|
|
|
- Board of Visitors Policy
A regular review of the performance of all faculty members will be conducted
in order that they may receive full credit and review for their contributions
to the university and to their disciplines. The three criteria on which
this evaluation will be based are teaching, research, and service. The initial responsibility for evaluation of faculty performance rests
with the chair, on the basis of evidence supplied by the faculty member
or collected elsewhere. The faculty member shall be given a copy of the
chair's evaluation and may submit comments. Both the chair's
evaluation and the faculty member's comments are submitted to the
dean, who has the final responsibility for evaluation of faculty.
- Procedures for Evaluation of Faculty
These procedures are designed to implement the policy established by
the Board of Visitors for evaluation of faculty. In all cases, the board
policy is governing. In order to insure that all relevant information is included in the
evaluation, all faculty members are required to submit once a year a faculty
information sheet in which they detail the evidence in support of their
performance in teaching, research, and service, together with whatever
other information they wish to be taken into consideration by the chair
and dean in the evaluation. The chair, using the faculty information sheet and whatever other information
is obtainable, evaluates the performance of the faculty member during
the previous year and writes up the evaluation into a formal statement
of the contributions of the faculty member to the department, college,
and university. In the case of chairs, these evaluations are written by
the dean. Since evaluation of performance is one of the essential factors
in determinations concerning tenure, promotion, reappointment, and salary
increments, the chair and dean should make every effort to insure that
the evaluations are clear, honest, and genuinely evaluative. A listing
of facts without interpretation is helpful neither to the faculty member
nor to the committees concerning personnel decisions. In the case of tenured faculty members, the department chair will also
conduct annual evaluations. These evaluations will be based on a faculty
information sheet, student evaluations of teaching, up-to-date curricula
vitae, peer evaluation of course portfolios, and such other information
as the faculty or the chair wishes to include. The evaluations will comment
on the performance of the faculty member in teaching, research and service
and on progress toward meeting individual goals resulting from previous
evaluations. (See section F below.) The chair and the dean will interpret
the cumulative record of annual evaluations along with the performance
of the tenured faculty member during the previous year (see section C),
so that a clear picture of positive contributions and any deficiencies
will emerge. An in-depth evaluation will be conducted if requested by
the faculty member, the chair, or the dean. In no case will a faculty
member be considered for promotion or other major personnel decision (such
as designation as an eminent scholar) unless an in-depth evaluation, as
described in paragraph E or K, has been conducted in the previous twelve
months. - All faculty members will be evaluated on the basis of teaching, research,
and service. The weighting of these three areas will vary from one faculty
member to another depending upon the needs of the department and the particular
accountability of the individual faculty member in contributing toward
the fulfillment of these needs.
- Teaching - It is the responsibility of the chair to evaluate the
information that is available concerning teaching. (For a detailed
discussion on evaluation of teaching, see the "University Policy
on the Evaluation of Teaching.") Among items for consideration
are the following:
Student opinion questionnaires - Results of current student
opinion questionnaires must be used in the evaluation. Such results,
however, constitute important raw data concerning teaching performance
and cannot be meaningful in themselves unless interpreted in relationship
to other factors. It is the responsibility of the chair to provide
such interpretive evaluation. Student interviews. Results of student achievement tests, if feasible and appropriate. Peer evaluations of course portfolios or their equivalent. Other relevant information. If the principal contribution of the faculty member to the
department is in the area of instruction, the number of student
credit hours produced by the faculty member should also be taken
into consideration since the best teachers should be showing a
decided impact on the largest number of students. Faculty members who teach noncredit courses, workshops, or
colloquia in their area of specialization that are sponsored by
the university should have their performance in these activities
included as part of the evaluation of teaching. Faculty members who are assigned to teach credit or noncredit
courses, workshops, or colloquia using distance education technologies,
such as instructional television, should have their performance
in this activity included in the evaluation of their teaching.
The evaluation should include criteria specific to distance education
and, when appropriate, evaluations obtained through regional or
national consortia, such as National Technological University. If the faculty member is working within interdisciplinary courses
or is on loan from another department for a portion of his/her
teaching, it is the responsibility of the chair to seek out evaluations
from other chairs with whom the faculty member is working and
to incorporate these in the evaluation.
- Scholarly Activity and Research - It is the responsibility of the
chair to evaluate the quality of the scholarly activity and research
of the faculty member (a mere listing of publications or grants does
not constitute evaluation). Each department should establish, with
the approval of the dean and the provost and vice president for academic
affairs, a clear statement of the criteria for evaluating scholarly
activity and research in that department. These criteria should take
into consideration both the mission of the department and the nature
of the scholarly activity and research within the discipline. Within
the definitions noted below, the evaluation of scholarly activity
and research in a department should be based on these criteria. In
evaluation, emphasis should be placed on quality, not just quantity.
