College of Education Department of Early Childhood, Elementary, and Reading Education Guidelines for Faculty Evaluation Approved, August 27, 2012 All statements and policies included in these guidelines reflect the policies of the JMU 2012 Faculty Handbook. The Faculty Handbook is designed to outline the duties, rights and responsibilities of faculty members and be a guide for the relationship between the faculty members and the university. It does not contain all the university's policies and procedures and should not be considered to be a part of the university's contractual agreement with the individual faculty members.
Faculty Evaluation 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction to evaluation process in the Department of Early, Elementary, and Reading Education A. Academic ranks B. Criteria for Satisfactory Performance 1. Teaching and advising 2. Scholarship 3. Service C. Tenure and Promotion D. Professional Benchmarks Toward Tenure and Promotion II. III. Preparing the Initial, Annual, Three-Year, Tenure and Promotion Materials A. Initial Evaluation B. Annual Evaluation C. Three-year Evaluation D. Tenure and Promotion Evaluation Process A. Roles and responsibilities of the Department of Early, Elementary, and Reading Education Personnel Advisory Committee B. Faculty/Staff Evaluation Tasks and Timelines C. Response to Evaluation Process Appendix A. First year Evaluation Form B. Annual Performance Rating Form C. Annual Performance Rating Form Rubric
Faculty Evaluation 3 I. Introduction to evaluation process in the Department of Early, Elementary, and Reading Education According to the JMU Faculty Handbook as approved by the Board of Visitors in July, 2012, the purpose of evaluation of faculty members at James Madison University is to promote professionalism, to encourage performance at the highest levels and to indicate areas in which improvement is needed. Evaluations are also used in making personnel decisions, including allocation of merit pay increases, continuation of employment and initiation of post-tenure review. The JMU Faculty Handbook, Section III.E., states that All full- time instructional faculty at JMU are subject to annual evaluation of their performance. Furthermore, Section III. E. 2.b states that The areas of performance that shall be considered in all performance evaluations are as follows: teaching, scholarly achievement and professional qualifications, and professional service. Additionally, any aspects of a faculty member s conduct that impacts performance, positive or negative, should be addressed in the evaluation of these performance areas. Four types of evaluation occur within the Department of Reading, Early, and Elementary Education and include: Initial Evaluation: The initial evaluation shall be conducted at the beginning of a new faculty member s second full semester at James Madison University. The initial evaluation becomes a matter of college record and is filed in the dean s office. The initial review is conducted by the Academic Unit Head. Annual Evaluation: Annual evaluations of all faculty members shall be conducted after the conclusion of each academic year. Annual evaluations become a matter of the academic unit s record and are filed in the academic unit office. Annual reviews are conducted by Personnel Advisory Committee (PAC) and the Academic Unit Head (AUH) independently. Three Year Review:. The three year review evaluates the three most recent annual review reports for evaluative purposes. This provides faculty with an overview of their progress toward tenure and promotion. Three year reviews are conducted independently by PAC and the AUH. Comprehensive Evaluations: Comprehensive evaluations are concerned with promotion and tenure decisions and are conducted in addition to the annual evaluation in the appropriate year. They become a matter of the college s record and are filed in the office of the dean. Tenure and promotion are not tied together at James Madison University so a faculty member may choose to apply for tenure and/or promotion. According to the JMU
Faculty Evaluation 4 Faculty Handbook, The promotion of an instructional faculty member shall be determined by merit regardless of the distribution of faculty by academic rank within the academic unit (Section III.E.6). Tenure is intended to protect academic freedom, provide a reasonable measure of employment security and enable the university to retain a permanent instructional faculty of distinction (Section III.E.7a). Refer to the faculty handbook for the specific number of years required for comprehensive evaluation review. The comprehensive evaluation for tenure and/or promotion is conducted by PAC and AUH. The Department of Early, Elementary, and Reading Education is committed to a fair and equitable evaluation process that ensures that all faculty members understand and are involved in the evaluation process. A. Academic ranks When you join the EERE department, you are appointed to an academic rank and a type of track. The faculty of James Madison University recognizes five distinct academic ranks that include: Lecturer, Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. The JMU Faculty Handbook, Section III.B.4, defines academic faculty ranks as: III.B.4.a. Instructor Appointment at the rank of instructor is normally for a fixed term but may be employment at the will of the university with no fixed term. Appointment at the rank of instructor may also be used for a faculty member who is hired with the expectation of completion of a terminal degree by a specified date. Promotion to the rank of assistant professor may be made automatic on completion of the terminal degree in the terms of the appointment, subject to approval of the JMU Board of Visitors.. III.B.4.b Lecturer Appointment at the rank of lecturer can be made in the case of an Renewable-Term Appointments (RTA). Individuals in the rank of lecturer are not eligible for promotion. III.B.4.c Assistant Professor Appointment at the rank of assistant professor normally carries with it teaching, scholarship and service responsibilities, and normally requires a terminal degree in a relevant discipline. III.B.4.d. Associate Professor In addition to the requirements for assistant professor, appointment at the rank of associate professor is contingent upon substantial professional achievements, evidenced by an appropriate combination of teaching, scholarship, and service. III.B.4.e. Professor
