Annual Evaluation Procedures
Dept. Foreign Languages and Literatures
Revised to agree with latest draft code March 31, 1998
I. Scale and Procedures
All Faculty shall be evaluated on a five point scale with the following descriptors:
Outstanding 4.5 or 5
Very Good 3.5, 4, or 4.5
Good 2.5, 3, or 3.5
Fair 1.5, 2, or 2.5
Poor 0, 0.5, 1, or 1.5
Performance in teaching, research and service shall be calculated using worksheets (see attached). The worksheets shall be completed for each faculty member by the Chair, shall become part of the annual evaluation, and shall be provided to the faculty member. Faculty shall be evaluated individually in accordance with the following criteria according to procedures described in FM C-4 III, and not in comparison with one another.
II. Relative Weights
The relative weights of areas of faculty performance shall be as follows:
|
|
A. 0 course/yr reassigned time
|
B. 0-1 course/yr. reassigned time
|
C. ≥ 2 courses/yr. reassigned time
for Research
|
D. ≥ 2 courses/yr. reassigned time
for “Other Duties”
|
E. ≥ 2 courses/yr. reassigned time
for both purposes
|
|
Teaching
|
80%
|
34%
|
34%
|
25%
|
25%
|
|
Research
|
10%
|
33%
|
40%
|
25%
|
40%
|
|
Service
|
10%
|
13%
|
13%
|
10%
|
10%
|
|
Other Duties
|
|
|
|
25%
|
25%
|
|
Remaining % where most benefit
|
0%
|
20%
|
13%
|
15%
|
0%
|
The remaining % will be added where most beneficial, unless faculty inform the Chair in writing at the time all materials are submitted for evaluation that they wish to apply it to a specific category. In the absence of such a declaration, if two or more categories receive the same score, the remaining % will be allocated evenly across the highest scoring categories.
III. Criteria for Merit Salary Increment
In the case of faculty receiving promotions (FM App.C-6 V b) when funds for salary increment are unavailable, the Chair shall make a good faith effort to secure a promotion increment when funds become available.
Annual merit increment is calculated in both of 2 ways: A) Faculty receiving the same score receive the same amount of money. B) Faculty receiving the same score receive the same % raise. 1/2 the available money shall be calculated by each method. With the exception of criteria stated in FM. App.C-6 V b, the numerical result of the annual evaluations shall be employed without adjustment.
Since the annual evaluation must include a statement of the percentage of salary increment available to the unit to be recommended by the unit administrator for each faculty member being evaluated (FM C-4 III), relative percentage increment shall be calculated based upon assumption of $100.00 in total departmental increment.
For faculty on leave or faculty for whom no regular evaluation can be performed, the following shall be used: a method of evaluation using whatever data are available and agreed in advance by the faculty member and the Chair; otherwise, the higher of the previous year's score or the departmental average.
IV. Evaluation of Teaching
Teaching performance shall be calculated using the worksheet provided (worksheet 2). Evaluation of teaching may consist of 3 components: A) peer-evaluation, B) student-evaluation, and C) evaluation of teaching materials. Of these, B) student-evaluation is mandatory for all faculty; A) peer-evaluation is mandatory for probationary-term faculty in the first and fourth years. The decision to exercise A) or C), or not to, shall neither affect the evaluation, nor reflect positively or negatively upon any faculty member. If options A or C or both are not employed, the unused points shall be added to B.
A. Peer-evaluation 35 points
Peer-evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with the department's procedure and instrument approved by the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
B. Student-evaluation 35 points
The Student Opinion of Instruction Survey is required by the university of all courses with six or more students. Instructors may append additional questions beyond those required. In the case of small enrollment classes, faculty may choose to survey or not to survey student opinion.
Faculty who do not use the SOIS form as required will receive a zero for each course not surveyed.
C. Evaluation of teaching materials 30 points
Faculty may submit to a tenured colleague of his or her choice (in addition to materials listed for a "Teaching Portfolio" in FM D-8, 9 IV.F.2) any pertinent statements or materials regarding (but not limited to) the following:
• Direction of dissertations, theses, internships and practica, and supervision of Teacher Education Clinical Internships
• University and other teaching awards
• Teaching of directed readings, cross-lists, interdisciplinary and writing intensive courses, honors sections and seminars, and evidence of special effort in teaching
• Teaching grants
• Course load: teaching more than one language or courses requiring special preparation
• Course quality-enhancement and development including creative / innovative materials and methods, teaching new courses, and use of new technologies
• Evidence of student achievement other than grades
• Evidence of advising effectiveness or special effort in advising
• Unusual effort to promote student interest / enrollment, or to recruit majors / minors
The evaluator shall prepare and submit to the Chair and the faculty member, in a timely fashion, a statement summarizing the appropriateness of the materials for the member's teaching-assignments, and whether and to what degree the materials demonstrate a pursuit of excellence in teaching. The Chair shall assign a score using the five point scale above.
V. Evaluation of Research
Faculty shall list applicable items of research (using worksheet 3), and may self-score in the spaces provided. Faculty are encouraged to submit to the Chair materials in support of the self-scores selected. The Chair shall assign final scores for each research activity. If the Chair's total differs from the self-score total by more than 10 points, the chair must provide written explanation. The total shall be divided by 20 and rounded to the nearest half number. Points in excess of 100 shall be applied towards the next year.
The following items and ranges of scores shall be a guideline of typical professional activities, their distributions and weights. In cases of extraordinary merit, higher scores may be awarded.
Faculty may choose to receive all the points for a published article or book in the year of publication or to receive some of the points in the year the manuscript is accepted. The total number of points received for a particular book or article manuscript may not exceed the number of points allotted for publication.
Faculty can receive 5-10 points for an article that is substantially revised for resubmission.
Faculty can receive points both when a paper is presented at a conference and when it is submitted for publication.
Range per item
Oral Presentation
1. Refereed papers 10-30
2. Non-Refereed papers 5-10
3. