Merit Standards for Annual Review

Faculty Approved November, 2004 (revised October 2011)

Faculty members’ (Instructional, Professional Practice, Extension) performance for merit shall be evaluated annually by the department head. Performance evaluation will be based on letter of hire, role statements, annual assignments, self-assessment, and a review of the individual’s performance. In the three-tier model outlined below, faculty members will be evaluated as: below expectations, meets expectations, or exceeds expectations in each of the categories of Teaching, Research, and Service, and consequently receive one Overall score that summarizes performance.

MEETS EXPECTATIONS

Teaching

Quantitative: Student perceptions of teaching effectiveness that report a mean of 3.5-3.9 (average for all courses) on the Knapp evaluation form or comparable scores on a departmentally approved form. A table of all teaching scores for the year would be submitted.

Qualitative: Self-evaluation summary of teaching effectiveness that takes into account factors that influence teaching. In addition, other evidence of teaching may be included such as: teaching awards, advising and other teaching related activities not included in annual teaching workload i.e. theses, professional papers, innovative teaching materials, program/project development, new courses, telecommunications, etc.

Note:  Student perceptions of teaching effectiveness (quantitative) may not be used as the sole determinant in meeting expectations.

Research

Quantitative: One visible product presented or published which may include:

  • Professional Publications (books, chapters in books, articles in refereed and non-refereed journals, book reviews, technical and research reports, or monographs)
  • Professional Presentations and Workshops
  • Externally funded grant proposal and grant administration
  • Product Development (instructional media - films, videos, computer programs, software, educational projects, and innovative teaching materials)
  • Professional Productions (performance, choreography, juried and non-juried creative works

Qualitative: Self-evaluation of research effectiveness that takes into account factors that influence research productivity. In addition other evidence of research may be included such as: research recognition awards, research in progress, pilot data, unpublished works, research team supervision or consultation.

Service

Quantitative: Meets a minimum of 1 category below:

  • Documented two semesters of university service (department, college )
  • Documented professional service to professional organizations
  • Documented public service to local, state and or national constituents

Qualitative: Self-evaluation of the value and importance of the service. In addition, other evidence of service may be included such as: service awards or recognition, professional consultation, editorial review boards, professional pro bono work and other service-related activities.

EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS

Teaching

Quantitative: Student perceptions of teaching effectiveness that report a mean of 4.0 or above (average for all courses) on the Knapp evaluation form or comparable scores on a departmentally approved form

Qualitative: Self-evaluation summary of teaching effectiveness that takes into account factors that influence teaching. In addition, other evidence of teaching may be included such as: teaching awards, advising and other teaching related activities not included in annual teaching workload i.e. theses, professional papers, innovative teaching materials, program/project development, new courses, telecommunications, etc.

Research

Quantitative: Two or more visible products presented or published

  • Professional Publications (books, chapters in books, articles in refereed and non-refereed journals, book reviews, technical and research reports, or monographs)
  • Professional Presentations and Workshops
  • Externally funded grant proposal and grant administration
  • Product Development (instructional media - films, videos, computer programs, software, educational projects, and innovative teaching materials)
  • Professional Productions (performance, choreography, juried and non-juried creative works

Qualitative: Self-evaluation of research effectiveness that takes into account factors that influence research productivity. In addition other evidence of research may be included such as: research recognition awards, research in progress, pilot data, unpublished works, research team supervision or consultation.

Service

Quantitative: Meets a minimum of 2 categories:

  • Documented two semesters of university service (department, college)
  • Documented professional service to professional organizations
  • Documented public service to local, state and or national constituents Qualitative: Self-evaluation of the value and importance of the service. In addition, other evidence of service may be included such as: service awards or recognition, professional consultation, editorial review boards, professional pro bono work and other service related activities.

BELOW EXPECTATIONS

Teaching

Fails to meet established standards for Meets Expectations

Research

Fails to meet established standards for Meets Expectations

Service

Fails to meet established standards for Meets Expectations

Performance Rating Determination

The teaching component will be assessed as follows:
Category Measure Value
Fails to meet < 3.5 Knapp 0
Meets 3.5-3.9 1
Exceeds 4.0 or higher 2

*The Teaching component may include a qualitative component that will be taken under consideration in conjunction with student evaluations.

The research component will be assessed as follows:
Category Measure Value
Fails to meet No visible product 0
Meets 1 visible product 1
Exceeds 2+ visible products 2

*The Research component table is structured without regard for author position on either abstracts or manuscripts. Grant work must be indicated as Primary, Co-investigator, or Consultant to a grant.

The service component will be assessed as follows:
Category Measure Value
Fails to meet No service category met 0
Meets 1 service category met 1
Exceeds 2+ categories met 2

 

The overall annual review score will be made as follows:
 Type Type  Assessment Scoring Translation
Exceeds expectations EE A score of ‘2’ in the top two workload assigned portions will result in an “Exceeds ” (i.e. 50% Teaching, 40% Research)
Meets expectations ME A score of ‘1’ or higher in every portion will result in a “Meets”
Below expectations BE A ‘0’ in any portion will result in “Below”


Extraordinary Performance (EP) This category will only be applied to the overall rating. The numerical range of possible performance ranges from 0-6. If a faculty member scores ‘2’ in each area (teaching, research, and service) for a total of 6, then the faculty member’s Annual Review performance shall be judged Extraordinary.