Faculty Evaluation Process Clause Samples

The Faculty Evaluation Process clause outlines the procedures and criteria used to assess the performance of faculty members within an institution. Typically, this process involves regular reviews based on teaching effectiveness, research output, service contributions, and adherence to institutional policies, often incorporating feedback from students, peers, and supervisors. By establishing a structured and transparent evaluation system, this clause ensures accountability, supports professional development, and helps maintain high standards of academic quality.
Faculty Evaluation Process. The Faculty Evaluation shall include the Faculty member’s: (a) self-evaluation; (b) classroom observation(s); (c) student evaluations of instruction; and, (d) ▇▇▇▇’▇ evaluation and narrative. A. Self-evaluations will be a substantive element of the annual review process. Faculty are asked to evaluate their professional performance using the criteria set forth in Article 11, section 4.E. B. Classroom observation(s) are required each year for annual contract Faculty in the first five (5) years of their employment and bi-annually thereafter. Classroom observations by the ▇▇▇▇ shall be part of the evaluation process. These observations shall occur when the Faculty member is performing regular duties and shall be a minimum of thirty (30) minutes. The ▇▇▇▇ shall set the time and date of the classroom observation associated with the evaluation process and will provide the Faculty member with at least one week’s notice. Classroom observations may also be made at other times of the academic year and outside of the evaluation process when determined necessary by the ▇▇▇▇ or Director. C. When a classroom observation is requested by the Faculty member, the Faculty member and ▇▇▇▇ shall determine a mutually agreed upon date. In every case, results of the observation shall be written in the evaluation and provided to the Faculty member. D. Each teaching Faculty member shall be evaluated each semester by his/her students, and the results will be discussed with the Faculty member by the Faculty member’s ▇▇▇▇ or Director. The summary of these results will be distributed to the Faculty member in a timely manner. E. The ▇▇▇▇ or Director shall evaluate each Faculty member per the guidelines, quantitative measures and factors stated in section 4.E., Article
View SourceView Similar (5)
Faculty Evaluation Process. Faculty evaluation is a holistic process Academic faculty evaluations involve a balance between the faculty member’s annual plan, the self-evaluation of the annual plan, classroom observations, student evaluations and the supervisor’s evaluation of the faculty member’s performance. Administrative faculty evaluations involve a balance between goal-setting, fulfillment of position responsibilities, and measurable achievements. Both processes consist of a written assessment and an assignment of an overall rating. Each faculty member and HR will receive copies of the evaluator’s written evaluation when the process is complete.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Faculty Evaluation Process. Because the new faculty member in the NEFDP will be on a tenure track during this funding period, the goal of the program is to aid in their retention by the Department of Nuclear Engineering. Our success in retaining our junior faculty depends greatly on how they perform in the evaluation process at the University of Tennessee. Junior faculty will be formally evaluated on an annual basis by the program administrator, ▇▇. ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇. The evaluation includes a rubric designed to both rate and track the performance of the junior faculty member through the probationary period before tenure review. The goal of this evaluation is to provide feedback to junior faculty on their progress in meeting the high expectations for tenure in the College of Engineering. These expectations include consistent and demonstrated success in: teaching, measured by student evaluations and peer review; research and scholarship, measured by publications in highly respected peer reviewed journals, the ability of the faculty member to bring in external funded research projects; research administration, measured by the success in funding, mentoring, and graduating Masters and Ph.D. students; and service to the department, the university, the scientific community, and professional societies. Furthermore, awards in teaching, research, and service are also considered. The goal of the NEFDP is to ensure that high-quality, nuclear engineering faculty members are developed in such a way that they will be retained in the tenure process. As such, the evaluation criteria used in the NEFDP are the same as they are for the university’s promotion and tenure process. The entire text of the University of Tennessee’s “Guidelines for the Tenure and Promotion Review Process” is too long to include in this proposal, but for promotion of tenure-track faculty, the following areas are listed as “Essential” requirements: Service – Peer review of papers or proposals, professional societies, conference committees. In addition, there are several areas listed as Desirable or Beneficial for promotion. Some of those areas are: - Evidence of Teaching Innovation (course content /design/ breadth) - Undergraduate student advising, student organizations advising - Management of multiple contracts/grants - Refereed conference proceedings/ publications, Invited presentations, Other scholarly work (textbooks, monographs, patents, software, etc.) - University Citizenship (internal service to department, college, university...
View Source
Faculty Evaluation Process. Because the new faculty member in the NEFDP will be on a tenure track during this funding period, the goal of the program is to aid in their retention by the Department of Nuclear Engineering. Our success in retaining our junior faculty depends greatly on how they perform in the evaluation process at the University of Tennessee. Junior faculty will be formally evaluated on an annual basis by the program administrator, . The evaluation includes a rubric designed to both rate and track the performance of the junior faculty member through the probationary period before tenure review. Table 1 below shows the rubric for junior faculty, with scores of three or higher meaning that the performance in the particular area is satisfactory. Note that the graduate and undergraduate course evaluations are based on metrics determined from the course SAIS teaching evaluation forms. The goal of this evaluation is to provide feedback to junior faculty on their progress in meeting the high expectations for tenure in the College of Engineering. These expectations include consistent and demonstrated success in: teaching, measured by student evaluations and peer review; research and scholarship, measured by publications in highly respected peer reviewed journals, the ability of the faculty member to bring in external funded research projects; research administration, measured by the success in graduating Masters and Ph.D. students; and service to the department, the university, the scientific community, and professional societies. Furthermore, awards in teaching, research, and service are also considered. Table 1. Tenure-Track Assistant Professor Annual Evaluation Rubric Score → 1 2 3 4 5 Teaching Undergraduate Evaluations <1 >1 >2 >3 >4 Graduate Evaluations <2 >2 >2.75 >3.5 >4.2 # Courses taught during the year 0 1 2 3 4 Research Proposals Submitted 1 2 3 4 5 # Students Funded 0 1 1 2 3 # Journal articles 0 1 2 3 4 Research expenditures # Post docs 0 0 0 1 >1 Salary recovery Service Internal None None 1 2 3 External The goal of the NEFDP is to ensure that high-quality, nuclear engineering faculty members are developed in such a way that they will be retained in the tenure process. As such, the evaluation criteria used in the NEFDP are the same as they are for the university’s promotion and tenure process. The entire text of the University of Tennessee’s “Guidelines for the Tenure and Promotion Review Process” is too long to include in this proposal, but for promotion of tenure...
View Source
Faculty Evaluation Process. The Faculty Evaluation Process shall be on a three-year cycle, with the supervising administrator evaluating a course/ lab of the faculty member during the third year of the cycle. (Note: Faculty shall be divided into three groups using last names that begin with A-I, J-R, and S-Z). A collegial conference (which may either be verbal or written) shall occur during the first two years of the faculty evaluation process. The collegial conference shall include: a. A discussion of the Faculty Member's 3-5 goals and their progress/ attainment. b. A discussion of the Faculty Member’s efforts to improve student learning in his/her courses (including a review of student perception of instruction surveys). c. A discussion of the Faculty Member’s contributions as an "active citizen" to the overall support of the College over the past year. Such endeavors may include curriculum (re) development, recruitment of students, and/ or promotion of College-wide activities. d. A discussion of the Faculty Member’s participation in committee assignments. e. A discussion of Faculty Member’s contributions as a Department Chair or Program Chair, as applicable.
View Source
Faculty Evaluation Process. Because both of the junior faculty members will be tenure track, the goal of the program is to aid in their retention by the Department of Nuclear Engineering. Our success in retaining our junior faculty depends greatly on how they perform in the evaluation process at the University of Tennessee. Junior faculty will be formally evaluated on an annual basis by the program administrator, ▇▇. ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇. The evaluation includes a rubric designed to both rate and track the performance of the junior faculty member through the probationary period before tenure review. The table below shows the rubric for junior faculty, with scores of three or higher meaning that the performance in the particular area is satisfactory.
View Source
Faculty Evaluation Process 
View SourceView Similar (6)