Faculty Evaluation 5 In addition to the requirements for associate professor, appointment at the rank of professor is contingent upon recognition of outstanding professional accomplishment. B. Criteria for Satisfactory Performance Faculty are evaluated in three areas teaching effectiveness, scholarly achievement, and service achievement as described in the following sections. Additionally, any aspects of a faculty member s conduct that impact performance, positively or negatively, should be addressed in the evaluation of these performance areas. This is explained in Section III.B.4 of the JMU Faculty Handbook. At all times, faculty are held accountable to the university in accordance with state and federal laws and with policies and procedures established by the JMU Board of Visitors. These rights and responsibilities are outlined in the JMU Faculty Handbook, Section III. A. 1. Teaching JMU faculty acknowledge excellent teaching as the primary goal of university faculty members. To ensure fairness and equity in measuring teaching and advising, the faculty created a definition, evaluation scale, and rubric for measuring teaching and advising effectiveness. a. Definition of teaching (Section III.E.2.b.(1)) Consideration of teaching performance must include, but need not be limited to, the following: self-evaluation, evaluation by peers and/or academic unit heads, and student evaluations. The EERE department evaluates courses through the on-line process established by the College of Education. Consideration should be given to faculty member s commitment to student advising and innovations in teaching as evidenced by development of new course work and teaching methodology. In those academic units that do not use student evaluations in all classes taught by a faculty member, the policy determining which classes will be evaluated shall be stated in the academic unit s evaluation procedures. Any such policy shall apply equally to all similarly situated faculty members in the academic unit. C. Areas of evaluation Three levels of performance have been identified and outlined by the EERE faculty: Excellent, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory. Satisfactory performance is the minimum acceptable level of performance for teaching in the EERE.
Faculty Evaluation 6 Unsatisfactory performance indicates that faculty have not met the criteria recognized as requisite for faculty members in the department in the area of teaching and/or advising and/or reassigned load responsibilities. Satisfactory performance involves satisfactory student evaluations for teaching, satisfactory evaluations of reassigned load activities and advising, self-reflections, AND innovations in teaching. Excellent performance indicates that faculty exceeded the expected levels of performance that are outlined at the satisfactory level. Both teaching and advising must be above the expected norms to achieve this rating. These are further differentiated in the rubric that follows: a. Rubric Teaching Evaluation Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance involves satisfactory student evaluations for teaching, satisfactory evaluations of reassigned load activities, and advising, self-reflections, AND innovations in teaching. Excellent Excellent Performance includes evidence of activity beyond the satisfactory level 1. Student evaluations 2. Self-reflections Student evaluations below 3. Reflections do not include specific examples or insight. Student evaluations in 3.0-3.9 range. Evidence of specific insights gained from teaching experiences and/or feedback from evaluations. Student evaluations in 4.0-5.0 range Evidence of specific insights gained from teaching experiences and/or feedback from evaluations and discussions of how insights will influence subsequent teaching. 3. Innovations in teaching Failure to make changes in courses in response to expressed concerns. Evidence of efforts to keep courses and delivery current and respond to assessment data. Evidence of extensive efforts to keep courses current and evidence of impact of innovations on teaching.
Faculty Evaluation 7 4. Advising, student relations and /or student interactions Unavailable to students. Evidence of satisfactory performance in advising and working with students. Evidence of exemplary performance in advising and working with students. 5. Administrative reassignment (if applicable) Failure to complete assigned responsibilities. Evidence of satisfactory performance in carrying out the responsibilities of the reassignment. Evidence of excellent performance in carrying out responsibilities. 6. Peer and/or AU head evaluations (if applicable) Overall negative feedback. Overall positive feedback. Positive feedback from a variety of sources such as being viewed as a resource by others. 2. Scholarship and professional qualifications Faculty are expected to participate in on-going professional development to maintain and enhance their professional qualifications. Scholarship is an important component of faculty life at JMU and, due to the mission of the university, may manifest itself in different venues. To ensure that faculty efforts are examined with fairness and equity, a definition, evaluation scale, and rubric are included that depict required elements (Section III.E.2.b.(2). a. Definition Research and scholarship refer to conducting, disseminating, and publishing research and scholarly studies. This can occur through a variety of different venues such as: 1) publications in refereed and non-refereed journals or books, 2) presentations at professional conferences, 3) grant work at the local, state, or federal level, 4) editorial work for newsletters, quarterly reports, or journals, and 5) published reviews of books, textbooks, or articles. 6) consultation at local, state or national level b. Areas of evaluation Three levels of performance have been identified and outlined by the EERE faculty: Excellent, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory.
