A. Overview
The annual faculty evaluation (AFE) is the primary process for evaluating faculty member performance in teaching, service, and scholarship. The AFE process provides:
· Information for merit salary increases;
· Documentation for tenure, promotion, reappointment, and post-tenure review;
· Feedback to faculty members about their ongoing performance and the extent to which they have met applicable AFE documents.
AFE documents are developed by faculty members in accordance with guidelines provided by the Provost. After approval by departmental faculty, AFE documents are forwarded for approval to the dean of the college and subsequently to the Provost. The departmental AFE documents should include multiple means for evaluating teaching, scholarship, and service.
B. Evaluation of Teaching
1. The seven dimensions of teaching
Through the Faculty Senate, the faculty at Western Carolina University has agreed upon a working definition of effective teaching that includes the following seven dimensions. For library faculty evaluation of teaching, see Section 4.05B.3 below.
1. Content expertise.Effective teachers display knowledge of their subject matters. Content expertise includes the skills, competencies, and knowledge in a specific subject area in which the faculty member has received advanced experience, training, or education.
2. Instructional delivery skills. Effective teachers communicate information clearly, create environments conducive to learning, and use an appropriate variety of teaching methods.
3. Instructional design skills. Effective teachers design course objectives, syllabi, materials, activities, and experiences that are conducive to student learning.
4. Course management skills. Effective teachers give timely feedback to students, make efficient use of class time, and handle classroom dynamics, interactions, and problematic situations (e.g., academic dishonesty, tardiness, etc.) appropriately.
5. Evaluation of students. Effective teachers design assessment procedures appropriate to course objectives, ensure fairness in student evaluation and grading, and provide constructive feedback on student work.
6. Faculty/student relationships. Effective teachers display a positive attitude toward students, show concern for students by being approachable and available, present an appropriate level of intellectual challenge, sufficient support for student learning, and respect diversity.
7. Facilitation of student learning. Effective teachers maintain high academic standards, prepare students for professional work and development, facilitate student achievement, and provide audiences for student work.
Departmental AFE plans should include means for evaluating each of these dimensions, preferably in the multiple ways outlined below.
2. Sources of data for evaluating teaching
When evaluating an instructor's teaching for tenure, promotion, and reappointment, all departments must include data from at least the following three sources:
· Student assessment of instruction (SAI)
· Colleagues’ reviews of teaching (e.g. classroom observation and/or reviews of teaching materials)
· Instructor's self-report and evaluation
A. Student assessment of instruction (SAI)
Tenured faculty members are required to report SAIs during at least one semester each academic year. Those standing for promotion or reappointment may be required to provide more frequent evaluations as prescribed by the Provost. SAIs will be conducted using forms and procedures that have been departmentally approved and include one of the university-wide assessment forms approved by the Faculty Senate.
B. Colleagues’ review of teaching
Teaching Materials. Each department should designate a committee of at least two faculty colleagues, exclusive of the department head, to review and evaluate teaching materials prepared by the instructor being evaluated. Materials may include course syllabi, examinations, quizzes, reading lists, assignments, study guides, handouts, slides and media, computer programs, etc. In small departments, reviewers may be selected from outside the department. Each department should develop a protocol to guide the review of materials.
Direct Observation of Classroom Teaching. All tenure-track faculty members must be evaluated by direct observation of classroom teaching as required by the University of North Carolina General Administration (see UNC Policy Manual 400.3.1.1(G). Classroom observation should never be used as the sole measure of teaching effectiveness. Each department should develop protocols to guide classroom observation. Other faculty members may also include direct observations in support of their AFE.
C. Instructor's self-report and evaluation
The instructor's self-report and evaluation should address each of the seven dimensions of teaching (see Section 4.05B.1). The report should include items such as a statement of teaching philosophy, a description of goals, methods, and strategies used, and selected teaching materials for the courses taught during the period of the review.
3. Evaluating library faculty
Library faculty members’ contributions may or may not include formal classroom instruction. The “teaching quality and effectiveness” of the library faculty are identified by the following:
· Managing personnel and other resources effectively and/or ensuring unit goals are in concert with overall library and university goals.
· Acquiring, organizing, and creating means of access to library-related information resources.
· Developing library collections, both in physical and electronic form, to ensure that the collections meet the instructional and research needs of the University.
· Assisting patrons in the use of library services and collections either as individuals or groups.
· Applying and/or developing technology to enhance library services.
· Assessing and evaluating library operations, resources and services, strategic and tactical planning, and developing library promotional materials.
Library faculty members must include data from at least the following three sources:
· Client assessments
· Colleagues’ review of relevant materials
· Faculty member's self-report and evaluation
C. Evaluation of Scholarship
Scholarship is an ongoing activity with the goal of being shared with others and/or evaluated by peers. Faculty members should provide a list and description of their scholarship. Departments must develop criteria for evaluation of scholarship. Departmental criteria should be specific and flexible – specific enough to provide guidance to new faculty and flexible enough to accommodate multiple types of scholarship.
D. Evaluation of Service
Faculty members should provide a list and description of their service activities. Documentation of service may include letters, newspaper articles, advisee evaluations, evidence of service outcomes, etc. Because service varies widely, departments must develop methods of evaluating service.
E. Evaluation of Grant Writing Activities
Grant writing is an activity that requires faculty members to take initiative in matching resources to needs. Departments must develop criteria that evaluate the significance of grant writing activities. Faculty members should provide a list and description of all grants submitted and/or awarded.
F. Annual Evaluation of Instructors Who Are Non-Tenure Track
With the exception of professorships whose responsibilities are specified by contract, annual evaluation of instructors who are non-tenure track is built on the following premises:
1. Teaching and learning are the primary focus.
2. All teaching will be formally evaluated based on the Seven Dimensions of Teaching (see Section 4.05B.1).
3. In addition to class meetings, instructors will schedule office hours to meet with their students. This could be in person, via email, phone, or electronically.
4. Departments will establish criteria for formally evaluating instructors, regardless of their title or type of appointment. All departments should include data from at least the following three sources:
· Student assessment of instruction
· Colleagues’ reviews of teaching (e.g. classroom observation and/or reviews of teaching materials)
· Instructor's self-report and assessment
5. All instructors will be told in writing at the time of their appointment how their work will be evaluated.
6. Instructors will receive written feedback on their performance from the department head.
7. In the event that problems are identified, the department head will meet with the instructor to address the problem.