluation results at each review stepEvaluatee will receive evaluation results at each review step Evaluatee will be given the opportunity to provide commentary and additional supporting documentation at each review stepEvaluatee will be given the opportunity to provide commentary and additional supporting documentation at each review step Evaluatee may appeal the results of the review process using established faculty grievance proceduresEvaluatee may appeal the results of the review process using established faculty grievance procedures BPM 1-1-307

17. Pre-Tenure Review Mid-point of probationary periodMid-point of probationary period Intended as a check on an individual’s progress toward tenureIntended as a check on an individual’s progress toward tenure Program, School, and College level onlyProgram, School, and College level only Years of tenure credit awarded to faculty member Pre-tenure review will occur during the faculty member’s 0Third full academic year 1Second full academic year 2 3Not applicable

18. Instruction, Scholarship, and Service Workload Each is assigned a weight for evaluation purposes such that sum = 1.0Each is assigned a weight for evaluation purposes such that sum = 1.0 Basis for the workload of individuals in the college - fifteen (15) credit hour per semester equated loadBasis for the workload of individuals in the college - fifteen (15) credit hour per semester equated load Most faculty will have a work assignment of:Most faculty will have a work assignment of: 0.6 - instruction 0.2 - scholarship 0.2 - service Weighting may vary as college or school needs dictateWeighting may vary as college or school needs dictate

19. Overall Evaluation Performance evaluation yields an overall evaluation based on the weighted areas of the individual’s workloadPerformance evaluation yields an overall evaluation based on the weighted areas of the individual’s workload The weights and the evaluation rating assigned for each area are multiplied and the products are summed to yield an overall evaluation measure between one (I) and five (V)The weights and the evaluation rating assigned for each area are multiplied and the products are summed to yield an overall evaluation measure between one (I) and five (V)

20. University Evaluation Scale The 3 areas and the overall evaluation is assigned according to the university scale, as follows: LEVELRATING OVERALL EVALUATION V 4.6 – 5.0 Excellent IV IV 3.6 – 4.5 Exceeds Expectations III III 2.6 – 3.5 Meets Expectations II II 1.6 – 2.5 Needs Improvement I 1.0 – 1.5 Unsatisfactory

21. External Peer Evaluation Individuals applying for tenure or promotion at any rank are required to include a minimum of two (2) peer evaluations of scholarship from faculty within the discipline from other institutionsIndividuals applying for tenure or promotion at any rank are required to include a minimum of two (2) peer evaluations of scholarship from faculty within the discipline from other institutions Candidates should provide to their Director the names and contact information of three to four prospective outside peer evaluators. Must not be current collaborators or have served on faculty members thesis/dissertation committees.Candidates should provide to their Director the names and contact information of three to four prospective outside peer evaluators. Must not be current collaborators or have served on faculty members thesis/dissertation committees. Director serves as point of contact for external reviewersDirector serves as point of contact for external reviewers Need at least 1 month to secure lettersNeed at least 1 month to secure letters

22. External peer evaluations are not required for faculty preparing for pre-tenure and post-tenure comprehensive reviewExternal peer evaluations are not required for faculty preparing for pre-tenure and post-tenure comprehensive review Candidates shall have the right to view external review letters and this fact shall be conveyed to all prospective peer reviewersCandidates shall have the right to view external review letters and this fact shall be conveyed to all prospective peer reviewers The standard letter of instruction for peer reviewers is provided in Appendix C (p. 20) of the NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/Fac_eval.pdfThe standard letter of instruction for peer reviewers is provided in Appendix C (p. 20) of the NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/Fac_eval.pdf External Peer Evaluation

23. Basis for Tenure Recommendation Pre-Tenure ReviewPre-Tenure Review - Level IV or V rating for instruction or professional activity - Level III, IV, or V rating for the other two performance areas TenureTenure - Level IV or V rating for instruction or professional activity - Level III, IV, or V rating for the other two performance areas - Assistant professors may only be granted tenure if promoted to associate professor at the same time associate professor at the same time Post-Tenure ReviewPost-Tenure Review An individual is evaluated on his/her assigned workload over a five-year period. To receive an overall satisfactory performance evaluation, the faculty member must be rated as Level III or above overall, which must include a Level III rating in instruction

