(Approved April 6, 2017)
These guidelines are intended to add greater specificity to university-level guidelines on evaluation that are included in the ISU Policies and Procedures and available on the website for the Office of Academic Affairs. A main goal of this document is to give full-time faculty a clear sense of what they can expect from annual evaluations and how these evaluations are linked to tenure and promotion considerations, and to enhance consistency in faculty evaluations.
Departmental guidelines: Departments are encouraged to supplement these college-level guidelines with discipline-specific guidelines of their own. Note that in certain areas (e.g., selection of tenure committee) departments must develop separate guidelines. Departmental guidelines will be approved in consultation with the Dean.
Assembling and providing all evaluation materials is the responsibility of the person being evaluated.
II. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Faculty are judged in the areas of teaching, scholarly activities (scholarship, research, creative activities), and professional service. For a description of these categories, please consult the College Promotion and Tenure Policy.
III. FORMS OF EVALUATION
A. ANNUAL EVALUATIONS
All faculty will submit an annual report on professional accomplishments, including teaching, scholarly activities, and professional service for each calendar year. (See the College and departmental workload policies for expectations in these areas.) This annual report must be submitted on the forms specified by Academic Affairs. Faculty members may also submit a narrative statement on their accomplishments to supplement this list. Chairs will review the year's accomplishments and formal course evaluations, and then write a report that addresses each of the three areas of responsibility and that makes a judgment of whether or not the year's work is satisfactory. Departmental guidelines may stipulate that other people in addition to the chair are to be involved in this process. For example, chairs are encouraged to solicit input from tenured faculty in the department in the evaluation of untenured faculty. Chairs are encouraged, when possible, to meet with each person being evaluated, and to have an annual evaluative meeting with tenure-track faculty members who are not tenured. The annual review process should give those being evaluated the following information:
For full-time, non-tenure-track faculty: The review should clearly indicate whether performance is satisfactory for all relevant areas of evaluation. If not, the review should indicate what corrective measures need to be taken.
For non-tenured, tenure-track faculty: The review should clearly indicate whether the person under review is making good progress toward tenure in all three areas of evaluation. If the review indicates that the person is not making progress, corrective measures should be delineated.
For tenured faculty at the AP or AOP level: The review should clearly indicate whether the person under review is making good progress toward promotion. If the review indicates that the person is not making progress, corrective measures should be delineated.
For tenured full professors: The review should clearly indicate whether the person has performed at a level expected of a senior member of the department's faculty. If not, the review should indicate what corrective measures need to be taken.
Periodic (multi-year) reviews: A separate annual evaluation is not required for any faculty member undergoing a multi-year review such as a PPR. (Sections III.B. through III.D.) However, chairs must submit the rating sheet titled Chair's Evaluation of Faculty Member's Overall Performance. This rating sheet for the most recent year is submitted separately and is not a part of the multi-year review. It is due at the time that an annual evaluation would have been due.
B. THIRD-YEAR EVALUATIONS
The purpose of the third-year evaluation is to provide the tenure-track faculty member with a more thorough analysis of his or her progress toward tenure than an annual evaluation. Each year, the Dean's Office will contact chairs informing them of any tenure-track faculty in their department who will be in their third year of employment in a tenure-track position at ISU.
- At the beginning of the fall semester the person under review will provide a curriculum vitae. He or she will also provide a two-year report of professional activities in the areas of teaching, scholarly activities, and service using the Promotion and Tenure Application Form as required by Academic Affairs. Faculty members may also submit a narrative statement on their accomplishments to supplement this list. However, only one binder of support materials is necessary. Support materials must include copies of previous annual evaluations, course syllabi, summaries of student course evaluations, and representative publications, grant applications, or creative activities for the review period.
C. PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEWS
Please consult the College Promotion and Tenure Policy for details concerning these evaluations.
D. PERIODIC PERFORMANCE REVIEWS (PPR)
This College PPR policy is intended to complement and expand on the University PPR policy. Each year the Dean's office will contact chairs informing them of any full-time faculty in their department who will have served for five years since their last major review (e.g., since tenure and/or promotion, PPR, etc.). Faculty are evaluated relative to their actual workload distribution.
Note: the materials generated at each stage of this process will become part of the PPR report that is submitted to the Dean's office and finally to the Office of Academic Affairs.
- The person under review will provide a curriculum vitae (C.V.). He or she will also provide a five-year report of professional activities in the areas of teaching, scholarly activities, and service. This document will summarize what the person has accomplished in each of these areas during the past five years. Faculty members may also submit a narrative statement on their accomplishments to supplement this list. Support materials must include copies of previous annual evaluations, course syllabi, summaries of student course evaluations, and representative publications, grant applications, or creative activities for the review period.
Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty
- The person under review will provide a curriculum vitae and a five-year report of professional activities focusing on the primary responsibilities undertaken by that person. Faculty members may also submit a narrative statement on their accomplishments to supplement this list. In most instances, non-tenure-track faculty have the primary duty of teaching; in such cases their five-year report will focus on teaching, although they may report on other kinds of activities. For research faculty, see guidelines developed by Office of Research; clinical faculty have guidelines developed within their department.
IV. EVALUATION CRITERIA
All faculty evaluations will assess the faculty member's accomplishments and potential for professional contribution in the areas of teaching, scholarly activities, and service.
Evaluations during the pre-tenure years will include an assessment of the faculty member's potential for eventually being granted tenure. Such assessments are advisory and place no obligation on the university to grant tenure. A terminal contract or notification of non-reappointment may be issued to an untenured faculty member in accordance with the ISU Policies and Procedures should the faculty member demonstrate an unsatisfactory level of performance in any one of the three areas of professional activity or not be making adequate progress toward qualifying for tenure.
V. ASSESSING AND AMENDING THIS DOCUMENT
Upon completion of the annual periodic evaluation cycle, the Dean will ask the College Executive Committee to review the procedures contained in this document, and assess the need for changes.
Faculty may request changes be made to the document. A faculty member will make the request for change first at the department level. If the department votes to recommend the change, the suggestion will be made to the Chairs Council.
Minor changes in evaluation procedures will take effect upon approval of the Chairs Council. Usually, minor changes are made only for clarification or correction. Changes in evaluative criteria will be submitted for a vote by the College tenure-track faculty.