Faculty Evaluation 8 Unsatisfactory performance indicates that no scholarly work has been conducted at the local, state, or national level. Satisfactory performance includes professional development AND productivity in one other area. Excellent performance reflects a quantity or quality of activity that is notable. Specifically, the faculty member has developed a state wide or national level of recognition in at least one academic area of study. c. Rubric Scholarship Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance in Scholarship includes Professional Development AND one other area Excellence Excellent performance reflects a quantity or quality of activity that is notable 1. Professional development No evidence of professional growth and development. Participates in professional development opportunities Evidence that information gained from participating in professional development opportunities has been used to improve teaching, service, or scholarship. 2. Presentations at professional conferences No presentations at state or national conferences. A presentation at a state, regional, or national conference. Presentations at state, regional, national, and/or international conferences. 3. Publications No publications. Publishes one article in a refereed or nonrefereed journal, conference proceedings, national publication, invited chapter or article. Published more than one article in a refereed journal and/or a national publication, invited chapter or article, and/or a book.
Faculty Evaluation 9 4. Grant writing No grants submitted. Submits grant proposal either as in individual or as a member of a grantwriting team and/or is working on a grant that was written by another faculty member. 5. Consulting No consulting work. Evidence of consultative work that uses scholarly expertise 6. Editorial No editorial work. Completes one editorial assignment in either a newsletter, quarterly report, or journal. Grant funded or project for grant completed successfully. National or state-wide reputation results in multiple opportunities to consult. Completes more than one assignment in either a newsletter, quarterly report, or journal. 7. Academic Reviewer No review work. Publishes one review of a book, textbook, and/or article. Publishes more than one review of a book, textbook, and/or article. 3. Service (Section E.2.b (3)) Service is another major role of faculty at JMU. To ensure fairness and equity in measurement, faculty created a definition, evaluation scale, and rubric for measuring service to the college and community. a. Definition Service involves providing assistance to others based on professional qualifications. A variety of services can be proffered to the institution, profession, or community. b. Areas of evaluation Unsatisfactory performance reflects a lack of involvement in departmental, college, university, or other professional entities.
Faculty Evaluation 10 Satisfactory performance includes service to the university at one level (e.g., program, department, college, or university), AND service to the profession at one level (e.g., local, state, regional, national, OR international) Excellence performance reflects leadership in areas that move the agenda of the organization forward. c. Rubric Service Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory performance in Service includes Citizenship, service to the university at one level (e.g., program, department, college, or university), AND service to the profession at one level (e.g., local, state, regional, national, OR international) Excellence Excellent performance reflects leadership in these areas that moves the agenda of the organization forward. 1. Department, College, and/or University committee attendance and contributions Minimum involvement in programmatic, departmental, College wide or university issues and concerns. Evidence of regular participation in program, department, and/or university activities. Evidence of regular participation in program, department, and/or university activities. 2. Work with student organizations Minimum involvement. Supports and interacts with student group(s). Provides consistent leadership for a student group. 3. Collaborative activities Minimum work with colleagues. Evidence of contributions in program, department, and/or university activities. Evidence of significant contributions within or outside the program, department, and/or university activities. 4. State and/or local engagement Minimum engagement at the local or state level. Evidence of enhancing the profession beyond the university. Could Consistent leadership evident at the state or local
Faculty Evaluation 11 include leadership in a professional organization or professional development for the field. level. 5. National/international engagement in professional organizations Minimum involvement in professional organizations at the national level. Evidence of enhancing the profession beyond the university. Could include leadership in a professional organization through committees, task forces, elected or appointed offices. Consistently viewed as a leader in the field. National reputation evident in at least one area. 6. Reviewer Does not serve as a reviewer. Evidence of work as reviewer for external funding agencies, scholarly publications, external academic organizations. Consistently serves as a reviewer. C. Tenure and Promotion (Faculty Handbook, Section III.E.6 and 7) A. Tenure is intended to protect academic freedom, provide a reasonable measure of employment security and enable the university to retain a permanent instructional faculty of distinction. The award of tenure is based on the qualifications, performance and conduct of individual faculty members and the long-term needs, objectives and missions of the academic unit, college and university. To be awarded tenure, the faculty member must meet performance and conduct standards required for promotion to associate professor and should enhance the academic environment of the academic unit and the university. B. Normally, a faculty member should have completed five years in rank before being reviewed for tenure and promotion and in the review, the pattern of prior annual evaluations should be considered in the analysis of the application. Problems with a faculty member s conduct may
