Common use of Annual Evaluation Process Clause in Contracts

Annual Evaluation Process. All departments will follow the university procedures and timeline for annual evaluations. Faculty will submit evaluation materials to their department chair electronically (ACRES). Submissions in ACRES will detail the faculty member's performance over the annual evaluation period in relation to teaching, service, and scholarship (if applicable) and should provide compelling evidence of the quantity, quality and impact of the faculty member's performance and progress toward tenure and/or promotion (if applicable) and progress on established goals. Materials to be submitted include: (1) a statement of contributions with appendices detailing productivity in designated areas; (2) a current curriculum vitae with those items added since the last evaluation highlighted; and (3) accompanying materials supporting claims made in the statement of contributions (e.g., student assessment of instruction, published works). It is the responsibility of the faculty member to present supporting materials that provide compelling and convincing evidence of having met the specified criteria for the self-rating in each of the designated areas of responsibility for the respective faculty member (i.e., teaching, service, and scholarship when included in assignment). Note that the performance indicators listed below are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive. The process of assessing productivity and the relative value of individual products should be attentive to discipline specifics, emerging trends, and new technologies. Instructors should reference the criteria for teaching and service found in the SOE Statement on Teaching and Statement on Service. Tenure-earning faculty should also reference the criteria for teaching, scholarship, and service found in the SOE Statement on Teaching, Creative and Scholarly Projects, and Service. It is the responsibility of the individual faculty member to provide sufficient data and/or explanation of qualitative and/or quantitative evidence to clarify and warrant the weight/impact that should be afforded to a particular piece of evidence. Faculty should refer to the key indicators for a performance rating of “Meets Expectations” listed below to determine evidence to present. The decision to recommend tenure/promotion is based upon a pattern of sustained performance of “Meets Expectations” as indicated by annual evaluations. Faculty are expected to provide evidence for a rating of “Meets Expectations” and only those with exemplary performance in a given year should expect to “Exceed Expectations.” Any faculty member who is “Below Expectations” will collaborate with the Chair to create an improvement plan for the following year. Teaching includes all teaching and learning activities in and out of the classroom that result in relevant, appropriate course learning outcomes. • Student evaluations document consistent positive impacts on learning; • Syllabi outlines comprehensive, clear, and appropriate performance expectations; • Effectiveness of assessment and feedback practices; • Pedagogical and quality enhancement activities that improve learning (e.g., active learning, student engagement techniques, high-impact practices); • Evidence of reflective teaching practices for continuous course/program improvement (e.g., accreditation, Quality Matters, peer review, and curriculum planning activities); • Mentoring students in unscheduled teaching activities (e.g., the dissertation process, student research, high-impact practice activities, student support activities, etc.) ; • Appropriate standards of academic integrity promoted, including respect for students and their rights (e.g., modeling and practicing professional communication, promoting civil discourse in class and online discussions, etc.); • Effective and timely communication practices with the students inside and outside the classroom; • Peer observations or course reviews that focus on constructive feedback for instructional strategies and/or course design; • Participation in professional development activities that improve teaching; and • Teaching awards and other accomplishments related to teaching. Scholarship within the School of Education includes a wide variety of research and scholarly activity within each discipline. For purposes of annual evaluations, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review, faculty should produce high quality, externally reviewed, and publicly available scholarship and creative projects related to their particular research agenda. The quality and impact of scholarly and creative publications, products, and activities is established by evidence provided by the faculty member, including but not limited to acceptance rate, rejection rate, impact factor, readership, the review process, or other indications of quality commonly used in the discipline. • Refined scholarly agenda or creative plan well-suited to regional comprehensive university context; • Meets department production targets for both quantity and quality of scholarly and creative products; • Examples of evidence include: ▪ Peer-reviewed publications (i.e., journal articles); ▪ Editorially reviewed publications (i.e., journal articles, book chapters); ▪ Book(s) or book chapters; ▪ Book reviews; ▪ Convention and conference contributions (e.g. conference presentations, workshops, and proceedings); ▪ Synopses of grants or contracts and the outcome of such applications (funded and non-funded); ▪ Electronic outlets (e.g., blogs, vlogs); ▪ Invited talks and conference special sessions; ▪ Developing and field-testing educational programs and products such as program guides, technical products, educational software, curricula, instructional materials guides, and others; and ▪ Originating and conducting basic and applied research or technological research. • Evidence of recognition and/or references to quality research outside of the University (editorship, citation counts, press releases, etc.); • Involvement of students in scholarly and creative activities; and • Awards received for scholarly or creative activities.

Annual Evaluation Process. All departments will follow Following the university procedures and timeline for annual evaluations. Faculty schedule adopted by the CEPS College, SOE faculty will submit evaluation materials to their department chair electronically (ACRES)the SOE Director following established protocols. Submissions in ACRES These materials will detail the faculty member's performance over the annual evaluation period in relation to teaching, service, and scholarship (if applicable) and should provide compelling evidence of the quantity, quality and impact of the faculty member's performance and progress toward tenure and/or promotion (if applicable) and progress on established goals). Materials to be submitted include: include (1) a statement of contributions with appendices detailing productivity in designated areas; , (2) a current curriculum vitae with those items added since the last evaluation highlighted; , and (3) accompanying materials supporting claims made in the statement of contributions (e.g., student assessment of instruction, published works). It is the responsibility of the faculty member to present supporting materials that provide compelling and convincing evidence of having met the specified criteria for the self-self- rating in each of the designated areas of responsibility for the respective faculty member (i.e., teaching, service, and scholarship when included in assignment). Note that the performance indicators listed below are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive. The , and the process of assessing productivity and the relative value of individual products should be attentive to discipline specifics, emerging trends, and new technologies. Instructors should reference the criteria for teaching and service found in the SOE Statement on Teaching and SOE Statement on Service. Tenure-earning faculty should also reference the criteria for teaching, scholarship, and service found in the SOE Statement on Teaching, SOE Statement on Creative and Scholarly Projects, and SOE Statement on Service. The SOE Director will then review the self-ratings and provide his/her rating of the faculty member’s performance. If there is a discrepancy between the self-rating and the SOE Director’s rating, the discrepancies will be discussed during a meeting with the individual faculty member. It is the responsibility of the individual faculty member to provide sufficient data context and/or explanation of qualitative and/or quantitative evidence to clarify and warrant justify the qualitative weight/impact that should be afforded to a particular piece of evidence. Faculty should refer Examples of information that may be used to the key indicators for a performance rating of “Meets Expectations” listed below to determine evidence to present. The decision to recommend tenure/promotion is based upon a pattern of sustained performance of “Meets Expectations” as indicated by annual evaluations. Faculty are expected to provide evidence for a rating of “Meets Expectations” and only those with exemplary performance demonstrate competence in a given year should expect to “Exceed Expectations.” Any faculty member who is “Below Expectations” will collaborate with the Chair to create an improvement plan for the following year. Teaching includes all teaching and learning activities in and out of the classroom that result in relevantteaching, appropriate course learning outcomes. • Student evaluations document consistent positive impacts on learning; • Syllabi outlines comprehensive, clearservice, and appropriate performance expectations; • Effectiveness scholarship include: ● Course materials that demonstrate innovation, organization, academic rigor, and/or unique aspects of assessment and feedback practices; • Pedagogical and quality enhancement activities a course that improve learning (e.g., active learning, student engagement techniques, high-impact practices); • are reflective of current scholarly knowledge ● Evidence of reflective teaching practices for continuous course/program improvement (e.g., accreditation, Quality Matters, peer review, and curriculum planning activities); • Mentoring mentoring students in unscheduled teaching activities (e.g., the dissertation process, student research, high-impact practice activities, and student support activities, etc.) ; • Appropriate standards ● Evidence of academic integrity promoted, including respect for students and their rights (e.g., modeling and practicing professional communication, promoting civil discourse in class and online discussions, etc.); • Effective and timely communication practices with internal or external peer reviews of currency of content and/or the students inside and outside quality of the classroom; • Peer observations or course reviews that focus on constructive feedback for instructional strategies and/or course design; • Participation in professional development activities that improve teaching; and • Teaching awards and other accomplishments instructor’s courses ● Information related to teaching. Scholarship within a unique aspect of a course ● Student evaluations ● Commentary evidence from professional peers and colleagues as well as students Evidence of participation in curriculum enhancement efforts aligned to continuous improvement (including accreditation activities) ● Evidence of participation in efforts that promote the School coordination of Education includes a wide variety curriculum across programs to enhance student learning ● Evidence of research and scholarly activity within each discipline. For purposes of annual evaluationsattendance at conferences, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review, faculty should produce high quality, externally reviewed, and publicly available scholarship and creative projects related to their particular research agenda. The quality and impact of scholarly and creative publications, products, and activities is established by evidence provided by the faculty member, including but not limited to acceptance rate, rejection rate, impact factor, readership, the review process, or other indications of quality commonly used in the discipline. • Refined scholarly agenda or creative plan well-suited to regional comprehensive university context; • Meets department production targets for both quantity and quality of scholarly and creative products; • Examples of evidence include: ▪ Peer-reviewed publications (i.e., journal articles); ▪ Editorially reviewed publications (i.e., journal articles, book chapters); ▪ Book(s) or book chapters; ▪ Book reviews; ▪ Convention and conference contributions (e.g. conference presentationsconventions, workshops, and meetings relevant to pedagogical and student support strategies that optimize student learning ● Teaching awards ● Statements from former students concerning the value of the instructor’s courses ● Copies of publications or products with accompanying information illustrating the professional integrity of the publication process including books, book chapters, peer reviewed proceedings); ▪ , and professional journals ● Published peer-reviewed scholarly products ● Synopses of grants or contracts and the outcome of such applications (funded and non-funded) ● Documentation of conference paper presentations (i.e., copy of the paper) with accompanying information noting the selection process (peer-reviewed or not) and professional integrity of the conference and/or sponsoring organization ● Documentation of invited lectures, papers, speeches or presentations at colleges or universities, professional meetings, convention, and conferences ● Statements from peers related to research skills, products and/or impact Statement of service activities, hours involved, committee outcomes/achievements, and the relevance to the community, department, college, university, governmental agency or the professional community which may include: ● Faculty mentoring of students; ● Noncredit continuing education programs; ● Professional development including workshops, institutes, and discussion groups (leadership and participation); ▪ Electronic outlets ● Active involvement in community collective impact activities (e.g., blogsgrant development, vlogs); ▪ Invited talks board and conference special sessions; ▪ Developing and field-testing educational programs and products such as program guides, technical products, educational software, curricula, instructional materials guides, and others; and ▪ Originating and conducting basic and applied research or technological research. • Evidence of recognition and/or references to quality research outside of the University (editorship, citation counts, press releasescommittee participation, etc.); • Involvement of students ● Participation and leadership in scholarly local, regional, national, or international professional organizations; ● Participation and creative activitiesleadership in department, college, and university committees and initiatives; ● Participation and leadership in instructional studies including accreditation; and • Awards received ● Participation in sponsoring activities of various student clubs, societies and organizations. While evidence is a required element of the evaluation materials, it is not sufficient in and of itself. It is imperative that the faculty member demonstrate the impact of professional activities and products by elaborating on and contextualizing activities and productivity within the narrative statement of contributions. The evaluation materials will be examined by the SOE Director and used to develop an annual evaluation and, when appropriate, assess progress toward tenure and for scholarly or creative activitiespromotion.