Related to Faculty Evaluation Process

  • Evaluation Process ‌ A. The immediate supervisor will meet with an employee at the start of their review period to discuss performance expectations. The employee will receive copies of their performance expectations as well as notification of any modifications made during the review period. Employee work performance will be evaluated during probationary, trial service and transition review periods and at least annually thereafter. Notification will be given to a probationary or trial service employee whose work performance is determined to be unsatisfactory. B. The supervisor will discuss the evaluation with the employee. The employee will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the evaluation. The discussion may include such topics as: 1. Reviewing the employee’s performance; 2. Identifying ways the employee may improve their performance; 3. Updating the employee’s position description, if necessary; 4. Identifying performance goals and expectations for the next appraisal period; and 5. Identifying employee training and development needs. C. The performance evaluation process will include, but not be limited to, a written performance evaluation on forms used by the Employer, the employee’s signature acknowledging receipt of the forms, and any comments by the employee. A copy of the performance evaluation will be provided to the employee at the time of the review. A copy of the final performance evaluation, including any employee or reviewer comments, will be provided to the employee. The original performance evaluation forms, including the employee’s comments, will be maintained in the employee’s personnel file. D. If an employee disagrees with their performance evaluation, the employee has the right to attach a rebuttal. E. The performance evaluation process is subject to the grievance procedure in Article 30. The specific content of a performance evaluation is not subject to the grievance procedure. F. Performance evaluations will not be used to initiate personnel actions such as transfer, promotion, or discipline.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order. (b) The technical evaluation committee may call the responsive bidders for discussion or presentation to facilitate and assess their understanding of the scope of work and its execution. However, the committee shall have sole discretion to call for discussion / presentation. (c) Financial bids of only those bidders who qualify the technical criteria will be opened provided all other requirements are fulfilled. (d) AIIMS Jodhpur shall have right to accept or reject any or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof.

  • Final Evaluation IC must submit a final report and a project evaluation to the Arts Commission within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Services. Any and all unexpended funds from IC must be returned to City no later than sixty (60) days after the completion of the Services.

  • Escalation Process If Customer believes in good faith that Customer has not received quality or timely assistance in response to a support request or that Customer urgently need to communicate important support related business issues to Service Provider’s management, Customer may escalate the support request by contacting Service Provider and requesting that the support request be escalated to work with Customer to develop an action plan.