The following, where appropriate, are included in the definition of
scholarly activity and research at Old Dominion University:
Publications - In evaluation, the chair should take into consideration
and comment upon the reputation and editorship of journals in
which the faculty member has published and the nature of the reviews
received for published books. Evaluation of the quality of the
publication is essential. For major personnel decisions (e.g.,
tenure and promotion) external evaluations of the publication
are encouraged and may be required. Presentations at professional meetings - The chair will be
expected to evaluate such presentations on a similar basis to
publications in learned journals - that is, taking into consideration
the extent of external peer review before acceptance of the paper
and the prestige associated with having a paper accepted for presentation
at that meeting. Grants and contracts - In evaluation of faculty members'
funded research activity, the chair should take into consideration
the aggressiveness with which the faculty members have sought
out research opportunities (considering their availability of
opportunities in their fields), the effectiveness with which faculty
members have met the requirements established by the funding agency,
the effectiveness with which the faculty members have worked with
graduate assistants and colleagues, and the leadership which faculty
members have provided on particular grants (as principal investigator,
co-principal investigator, or major participant). Computer software and educational media - Creative work resulting
in the creation of significant computer software or educational
materials (e.g., videotapes) for use external to the university
will be evaluated by the chair based on external evaluations and
reviews. Instructional research - the chair should give credit to effective
instructional research by faculty members, with emphasis on well-designed
and controlled research in teaching, particularly in their own
disciplines, and the recognition that the instructional research
has received through publication or adoption at other institutions. In the creative fields, such as music, theater, and art, performance
and exhibition are counted as research activity. The chair should
evaluate the quality of the artistic production, using evidence
such as published reviews of performance or awards in juried exhibitions. In technical and professional fields where a master's
degree is recognized as the terminal degree by the appropriate
accrediting agency, research activities may include applied projects
which directly support the needs of industry, and/or the community,
and result in a comprehensive published technical report. Examples
of other appropriate research and scholarly activities are publications
in trade journals, monographs, development of new products, processes,
or techniques and software development. If the faculty member has received released time for research,
the chair should evaluate the effectiveness with which this released
time has been used.
-
Service - The category of professional service is more difficult
to define than teaching or research, but deserves the same kind of
rigorous evaluation and positive credit. The chair has the responsibility
to seek out methods of evaluating quality of professional service,
not merely to list the activities. The task is sometimes especially
complicated by the fact that much professional service takes place
outside the department. In essence, the area of service includes activities
in which faculty members are exercising their professional expertise
in the service of the university, the community, or their disciplines.
Ideally, each faculty member should be participating in all three
of the areas listed below, but individual faculty members may be expected
by the chair to play different roles. If so, specific roles should
be defined and understood. In all cases, service should be judged
on the basis of quality, not just quantity. When distance education
technologies are used for providing service, evaluations should include
items specific to these delivery formats. (In the following listing,
items are not necessarily listed in priority order.)
- Departmental, college, and university service
Advisement and counseling - This is one of the most important
areas of faculty service, and each department should develop
methods of evaluating, encouraging and rewarding excellence
in student advisement. Special service assignments - If faculty members have been
assigned to specific service roles (for example, as graduate
program director of assistant chair) and are receiving released
time for administration in order to accomplish these roles,
the chair in evaluation should judge the effectiveness with
which the roles are being accomplished. Sponsorship of student activities, particularly those relating
to the discipline - The chair should evaluate the degree to
which the faculty member's sponsorship has been successful
in increasing the intellectual atmosphere and esprit de corps
among students. Cooperation with the Office of Development in securing
external funding for the university. Service on departmental, college, and university committees
and task forces - Quality rather than mere quantity of service
should be evaluated. The chair should evaluate service on
departmental committees and seek the evaluation of the dean
for college committees, the president or the provost and vice
president for academic affairs for university committees,
and the chair of the Faculty Senate for Faculty Senate committees. Cooperation with the Office of Admissions in recruiting
of students to the university - The evaluation of the director
of admissions should be sought by the chair for faculty members
engaged in recruitment activities. Other departmental, college, and university service - Specific
roles in working with other university departments (for example,
Academic Technology Services, the Office of Residence Life,
or the University Library) may be given to the individual
faculty members. The chair should seek the evaluation of the
director of the unit involved.
- Community service, i.e., the application of a faculty member's
professional skills for the service of the community in a manner
that assists in the fulfillment of the mission of the university
- Professional service does not include service to religious,
political, or social organizations that (although meritorious
in itself) is not relevant to the faculty member's professional
area.