Faculty Evaluation 12 disqualify a candidate for promotion in rank. In the evaluation of faculty members being considered for promotion in academic rank, the following standards apply: 1. At least satisfactory ratings in all areas are required for promotion to assistant professor. 2. An excellent rating in one area and at least satisfactory ratings in the others are required for promotion to associate professor. 3. Excellent ratings in two areas and at least a satisfactory rating in the third area are required for promotion to professor. D. Benchmarks toward promotion and tenure Year One: The Academic Unit Head provides a new faculty member with information concerning the department s evaluation procedures and criteria in the faculty member s first semester. The AUH will observe classroom teaching during the first semester. The initial evaluation will be conducted by the end of the third week of the faculty member s second full semester of employment at JMU. The faculty member will submit a modified annual performance report including goals for Teaching, Scholarly Activity and Service during the 2 nd semester. The new faculty member will submit a full annual report at the end of the academic year, setting goals for the following year and subsequent years to tenure/promotion. Year Two: In year two the emphasis is on formative evaluation with the intent of guiding development. Goal setting for subsequent years is also important. To maintain satisfactory progress towards tenure, a faculty member should maintain ratings in all area equivalent to next rank excellent rating in one area and at least satisfactory ratings in the others for promotion to associate professor, excellent ratings in two areas and at least a satisfactory rating in the third area for promotion to professor. Year Three: The purpose of evaluation at the end of year three is to provide the faculty member with constructive feedback on their progress towards tenure and promotion, based on criteria for promotion to the next rank. This will be a cumulative evaluation, including all years of tenure track work in the department. Ratings of unsatisfactory indicate unsatisfactory progress toward tenure. Goal setting should focus on achievement in all areas. Year Four and Five: Years four and five should see achievement of goals, particularly in the area of scholarship, and ratings necessary for promotion to the next rank. The cumulative effect of research and scholarship should reflect a clearly focused research agenda or line of inquiry. Year Six: All faculty members are required to go through the tenure decision process no later than year six. The option of an earlier review can be negotiated in the hiring contract if
Faculty Evaluation 13 the faculty member brings tenure credit from another institution. In that case, the faculty member s entire record of teaching, scholarly activity and professional service is included in the review. The record of activities and assignments completed in the service of the Early, Elementary, and Reading Education department are most central to determining evaluation ratings in those areas. Years Post-Tenure: It is expected that faculty will continue to develop professionally and be productive to meet the expectations of each rank. Annual evaluations will continue to be conducted by the Personnel Advisory Committee and Academic Unit Head for tenured assistant and associate professors. Once promoted to full professor, annual evaluation can be done by the Academic Unit Head only using a negotiated reporting format. The Faculty Handbook, Section III.E.8, outlines the process for post-tenure review, used to encourage faculty development and productivity if a tenured faculty member fails to maintain a satisfactory level of performance. II. Preparing the Initial, Annual, Three-Year, Tenure and Promotion Materials Faculty Evaluation materials provide a picture of your professional life as a faculty member in the Early, Elementary, and Reading Education department at JMU. Specifically, it organizes and communicates your professional goals and accomplishments during a specified period of time. Organized materials assist review committees and others in understanding the quality and significance of your work. Overall, your report or folio should be organized logically to provide an evidential record that is thorough, meaningful, and succinct. A guideline for preparing documents for different evaluation points are listed below. A. Initial Evaluation Materials to be submitted: Modified Academic Performance Review is submitted to the Academic Unit Head by mid-january. See the Academic Performance Review form in the Appendix. B. Annual Evaluation Materials to be submitted: Academic Performance Review is submitted to the Academic Unit Head who will make these available to the Personnel Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC is a standing committee of three tenured or tenure-track faculty who are elected to serve three-year terms. Materials not submitted by the date listed on the Academic Performance Review will not be considered by the Personnel Advisory Committee. Full professors may opt to submit to the AUH only, a highlighted VITA and a statement of reflections on goals for the past year and goals for the next year. C. Three-Year Evaluation
Faculty Evaluation 14 Materials to be submitted All three Aacademic Performance Review forms are submitted to the Academic Unit Head who will make these available to PAC. D. Tenure and/or Promotion Materials to be submitted. As part of the tenure process, a portfolio is to be compiled and sent forward for review at the departmental, college, and Provost s level. The materials should be well organized and additional supporting evidence may be provided. Materials will be kept at the departmental level during the Performance Advisory Committee and Academic Unit Head review process and then provided to the dean. Supplementary notebooks and materials will not be forwarded to the Provost s office (Faculty Handbook, Section III.E.b.6. (5). 1) Letter or application requesting tenure and/or promotion. 2) Curriculum Vita: A curriculum vita provides an overview of the faculty member s professional life. Accomplishments made during the time of evaluation should be highlighted (one year to six years). 