Retention, Tenure, and Promotion and Faculty Workload This fall the College of Business and Economics’ FAC will be considering going quantitative to remove most of the department level RTP evaluation criteria’s variation and friendship effects, and to meet AACSB Faculty Ranking requirements. Paul Rosenthal College of Business and Economics

Category A consists of two elements: 1. teaching performance and 2. related educational activities. A1. Teaching performance is defined as those activities by the faculty member that directly contribute to student learning. These teaching activities may extend beyond the classroom to include field or community settings or the use of technology. Effective teaching can include many pedagogical approaches, such as lectures, individual and group exercises, inquiry-based learning, discussion sessions, and other techniques. It can also include a wide range of activities such as coordinating and supervising students in learning experiences; collaborating with students on research, performance, artistic, and other projects; mentoring students; professional counseling of students (by counseling faculty); tutoring students; and enabling student access to and use of information and knowledge resources. The evaluation of teaching performance shall include multiple measures. The basis of the evaluation shall be the quality and effectiveness of the performance.

Rating the Student Opinion Survey on Instructional Performance RTP Procedures state that the evaluation of Teaching Performance shall include a summary of the quantitative responses to the “Student Opinion Survey on Instruction”. This briefing presents a way to quantify the scores and produce a rating for RTP Evaluation. The Survey supplies for each question the department mean and the faculty mean based on a five (5) point scale. Normal statistic inference practice considers satisfactory variance from the mean to be 1δ which includes approximately ⅔ of the faculty responses. However the standard deviation shown on the survey forms is inaccurate in that they cannot be used to determine a reasonable satisfactory range, since they do not adjust for the Poisson distribution of the survey results. Calculation examples follow using a table of the Cumulative Poisson Distribution. Ranking ScaleScore Outstanding≥ +2δ Commendable≥ +1δ Satisfactory Needs Improvement≤ -1δ Unsatisfactory ≤ -2δ

Department Mean Outstanding ≥ 4.7≥ 4.75≥ 4.8 Commendable ≥ 4.3≥ 4.4≥ 4.5 Satisfactory Needs Improvement ≤ 3.6≤ 3.8≤ 4.0 Unsatisfactory ≤ 3.2≤ 3.3≤ 3.4 Example Department Table Note that Category A.1 Performance Evaluation shall include: a.summary of the quantitative responses to the “Student Opinion Survey on Instruction”; b.b. peer observation; and c.c. at least one other form of evaluation. Therefore the following ranking is only one of three factors to be considered.

A Typical Department Form A.EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE 1.Teaching Performance is defined as those activities by the faculty member that directly contributes to student learning Evaluation shall include: a. summary of the quantitative responses to the “Student Opinion Survey on Instruction”: Ranking Scale Weighted Mean Outstanding≥ 4.8 Commendable≥ 4.5 Satisfactory Needs Improvement≤ 3.8 Unsatisfactory≤ 3.3

Examples of Areas of Professional Achievement (Category B) 1.Academic and scholarly contributions to the faculty member's profession and field, that are externally evaluated and published or formally accepted for publication such as research, critical essays and analyses, and theoretical speculations. 2.Innovative use of computers and computer methods, textbooks, and original teaching or testing materials which are adopted for professional and/or instructional use outside the faculty member's department/division/school. 3.Inventions, designs and innovations which have been favorably evaluated by authorities outside the University. 4.Creation, exhibition, performance or publication in the arts or literature. Producing and directing events in the performing arts, including visual arts, music, dance, and theatre, beyond normal instructional duties. 5.Presentations before meetings of scholarly and professional societies, and presentations as an invited authority in the faculty member's field before significant scholarly and professional audiences. 6.Participation of activities of scholarly or professional societies beyond mere membership, such as elective office, fellowship status, committee membership, receipt of special awards, organization of symposia, and chairing of conference sessions. 7.Receipt of fellowships or other subsidies for the pursuit of research or study in the faculty member's field, and significant commissions in the creative arts. 8.Holding significant special appointments such as visiting professorships, lectureships, or consultant assignments in other academic, scholarly, professional, or governmental institutions, and editing of scholarly or professional publications. 9.Professional practice that utilizes the faculty member's academic expertise in a manner that results in an advancement of the field.

Type of Professional Activity* Number (N) Weight (W) Total (WxN) Articles of basic, applied or pedagogical scholarship published in a peer-reviewed print or online journal 1 Refereed conference presentations AND publication in the conference print or online proceedings.67 Publication in conference print or online proceedings and/or professional or trade journals.5 Research monographs.5 Presentations at conference and/or workshops.4 Developing instructional software.2 Writing a chapter in a scholarly or professional book.4 Revising/editing a scholarly or professional article, book or textbook.2 Preparing a written case with instructional materials in a book or journal.2 Participation in person or online at professional workshops, conferences, and/or training.1 Maintaining a current professional certification (e.g., CPA; Bar Membership) that requires annual education/experience activities of at least 40 hours, 1 Total

A Typical Department Form B. PROFESSIONAL ACHIEVEMENT (including research, scholarship and creative activity): (Based on the attached Category B Evaluation Criteria from the CSULA Faculty Handbook, include or attach a list of professional intellectual contributions) Ranking Five Year Review Period Minimum Score * Outstanding≥4 Commendable≥3 Satisfactory≥2 Needs Improvement≥1 Unsatisfactory <1

Examples of Contributions to the University (Category C) 1.Contributing to academic governance such as membership and participation in the activities of department/division/school, college, university, and system committees, and service in administrative capacities. 2.Participating in any student organization or engaging in any service to colleges and/or the community or engaging in other activities which bring positive recognition to the faculty member and to the University. 3.Delivering speeches, conducting colloquia, or otherwise conveying information about the faculty member's scholarship, profession, field and university to community groups. 4.Organizing and engaging in significant university, college and department/division/school activities which improve the educational environment and/or student or faculty life, such as organizing retreats, conferences, or orientations.

Type of Contribution Weight (W) Number (N) Total (WxN) University-level Committees that meet WEEKLY ALL YEAR: Enter number of years 1 Committees/groups that meet WEEKLY FOR SEVERAL MONTHS A YEAR: enter number of years.67 Committees/groups that meet numerous times a year” Enter number of years.5 Administrative support to university, professional or community groups: Enter number of years.5 Speeches in person or online to professional and community groups.5 Significant participation in professional and community groups.67 TOTAL SCORE

C. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY, PROFESSION, AND COMMUNITY: (See attached Summary of Category C Evaluation Criteria from CSULA Faculty Handbook) A Typical Department Form Ranking Scale Cat C: Contributions Outstanding ≥ 4 Commendable ≥ 3 Satisfactory ≥ 2 Needs Improvement ≥ 1 Unsatisfactory < 1 * [ ] Outstanding [ ] Commendable [ ] Satisfactory [ ] Needs Improvement [ ] Unsatisfactory _____________________ *The FAC in evaluating these contributions as to their relative merits will consider the quality and effectiveness, as well as the quantification (from the worksheet), of these contributions.