24. Basis for Promotion Recommendation Promotion to Associate ProfessorPromotion to Associate Professor - Earned doctorate in the discipline or other terminal degree specified by the School or program area is required specified by the School or program area is required - Level IV or V rating for instruction or professional activity - Level III, IV, or V rating for the other two performance areas Promotion to ProfessorPromotion to Professor - Level IV or V rating for instruction and professional activity - Level III, IV, or V rating for service

25. Performance Standards Instruction - the effective instructor is guided by the “teacher/scholar” modelInstruction - the effective instructor is guided by the “teacher/scholar” model Scholarship - Faculty are expected to engage in advancing one or more aspects of their discipline through scholarly pursuitsScholarship - Faculty are expected to engage in advancing one or more aspects of their discipline through scholarly pursuits Service - Faculty are expected to contribute substantively to the governance and professionally related service activities of the school/program area and collegeService - Faculty are expected to contribute substantively to the governance and professionally related service activities of the school/program area and college Specific guidelines and criteria found in NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document (pp. 6-9) Specific guidelines and criteria found in NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document (pp. 6-9) http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/Fac_eval.pdf http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/Fac_eval.pdfhttp://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/Fac_eval.pdf College performance standards form College performance standards form http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/college_performance_standards.pdf http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/college_performance_standards.pdfhttp://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/college_performance_standards.pdf

26. Typical Faculty Evaluation Timeline (Tenure Clock) (TT ASTP with no years credit) AY 2008-09 AY 2009-10 AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 (Tenure effective) AY 2014-15 (Tenure effective) 3rd year reappoint (Dec) Comprehen -sive review (Pre-tenure) Eligible for comprehen- sive review (T/P) Mandatory comprehen- sive review (T/P) Annual evaluation 2nd year reappoint (March) Annual evaluation 4th year reappoint (May) Annual evaluation 5th year reappoint (May) Annual evaluation 6th year reappoint (May) Annual evaluation 7th year reappoint* (May) Annual evaluation 7th year reappoint** (May) Terminal year if not awarded tenure 1 st Year 2 nd Year 3 rd Year 4 th Year 5 th Year 6 th Year 7 th Year Probationary period = 7 years FallFall SpringSpring

27. Sources NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures documentNHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/Fac_eval.pdf NHS College Performance Standards formNHS College Performance Standards form http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/college_performance_s tandards.pdf http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/college_performance_s tandards.pdf Board Policy ManualBoard Policy Manual http://www.unco.edu/trustees/Policy_Manual.pdf University RegulationsUniversity Regulations http://www.unco.edu/trustees/University_Regulation s.pdf http://www.unco.edu/trustees/University_Regulation s.pdf

28. Questions and Discussion

29. Guidelines for Dossier* Preparation Dossier – portfolio of information relative to performance and accomplishments during the comprehensive evaluation period, which shall include: Updated curriculum vitaeUpdated curriculum vitae Appropriate documentation (evidence)Appropriate documentation (evidence) Representative sample of student evaluationsRepresentative sample of student evaluations Other materials determined by the School/Program AreaOther materials determined by the School/Program Area BPM “it shall be the responsibility of the candidate to document satisfactory fulfillment of the appropriate areas of consideration” *Appendix A of the NHS Faculty Evaluation document provides specific guidance on the organization and format of the dossier (p. 15)

30. Elements in Dossier All materials limited to 2-inch loose leaf binderAll materials limited to 2-inch loose leaf binder Pocket Materials Letter of transmittalLetter of transmittal University request formsUniversity request forms Copies of Annual Evaluations – forms, faculty reports, director reports, dean reportsCopies of Annual Evaluations – forms, faculty reports, director reports, dean reports Faculty Comprehensive Evaluation – includes current year annual reviewFaculty Comprehensive Evaluation – includes current year annual review Director Comprehensive Evaluation – includes current year annual reviewDirector Comprehensive Evaluation – includes current year annual review Dean Comprehensive EvaluationDean Comprehensive Evaluation

31. Comprehensive Performance Report – Tab 1 Brief narrative comprehensive summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleaguesBrief narrative comprehensive summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleagues Current CV in UNC formatCurrent CV in UNC format External peer review letters (required for P&T)External peer review letters (required for P&T)

32. Instruction Performance Report– Tab 2 Guidelines for Instruction Materials Brief narrative summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleaguesBrief narrative summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleagues Demonstrate effectiveness as an instructorDemonstrate effectiveness as an instructor Demonstrate ability to develop students’ ethical and critical thinking and analytical and expressive abilitiesDemonstrate ability to develop students’ ethical and critical thinking and analytical and expressive abilities Note: In NHS, advising related to career development and students’ academic progress will be considered service, while mentoring associated with theses and dissertations, directed studies courses, and the like, will be classified as instructionNote: In NHS, advising related to career development and students’ academic progress will be considered service, while mentoring associated with theses and dissertations, directed studies courses, and the like, will be classified as instruction List of suggested materials in NHS Faculty Evaluation document (pp. 15-16)

33. Professional Activity Performance Report – Tab 3 Guidelines for Professional Activity Materials Brief narrative summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleaguesBrief narrative summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleagues Provide evidence and/or examplesProvide evidence and/or examples Highlight the significance or noteworthiness of your research, scholarship, and grantsHighlight the significance or noteworthiness of your research, scholarship, and grants List of suggested materials in NHS Faculty Evaluation document (pp. 16-17)

34. Service Performance Report – Tab 4 Guidelines for Service Materials Brief narrative summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleaguesBrief narrative summary report of accomplishments over the period that is used to educate and inform your colleagues Provide evidence and/or examplesProvide evidence and/or examples Highlight the significance or noteworthiness of your service activitiesHighlight the significance or noteworthiness of your service activities Note: In NHS, advising related to career development and students’ academic progress will be considered service, while mentoring associated with theses and dissertations, directed studies courses, and the like, will be classified as instructionNote: In NHS, advising related to career development and students’ academic progress will be considered service, while mentoring associated with theses and dissertations, directed studies courses, and the like, will be classified as instruction List of suggested materials in NHS Faculty Evaluation document (pp. 17-18)

35. Keys to Success Well prepared, easy-to-read dossier – your application will be seen by many people during the evaluation process Carefully follow dossier guidelines - include ALLCarefully follow dossier guidelines - include ALL necessary forms and materials necessary forms and materials Make materials easy to find and read – find examplesMake materials easy to find and read – find examples and have your colleagues provide feedback prior to and have your colleagues provide feedback prior to submission submission Highlight significance/impact of your effortsHighlight significance/impact of your efforts Make efforts obvious to those unfamiliar with yourMake efforts obvious to those unfamiliar with your area area

36. Faculty Evaluation Deadlines* Comprehensive Reviews - other than pre-tenure reviews (including applications for promotion and/or tenure, and graduate faculty status; and post-tenure review): DUE: NHS Dean’s office – February 1DUE: NHS Dean’s office – February 1 Academic Affairs – First half of MarchAcademic Affairs – First half of March Pre-Tenure Reviews DUE: NHS Dean’s office – March 1DUE: NHS Dean’s office – March 1 * APPENDIX B of the NHS Faculty Evaluation document

37. Sources NHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures documentNHS Faculty Evaluation and Performance Policies and Procedures document http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/Fac_eval.pdf NHS College Performance Standards formNHS College Performance Standards form http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/college_performance_s tandards.pdf http://www.unco.edu/nhs/pdf/college_performance_s tandards.pdf Board Policy ManualBoard Policy Manual http://www.unco.edu/trustees/Policy_Manual.pdf University RegulationsUniversity Regulations http://www.unco.edu/trustees/University_Regulation s.pdf http://www.unco.edu/trustees/University_Regulation s.pdf

38. Questions and Discussion