3) Evidence of meeting criteria through a narrative reflecting on the evidence or explaining its significance for each of the three categories: teaching, scholarship, and professional service. a) TEACHING (3 page maximum) a.1.) Candidate's statement on teaching and advising including philosophy, methodology, materials developed, effectiveness, challenges, etc. a.2.) Overall listing of evaluation statistics for all courses taught. Summary instructor statistics provided by the College for each course are to be included in addition to the average departmental and College statistics. a.3.) Any other evidence of teaching effectiveness such as senior exit surveys, alumni surveys, in-class peer visitation reports, or data on advising. b) SCHOLARSHIP (3 page maximum) b.1.) Candidate s statement on research and scholarship. b.2.) List of publications, presentations, etc., b.3 ) Impact of research/scholarship including literature citations, etc. c) SERVICE (3 page maximum) c.1.) Candidate s statement on service activities c.2.) Program and Departmental Service c.3.) College and University Service c.4.) Professional Service (local, state, and regional) c.5.) Professional Service (national and international)
Faculty Evaluation 15 d) Administrative Duties, if appropriate. e) Rubric for Tenure and promotion Teaching Evaluation Excellence for Tenure and/or Promotion 1.Student evaluations 2.Self-reflections 3. Innovations in teaching 4. Advising, student relations and /or student interactions 5. Administrative reassignment (if applicable) 6. Peer and/or AU head evaluations (if applicable) Scholarship The faculty member should address each of these areas if applicable and reflect on his/her performance over the period since hired or since last promotion. A pattern of satisfactory or excellent performance should be shown. Excellence for Tenure and /or Promotion 1. Professional development Regular and applicable participation in professional development is expected and evidence of application should be apparent. 2. Presentations at professional conferences The faculty member should provide evidence of regular presentations at and above the state level. Some of these should be invited or refereed presentations. 3. Publications The faculty member should have published multiple articles in refereed journals and/or national publications, invited chapters or articles and/or a book 4. Grant writing Activities in these areas can be used to strengthen a satisfactory rating 5. Consulting in scholarship. 6. Editorial 7. Academic Reviewer Service 1. Department, College, and/or University committee attendance and contributions 2. Work with student organizations 3. Collaborative activities Excellence for Tenure and/or Promotion In addition to regular participation in departmental and college activities, the faculty member has demonstrated leadership in their work with students, or program/department activities and leadership outside the department. 4. State and/or local engagement The faculty member is consistently viewed as a leader at the state, 5. National/international engagement in regional or national level in their field. professional organizations 6. Reviewer
Faculty Evaluation 16 III. Evaluation Process A. Roles and responsibilities of EERE Personnel Advisory Committee The Early, Elementary, and Reading Education Personnel Advisory Committee (PAC) will be composed of at least three full-time faculty members, the majority of whom must be tenured. Members shall serve for a three-year term. Terms will be staggered. PAC members may serve one term. A member who has served is eligible to serve again after being off the PAC one full year A non-tenured and a tenured alternate will be elected to serve when regular members are ineligible or unavailable. Alternates serve for a one-year term Alternates will participate in PAC activities as needed and as appropriate; Only tenured PAC members may vote on tenure decisions and there must be a minimum of three; If necessary, tenured faculty from other departments or colleges on campus will be appointed by the Associate Dean to serve in order to meet this requirement Nominations for Personnel Advisory Committee will be requested by the Academic Unit Head the Monday following spring break. Nominations will be shared within a week and elections will be held before April 1. Service on the Personnel Advisory Committee is for the fall, spring and summer semesters, since much of the annual review process occurs in the summer. These guidelines are aligned with the JMU Faculty Handbook, Section II.E.2.a. AUPAC. B. Faculty/Staff Evaluation Tasks and Timelines Month Task Due date Comments September Faculty submit intent to apply for promotion/tenure Academic Unit Head confirms graduate faculty status Sept. 1
Faculty Evaluation 17 October Academic Unit Head meets with new faculty to talk about evaluation process. Faculty submit promotion/tenure materials to the Personnel Advisory Committee and Academic Unit Head Written annual evaluations sent to faculty by Academic Unit Head and Personnel Advisory Committee Faculty must appeal within 7 days of receipt of annual evaluation of Annual Performance Review Academic Unit Head schedules conferences with faculty to discuss annual evaluation Written summary of annual evaluations of EERE faculty sent to Dean Oct. 1 By Oct. 1 By Oct. 21 Oct. 28 November Remediation recommendation for tenured faculty found unsatisfactory in two out of three most recent Annual Performance Reviews. Letter regarding the recommendation of tenure and/or promotion for faculty due to Dean from Academic Unit Head and Personnel Advisory Committee Nov. 1 Nov. 15 A copy of written evaluations provided concurrently to faculty. December Provide semi-annual Annual Performance Review to new faculty Letter regarding recommendation for tenure and/or promotion due from the Dean to provost Termination notice for faculty members in 2 nd year of service Dec, 1 Dec. 15