Service to university outreach programs - From time to
time the university will develop specific non-instructional
outreach programs and centers in such areas as improvement
of the urban environment or marine studies. Service in these
areas should be evaluated by the chair after consultation
with the director of the program or center. Noncredit courses, workshops, projects, and colloquia in
areas of the faculty member's expertise - The chair
should seek the evaluation of the director of the appropriate
noncredit program in determining the quality of work being
done by the faculty member in relating to the community. (In
some cases, of course, such programs would be considered part
of departmental teaching or service and would be evaluated
under these categories.) Speaking activities, particularly through the university
Speakers Bureau - Attempts to evaluate quality rather than
quantity must be made. Consulting, either reimbursed or unreimbursed - The chair
should seek to learn and evaluate the degree to which consulting
activities have been considered successful by the agency employing
the faculty member. Consulting activities, if they are to
be credited positively in the evaluation, must have the prior
approval of the chair, the dean, and the provost and vice
president for academic affairs and must be clearly related
to the university's mission and the faculty member's
responsibilities in teaching, research, and service. Any other ways in which the faculty member is using professional
knowledge for the service of constituencies in the Eastern
Virginia region.
- Service to the discipline
Service to scholarly or professional societies - This category
may include holding of office, editing proceedings, reading
non-research papers, being instrumental in bringing a group
to campus and serving on the local arrangements committee,
developing a teleconference, and any other ways in which
the faculty member is active within such a society. It is
the responsibility of the chair to evaluate the quality of
the work done for the society by the faculty member and the
stature of the society itself and its relevance to the mission
of the university. Service as editor or reader for a scholarly journal in
the field - The chair should be familiar with and comment
on the prestige and quality of the journal involved. Any other way in which the faculty member is making a
contribution to the advancement of the discipline other than
in areas relevant to teaching and research. - As part of the evaluation, the chair should include a
summary of the faculty member's performance as it relates
to the expected role that the faculty member is to play in
the department. In the case of faculty members who are working
toward the criteria for tenure, the evaluation should specifically
address the expected role the faculty member is to play in
the projected long-term needs of the department. The chair
should indicate whether:
the faculty member is performing demonstrably above
the expected criteria; the faculty member is living up to the expectations
of the relevant rank and place in the department; and the faculty member is falling short of the expected
criteria.
After completing the evaluation of the faculty member's activities,
the chair gives the faculty member a copy of the evaluation and discusses
it with the faculty member. At this time, the faculty member and chair
agree on a written set of goals for the coming year. If appropriate, the
chair should make suggestions for improvement and give the faculty member
a clear idea of ways in which the performance might be improved in future
years. Where deficiencies are noted, the chair should work with the faculty
member to develop a plan to address the deficiencies and either provide
resources to implement the plan, if necessary, or if resources are not
available in the department recommend to the dean and provost and vice
president for academic affairs that such resources are needed. If a pattern
of deficiency in the performance of a tenured faculty member is documented
from the cumulative annual evaluations, for a period of at least two years,
the chair or dean shall call for an in-depth evaluation of the faculty
member as described in section K below. The chair should take particular
care in the counseling of non-tenured faculty members who are working
toward the criteria for tenure. Any faculty member who is dissatisfied with the personal evaluation
prepared by the chair may present in writing additional comments or evidence
to the chair and to the dean. - The dean evaluates in writing the performance of the faculty member
by either:
endorsing the evaluation of the chair; or indicating areas in which the dean's evaluation differs from
that of the chair.
Any faculty member who is dissatisfied with the personal evaluation
prepared by the dean may present in writing additional comments or evidence
to the dean and to the provost and vice president for academic affairs. - Non-tenured faculty members, without prior teaching service credit
toward tenure, who are in their third year of probationary service
at Old Dominion University will receive a major faculty review. This
review will be conducted by the dean and will begin in the spring of the third year
of faculty service. The review will include a meeting with the faculty member
and chair. The review process, conducted by the department promotion and tenure committee, department chair, college promotion and tenure committee, and dean, will include an in-depth evaluation of
teaching effectiveness, scholarly works, grant and contract efforts,
and other professional activities. An evaluation report emphasizing the
long-range impact of the faculty member on the university should be submitted
to the provost and vice president for academic affairs by May 1
(December 1 for faculty hired mid-year) following the completion of the review at the college level with a copy provided to the faculty member at all evaluation levels.[1] It is important that the review extend beyond certifying
adequate teaching performance and focus on creative ability, productivity,
and potential to excel.
The concept of a major review of faculty performance is intended to serve
the purpose of giving the faculty member a clear indication of progress
toward tenure and to offer constructive suggestions for self-improvement.
In situations where a faculty member receives one or two years of credit
toward tenure, the review process will be conducted during the second year
of service at Old Dominion University, but no sooner than 12 months after initial appointment. Where a pattern of performance deficiency has been noted on the part
of a tenured faculty member over a two-year period, the chair and the
dean may conduct a post-tenure review. Copies of the faculty information sheets, the chair's evaluation,
the faculty member's comments, and the dean's evaluation are
retained for the record in the faculty member's personnel file maintained
in the dean's office.
|
|
