Our interpretation of the major issues and concerns that resulted in this recommendation:

Faculty Evaluation Issues:

1. The relationship between the annual evaluations and P&T decisions is not clearly articulated.

   How do the annual evaluations fit in with the P&T process? How much weight, if any, is given to these? Do the department and/or college P&T committees have access to these? What are the differences among the colleges?

2. The evaluation processes and criteria for the various categories of faculty appointments are not clearly articulated.

   How does the annual evaluation process and the promotion process differ among the categories of non-tenure track faculty appointments? What are the differences among the colleges? Specifically, how are clinical, lecturer, and research faculty evaluated and promoted compared to tenure-track and tenured? How are non-tenure track instructors in the College of Technology evaluated and promoted?

3. There appears to be some conflict or disconnect regarding evaluation of research faculty.

   How is the evaluation of research faculty, assigned to colleges and departments but appointed through the Office of Research, handled? Is this working? How much input does the department chair and dean have vs. the CRO?

4. There appears to be wide variation in how annual evaluations of faculty are conducted among colleges and departments/programs, and the perception that there is inconsistency and therefore unfair application of evaluation criteria and procedures. How do the completeness/rigor, criteria, policy and procedures, and value of faculty evaluations differ among departments? Which categories of faculty appointments are subject to annual evaluation? How are affiliate faculty evaluated?

Faculty Workload Issues:

5. Faculty workload expectations are not clearly defined or articulated.

   What is the expected workload for each category of faculty appointment? How is that workload defined (what is a ‘workload unit’)? Where there is a reduction in faculty numbers but no decrease, or possibly even an increase, in department or unit workload, how is this burden distributed among the remaining faculty? How are the different aspects of teaching, including different types of courses, “weighted” in defining a faculty member’s workload (e.g., credit hours vs. contact hours, number of preparations, number of new preparations, “live lecture vs. WebCT vs. hybrid course, lecture hours vs. laboratory vs. clinical hours, class size – under 25, under 100, 100+, class level – lower division vs. upper division vs. graduate, etc.)? How do the workload expectations differ for faculty actively involved in graduate education vs. those who are not? How do the workload expectations differ for faculty actively involved in funded research vs. non-funded scholarly activities vs. those who are not? How do the workload expectations differ over the academic career of faculty members?

6. There is no indication of the relationship between changing department workloads and institutional planning.

   What is the relationship between department workload and allocation of additional resources to meet an increasing need? How are the changing needs of a program or department (e.g., decrease or increase in the number of faculty, decrease or increase in number of students or courses offered in a program, increased demand for on-line and web-based courses and/or delivery of courses at outreach centers, etc.)? If a faculty member is assigned to teach an off-campus or an ‘overload’ course, how is this incorporated into the department/program’s total workload in the future? How does institutional planning drive the development of new programs, expansion of existing programs, or the closing of declining or obsolete programs?

Allocation/Re-allocation of Institutional Resources Based on Workload Needs:

7. The award of graduate assistantships as well as funding for library resources do not appear to be based on changing program needs, but rather primarily on historical patterns, and do not appear to be tied to institutional planning.

   How are the institution-funded graduate assistantships allocated to programs? What are the teaching expectations for graduate assistants, what are they expected to do? What are the teaching responsibilities of DA students receiving institutional funding?

How this recommendation links to other recommendations?

This recommendation is tightly linked to recommendation 1, and the need for comprehensive planning at the institution-wide and college levels. It is also linked to recommendation 5, as effective program assessment will help to identify changing program needs that then can be addressed within institutional planning.

What has already been done to address this Recommendation:

Reporting forms for both annual faculty evaluations and periodic performance reviews were developed and approved by the Deans’ Council about two years ago. Most departments are using them (or a slightly modified version); however, some colleges/departments are not. If followed, the forms ask that multiple sources of information be used in evaluation of faculty (as required by the SBOE). In addition, use of this annual review process makes it much easier to do the 5-year PPRs. NOTE: copies of these two evaluation forms are available on the Academic Affairs website , http://www.isu.edu/acadaff/facultyevalforms.shtml.

What activities are currently underway:

1. The Faculty Senate has completed a draft revision to the institution’s faculty workload policy (Faculty/Staff Handbook, Appendix E). The revised draft broadens the general policy to take into account the workload variations among the categories of faculty appointments and the stages of the faculty career. The Faculty Senate will request that Colleges build upon the ISU policy to add more specificity and detail regarding definition of workload expectations for their faculty groups. Deans will be asked to provide Faculty Senate with their written policies and procedures related to workload no later than September 1, 2005.
2. The Assessment Coordinator has met with department/program chairs in the various colleges to get them on track with program assessment. He has prepared and distributed two handbooks, one for program assessment and one for course assessment. Program assessment data will be used in the future to identify programs’ needs, outcomes, and performance, which can be used to inform institutional planning and the allocation/re-allocation of institutional resources.

What needs to be done to meet this recommendation: