Basis for Evaluation. A. The FEC and Chair shall rate faculty members being evaluated as (a) normal, (b) above normal/outstanding, or (c) less than normal in accordance with Section 10.110 of the CBA and the criteria in this section. B. The CBA Section 10.110 description of “normal" is (Section 10.110, 3b): The performance of a majority of faculty members will generally be evaluated as "normal." They will be expected to grow in valueto the institution and will be rewarded with a "normal" increment to their salary. C. The overarching normal criteria for teaching effectiveness are (a) to carry a standard departmental teaching load (unless areassignment of teaching has been approved), and (b) be effective in teaching. 1. A standard load will vary depending on the number of faculty members, the number of courses offered, etc., but, in general, a standard load is approximately the number of courses offered divided by the number of faculty members. 2. Judgment of effectiveness is largely subjective; usually an effective teacher can be recognized by (a) the choice of subject matter and emphasis (i.e. how well the instruction prepares the students for subsequent courses and how well it fulfills the students’ career objectives), (b) systematic organization, (c) performance in helping students learn both in and out of the classroom, (d) the degree to which course material is kept current, (e) judicious experimentation with teaching effectiveness, and (f) rigor, fairness, and thoroughness of assessment and evaluation procedures. Judgment of teaching effectiveness will be based upon student evaluations, inspection of the curriculum, opinions solicited from alumni, and faculty classroom visitations if deemed appropriate by the Chair or the FEC. 3. The department recognizes that faculty members may be assigned to teach courses that may or may not be part of the general education curriculum of the university. Whether or not a course is assigned a general education designation will have no bearing on a faculty member's teaching evaluation outside of the criteria for judgment of effectiveness listed in II. C. 2. D. The overarching normal criteria for research/creative activity effectiveness are based on demonstrable evidence (publications and presentations) that (a) the research has made apositive contribution to the body of knowledge and has received national or international recognition, (b) the faculty member has played a significant leadership role in the conduct of the research, and (c) the research has and will continue to provide significant educational and training opportunities for students. 1. The extent to which the research has made apositive contribution to the body of knowledge will be evaluated primarily on the quality and number of publications, presentations and patents and thereceipt of external grants and honors. All publications, presentations, and other scholarly works will be considered, and greater recognition will be given to publications in high-impact peer-reviewedjournals, grants from funding agencies that have a careful review process, and invited presentations at national or international symposia. Citations of the faculty member's scholarly works by others, invitations to present work at symposia or as an invited speaker, and invitations to referee manuscripts for journals or proposals for funding agencies will be considered as evidence that the research has received national or international recognition. A faculty member may be appointed for a special purpose that precludes development of an effective research program as defined in Section D. For such faculty, the criteria for evaluation of research/creative activity effectiveness will be defined in writing at the time of hiring and approved by the FEC, Chair, and the ▇▇▇▇ of the College of Humanities and Sciences. 2. The extent to which the candidate has played a leadership role in research/creative activity will be determined by the quality and number of publications on which the candidate is first or corresponding author and the quality and number of grants received on which the candidate is principal or co-principal investigator. 3. An effective academic research program provides the opportunities for students to be educated and trained while participating in significant, original research. The number of undergraduate and graduate students mentored and the quality and number of publications and presentations with students as coauthors will be used to evaluate participation of students in the research program. The capacity of the faculty member to seek and provide financial support for students involved in research will also be considered in the evaluation. E. The overarching normal criteria for service effectiveness are (a) meaningful service to the department and the university and (b) participation in service to the scientific community. 1. Meaningful service to the department includes activities such as (a) participation on departmental committees, both standing and ad hoc, that provide aneeded service to the department, (b) participation in recruitment of potential new graduate students through personal contact and in- person meetings, and (c) regular participation in departmental faculty meetings and involvement in projects identified at the meetings, (with workload approximately corresponding to the total amount of work needed to be done divided by the number of faculty members). 2. Participation in service to the scientific community includes activities such as (a) serving as a reviewer of papers submitted to journals, (b) service on review committees, panels, and study sections for granting agencies, (c) review of tenure and promotion dossiers, (d) serving as the organizer, chair, presider, etc. of sessions or panels at scientific meetings, and (e) membership on and participation in committees of professional organizations. F. The CBA Section 10.110 description of ‘merit' is (Section 10.110, 3a): Above normal performance in at least two (2) of three (3) areas: teaching, research/creative activity, or public service; or outstanding performance or special recognition in at least one (1) of these areas, and normal performance in the remaining area or areas of assigned duties. G. The overarching criterion for above normal and outstanding performance is quality. Above normal quality is that beyond what is normally accomplished by peers at the faculty member's rank in the faculty member's field of specialization at similar institutions in the United States. Work of outstanding quality is clearly distinctive at the national level. 1. Above normal and outstanding performance in teaching exceeds the normal level of expectation specified in Section II. C. Evidence of above normal and outstanding performance includes accomplishments such as (a) a grant award for course, curriculum, and/or laboratory development, (b) publication of peer-reviewed curriculum materials such as textbooks and laboratorymanuals, (c) favorable peer review of the curriculum of a course and the classroom performance of the faculty member by an external expert who submits an evaluative letter to the FEC and Chair, (d) high-quality mentoring of students as evidenced by the quality of research completed during their studies, students' own opinion of their mentor, professional positions achieved after graduation, and informed faculty opinion, and (e) consistent excellence in teaching across aworkload substantially greater than that specified in Section II.C.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Collective Bargaining Agreement
Basis for Evaluation. A. The FEC and Chair shall rate faculty members being evaluated as (a) normal, (b) above normal/outstanding, or (c) less than normal in accordance with Section 10.110 of the CBA and the criteria in this section.
B. The CBA Section 10.110 description of “normal" is (Section 10.110, 3b): The performance of a majority of faculty members will generally be evaluated as "normal." They will be expected to grow in valueto value to the institution and will be rewarded with a "normal" increment to their salary.
C. The overarching normal criteria for teaching effectiveness are (a) to carry a standard departmental teaching load (unless areassignment a reassignment of teaching has been approved), and (b) be effective in teaching.
1. A standard load will vary depending on the number of faculty members, the number of courses offered, etc., but, in general, a standard load is approximately the number of courses offered divided by the number of faculty members.
2. Judgment of effectiveness is largely subjective; usually an effective teacher can be recognized by
(a) the choice of subject matter and emphasis (i.e. how well the instruction prepares the students for subsequent courses and how well it fulfills the students’ career objectives), (b) systematic organization, (c) performance in helping students learn both in and out of the classroom, (d) the degree to which course material is kept current, (e) judicious experimentation with teaching effectiveness, and (f) rigor, fairness, and thoroughness of assessment and evaluation procedures. Judgment of teaching effectiveness will be based upon student evaluations, inspection of the curriculum, opinions solicited from alumni, and faculty classroom visitations if deemed appropriate by the Chair or the FEC.
3. The department recognizes that faculty members may be assigned to teach courses that may or may not be part of the general education curriculum of the university. Whether or not a course is assigned a general education designation will have no bearing on a faculty member's teaching evaluation outside of the criteria for judgment of effectiveness listed in II. C. 2.
D. The overarching normal criteria for research/creative activity effectiveness are based on demonstrable evidence (publications and presentations) that (a) the research has made apositive a positive contribution to the body of knowledge and has received national or international recognition, (b) the faculty member has played a significant leadership role in the conduct of the research, and (c) the research has and will continue to provide significant educational and training opportunities for students.
1. The extent to which the research has made apositive a positive contribution to the body of knowledge will be evaluated primarily on the quality and number of publications, presentations and patents and thereceipt the receipt of external grants and honors. All publications, presentations, and other scholarly works will be considered, and greater recognition will be given to publications in high-impact peer-reviewedjournalsreviewed journals, grants from funding agencies that have a careful review process, and invited presentations at national or international symposia. Citations of the faculty member's scholarly works by others, invitations to present work at symposia or as an invited speaker, and invitations to referee manuscripts for journals or proposals for funding agencies will be considered as evidence that the research has received national or international recognition. A faculty member may be appointed for a special purpose that precludes development of an effective research program as defined in Section D. For such faculty, the criteria for evaluation of research/creative activity effectiveness will be defined in writing at the time of hiring and approved by the FEC, Chair, and the ▇▇▇▇ of the College of Humanities and Sciences.
2. The extent to which the candidate has played a leadership role in research/creative activity will be determined by the quality and number of publications on which the candidate is first or corresponding author and the quality and number of grants received on which the candidate is principal or co-principal investigator.
3. An effective academic research program provides the opportunities for students to be educated and trained while participating in significant, original research. The number of undergraduate and graduate students mentored and the quality and number of publications and presentations with students as coauthors will be used to evaluate participation of students in the research program. The capacity of the faculty member to seek and provide financial support for students involved in research will also be considered in the evaluation.
E. The overarching normal criteria for service effectiveness are (a) meaningful service to the department and the university and (b) participation in service to the scientific community.
1. Meaningful service to the department includes activities such as (a) participation on departmental committees, both standing and ad hoc, that provide aneeded a needed service to the department, (b) participation in recruitment of potential new graduate students through personal contact and in- person meetings, and (c) regular participation in departmental faculty meetings and involvement in projects identified at the meetings, (with workload approximately corresponding to the total amount of work needed to be done divided by the number of faculty members).
2. Participation in service to the scientific community includes activities such as (a) serving as a reviewer of papers submitted to journals, (b) service on review committees, panels, and study sections for granting agencies, (c) review of tenure and promotion dossiers, (d) serving as the organizer, chair, presider, etc. of sessions or panels at scientific meetings, and (e) membership on and participation in committees of professional organizations.
F. The CBA Section 10.110 description of ‘merit' is (Section 10.110, 3a): Above normal performance in at least two (2) of three (3) areas: teaching, research/creative activity, or public service; or outstanding performance or special recognition in at least one (1) of these areas, and normal performance in the remaining area or areas of assigned duties.
G. The overarching criterion for above normal and outstanding performance is quality. Above normal quality is that beyond what is normally accomplished by peers at the faculty member's rank in the faculty member's field of specialization at similar institutions in the United States. Work of outstanding quality is clearly distinctive at the national level.
1. Above normal and outstanding performance in teaching exceeds the normal level of expectation specified in Section II. C. Evidence of above normal and outstanding performance includes accomplishments such as (a) a grant award for course, curriculum, and/or laboratory development, (b) publication of peer-reviewed curriculum materials such as textbooks and laboratorymanualslaboratory manuals, (c) favorable peer review of the curriculum of a course and the classroom performance of the faculty member by an external expert who submits an evaluative letter to the FEC and Chair, (d) high-quality mentoring of students as evidenced by the quality of research completed during their studies, students' own opinion of their mentor, professional positions achieved after graduation, and informed faculty opinion, and (e) consistent excellence in teaching across aworkload a workload substantially greater than that specified in Section II.C.
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Collective Bargaining Agreement