Faculty Evaluation 18 January New faculty Annual Performance Report due 1 st week of semester February Written notification of tenure/promotion recommendation from Provost Confer w/ new faculty re: Annual Performance Review Written evaluation due to new faculty Copy of signed new faculty Annual Performance Review evaluation due to Dean If Academic Unit Head recommends dismissal, AUPAC must review and send recommendation to Dean Feb. 1 2 nd week of semester 3 rd week of semester 3 rd week of semester 4 th week of semester March Annual Performance Review forms distributed Request nominations for Personnel Advisory Committee Mar. 1 April Election of Personnel Advisory Committee May Annual Performance Review and Faculty Anticipated Activity Plan due May or June June Review Annual Performance Review Jun. 15 July Confer w/personnel Advisory Committee on Annual Performance Reviews July 1
Faculty Evaluation 19 Begin to conduct annual evaluation conferences D. Response to Evaluation Process Refer to the appropriate section of the Faculty Handbook for all appeal procedures and timelines. Appendix A First Year Evaluation Form College of Education New Faculty Semi-Annual Performance Report Please provide data identified below to your department head by the first week of January. This request, and the information reported in it, does not restrict academic freedom as defined by the American Association of University Professors. In your report letter, please provide the information asked for in italics and then address items I, II, and III. Name: Current Rank: Dates of Service in Current Position: Department (Program): Courses Taught Fall 2007: Courses Teaching Spring 2008: For each semester above, please list any reassigned time with corresponding credit hours that you were/are assigned: I. TEACHING Reflect on your teaching and field supervision. In this section, you might discuss ways that you gathered feedback about your teaching, collaborative activities which impacted your teaching, ways that you stayed current in your field, ways that you supported and interacted with students, etc. If you had specific goals, describe your progress toward achieving them here too. II. SCHOLARLY ACHIEVEMENT & PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Faculty Evaluation 20 Reflect on your scholarly achievements and professional development activities. In this section, in addition to listing your professional development activities, when appropriate, you should cite bibliographic references of your publications and presentations, information about your grant-related proposals or activities, citations about organizations with whom you engaged in consulting, book reviews done, research in progress, etc. III. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Reflect on your professional service related to the university (university, unit, college, and/or your program) and to the professional organizations of your discipline (national, regional, state, and/or local-levels). IV: Future Professional Goals Provide a brief statement describing your professional goals over the next 18 month period as you complete your first and second years as a faculty member at JMU
Faculty Evaluation 21 Appendix B Annual Performance Report 2012--13 Personal Data 1. Name 2. Department 3. Current Rank and Title(s) 4. Date and name of highest academic degree earned 5. Rank of initial JMU faculty appointment 6. Years of prior service as faculty at other colleges and universities (names and dates) 7. Year of effective appointment to present rank 8. Ranks held at JMU and years (include dates) in each 9. Assigned duties at the University 10. Employment - Provide in chronological order any position held during the past 10 years which are not indicated above.
Faculty Evaluation 22 College of Education Annual Performance Report Period covered: May 2012-May 2013 Name: Rank: Years in rank: This form is for submitting data to the PAC and to department head. The requests made and the information reported does not restrict academic freedom as defined by AAUP. Directions: Submit completed form (paper and electronic) to the Department Head s office by the third Friday in May. Personnel Advisory Committee will only review forms received by this date. Provide activities within the prescribed time period Provide information in the requested formats: Rows may be added to/deleted from tables as needed. Text boxes must be limited to 300 words. If an activity is listed in more than one area (scholarship, teaching, etc.), an explanation must be provided for its inclusion in each area. Goals for the past year Area Goals Completed/In Progress/Not Begun Teaching 1. 2. 3.
Faculty Evaluation 23 Service 1. 2. 3. Scholarship 1. 2. 3. Reflection on Goals. Explain your progress, challenges, and concerns related to reaching each of your goals (300 word limit). I. TEACHING, STUDENT RELATIONS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ASSIGNMENT(S) Returning faculty: Include summer, fall and spring of the last academic year in the teaching section. First year faculty: Include only fall and spring in the teaching section. A. Teaching 1. List evaluation averages (by course) for spring, summer and fall semesters/sessions.
Faculty Evaluation 24 Information can be cut and pasted from your online student course evaluations.. Summer Courses Taught Course prefix and # Course Title (w/ credit hours) Nature of course (i.e., lab, lecture, practicum, online) # of students Course #1 Course #2 Course #3 Course #4 Summer Course Evaluation Scores Content & Organization Instruction & Evaluation Climate & Rapport Scheduling & Facility Semester Average Rating Course #1 Course #2 Course #3 Course #4 Fall Courses Taught
Faculty Evaluation 25 Course prefix and # Course Title (w/ credit hours) Nature of course (i.e., lab, lecture, practicum, online) % of load # of studen ts Course #1 Course #2 Course #3 Course #4 Course #5 Course #6 Fall Course Evaluation Scores Content & Organization Instruction & Evaluation Climate & Rapport Semester Average Rating COE mean = COE mean = COE mean = COE mean = 4.53 Course #1 Course #2 Course #3 Course #4 Course #5 Course #6
Faculty Evaluation 26 Spring Courses Taught Course prefix and # Course Title (w/ credit hours) Nature of course (i.e., lab, lecture, practicum, online) % of load # of students Course #1 Course #2 Course #3 Course #4 Course #5 Course #6 Spring Course Evaluation Scores Content & Organization Instruction & Evaluation Climate & Rapport Semester Average Rating Course #1 Course #2 Course #3 Course #4 Course #5 Course # 5 For items 2-4 responses are limited to 300 words.
Faculty Evaluation 27 2. What additional feedback data do you have on your teaching and/or supervision/clinical duties (e.g. other student feedback, peer observation, video taping lessons, consulting with other faculty). a. Add comments for A.2.a here. (300 word limit) b Add comments for A.2.b here. (300 word limit) c. Add comments for A.2.c here. (300 word limit) d. Add comments for A.2.d here. (300 word limit) e. Add comments for A. 2.e here. (300 word limit) 3. Given the evaluation data, including student comment and other feedback, what conclusions can you draw about your teaching/supervision and how will this inform your teaching in the next year? Add comments for 3. here. (300 word limit)
Faculty Evaluation 28 4. Describe your efforts to keep courses current and delivery up-to-date and relevant, including use of specialized knowledge, recent and appropriate research and developments and/or technologies. (For example, How are your courses evolving in response to changes in the field, in schools, and/or your personal professional development? Describe any teaching materials or techniques, courses, programs, etc., developed or revised. Be specific in identifying what you have read, conferences you ve attended, research you re conducting and the link to how these activities have helped you remain current.) Add comments for.4.a here. (300 word limit) B. ADVISING AND STUDENT RELATIONS 1. Indicate the number of advisees, and the nature of the advising you provided. 2. Describe any work with independent studies, honors and/or graduate thesis/project committees and comprehensive exam committees.
Faculty Evaluation 29 Student s Name Title or name of project Type, e.g. Honor s thesis, independent study, etc. Your role e.g. chair, member Completion date or expected completion date Add additional comments for B.2 here. (300 word limit) 3. Describe any other relations with students other than those above. Include university programs, students in research or professional service, letters of reference, meeting with students). Add additional comments for B.3 here. (300 word limit)
Faculty Evaluation 30 Student Relations Activity Number of Students involved Description of Activity C. ADMINISTRATIVE AND/OR OTHER REASSIGNED TIME 1. Describe any administrative assignments/reassigned time that you were awarded. Administrative Assignment Load Equivalent What are the activities related to this position that you carried out during the past year.
Faculty Evaluation 31 2. What evaluation feedback did you receive and how did it/will it impact your activities? Add additional comments for C.2 here. (300 word limit) IV. SCHOLARLY ACHIEVEMENT & PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS A. List the specific activities that have impacted your professional development and describe how they have enhanced your teaching, scholarship or service (e.g., JMU faculty development, professional conference sessions, collaborative work). Professional Development Date Area of Impact (Teaching, Scholarship, Describe how your professional qualifications were enhanced by the professional development experience.
Faculty Evaluation 32 Service) B. List papers/projects in progress (under development, submitted/proposed, in press, etc.) Working title of paper/projects Anticipated date for submission or completion of project C. List publications for the past report year using APA format. Refereed publications:
Faculty Evaluation 33 Non-refereed publications: A. List curriculum and materials published for use beyond JMU course work, using APA format. Provide information on the intended audience or use if reviewers would not be familiar with the format. Curriculum and other materials F. List published reviews completed in APA format. These are reviews of book or other materials that appear in a journal or other source with you as author. Published reviews
Faculty Evaluation 34 G. List positions you have held as editor of a newsletter, report or journal Editor position Time period Activity/production H. List professional presentations using APA format. Level of Presentation Citation in APA format National and International State and Regional Local and units smaller than statewide I. List grants proposals submitted, funded, and/or completed and your role in each activity
Faculty Evaluation 35 Title Source Amount Date submitted Funded (yes/no) Your Role Da te co mp let ed J. List consulting. Consulting in this category refers to the development of new materials, analysis and synthesis of information related to the consulting topic, and any follow-up report. Topic/purpose Client /Organization (e.g., school district, business organization) Number of hrs/days including preparation, delivery, & follow-up Your Role Documentation produced/result ing from your involvement III. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE A. List current professional organization memberships, offices, and boards beginning with international, national, then regional, state and ending with local. Give full name and acronym. Include dates to indicate years of service.
Faculty Evaluation 36 Name of Organization Level (e.g., national, state, local) Level of involvement (e.g., position held, meetings attended, responsibilities) B. List reviews completed. Include type of document (e.g., journal article, book review, chapter review, conference proposals, etc.). These are reviews that are returned to an editor or conference chair as service to your profession rather than reviews intended for publication. Type of Document For what organization Date C. List university related committees/commissions, boards and/or student hearings, etc. Name of Committee Level: University, College, program etc.) Position held # meetings attended per academic/yr # meetings possible Level of involvement beyond meeting attendance
Faculty Evaluation 37 D. Field Related Services provided to schools, agencies, businesses, etc. These in-service sessions do not involve the development of new or different content on the part of the presenter. Topic/purpose Client /Organization (e.g., school district, business organization) Number of hrs/days including preparation, delivery, & follow-up Your Role E. Describe collaborative activities in which you have been involved (e.g., team teaching/co-teaching; partnerships with schools, agencies, businesses; guest speakers; collaboration across departments in the university and/or with other institutions, etc.). F. Describe your involvement in designing new courses/programs and/or reviewing, evaluating, and revising programs. G. Describe your work with student organizations IV. RELATED PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Faculty Evaluation 38 Use this portion of the APR form to discuss professional activities not addressed elsewhere or to explain activities in the above sections that may not be a good fit in the sections assigned. V. GOALS In preparation for your evaluation conference with the Department Head, list your professional goals and expected activities for the next academic year. Note: These goals may be adjusted based on your personal reflections, feedback from the Personnel Advisory Committee and feedback from the Academic Unit Head. In addition, you may propose a negotiated load for consideration by the Academic Unit Head. 1) Teaching 2) Scholarly achievement and professional qualifications 3) Professional service Teaching Evaluation Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance involves satisfactory student evaluations for teaching, satisfactory evaluations of reassigned load activities and advising, selfreflections, AND innovations in teaching. Excellent Excellent Performance includes evidence of activity beyond the satisfactory level 1.Student evaluations Student evaluations Student evaluations in Student evaluations in
Faculty Evaluation 39 below 3. 3.0-3.9 range 4.0-5.0 range 2.Self-reflections Reflections do not include specific examples or insight. Evidence of specific insights gained from teaching experiences and/or feedback from evaluations Evidence of specific insights gained from teaching experiences and/or feedback from evaluations and discussions of how insights will influence subsequent teaching. 3. Innovations in teaching Failure to make changes in courses in response to expressed concerns. Evidence of efforts to keep courses and delivery current and respond to assessment data. Evidence of extensive efforts to keep courses current and evidence of impact of innovations on teaching. 4. Advising, student relations and /or student interactions Unavailable to students. Evidence of satisfactory performance in advising and working with students Evidence of exemplary performance in advising and working with students 5. Administrative reassignment (if applicable) Failure to complete assigned responsibilities. Evidence of satisfactory performance in carrying out the responsibilities of the reassignment. Evidence of excellent performance in carrying out responsibilities. 6. Peer and/or AU head evaluations (if applicable) Overall negative feedback Overall positive feedback. Positive feedback from a variety of sources such as being viewed as a resource by others. Scholarship Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance in Scholarship includes Professional Development AND one other area Excellence Excellent performance reflects a quantity or quality of activity that is notable 1. Professional development No evidence of professional growth and development. Participate in professional development opportunities Application of information gained from participating in professional development opportunities. 2. Presentations at professional conferences No presentations at state or national conferences. A presentation at a state, regional, or national conference. Presentations at state, regional, national, and/or international conferences. 3. Publications No publications. Publishes one article in a refereed or non-refereed Published more than one article in a refereed
Faculty Evaluation 40 journal, conference proceedings, national publication, invited chapter or article. 4. Grant writing No grants submitted. Submits grant proposal and/or is working on a grant that was funded. 5. Consulting No consulting work. Evidence of collaborative work that uses scholarly expertise journal and/or a national publication, invited chapter or article, and/or a book. Grant funded or project for grant completed successfully. National or state wide reputation results in multiple opportunities. 6. Editorial No editorial work. Completes one editorial assignment in either a newsletter, quarterly report, or journal. 7. Academic Reviewer No review work. Publish one review of a book, textbook, and/or article. Service Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory performance in Service includes Citizenship, service to the university at one level (e.g., program, department, college, or university), AND service to the profession at one level (e.g., local, state, regional, national, OR international) Completes more than one assignment in either a newsletter, quarterly report, or journal. Publishes more than one review of a book, textbook, and/or article. Excellence Excellent performance reflects leadership in these areas that moves the agenda of the organization forward. 1. Department, College, and/or University committee attendance and contributions Minimum involvement in programmatic, departmental, College wide or university issues and concerns. Evidence of regular participation in program, department, and/or university activities. Evidence of regular participation in program, department, and/or university activities. 2. Work with student organizations Minimum involvement. Supports and interacts with student group(s). Provides consistent leadership for a student group. 3. Collaborative activities Minimum work with colleagues. Evidence of contributions in program, department, and/or university activities. Evidence of significant contributions within or outside the program, department, and/or university activities. 4. State and/or local Minimum Evidence of enhancing Consistent leadership
Faculty Evaluation 41 engagement engagement at the local or state level. the profession beyond the university. Could include leadership in a professional organization or professional development for the field. evident at the state or local level. 5. National/international engagement in professional organizations Minimum involvement in professional organizations at the national level. Evidence of enhancing the profession beyond the university. Could include leadership in a professional organization through committees, task forces, elected or appointed offices. Consistently viewed as a leader in the field. National reputation evident in at least one area. 6. Reviewer Does not serve as a reviewer. Evidence of work as reviewer for external funding agencies, scholarly publications, external academic organizations. Consistently serves as a reviewer.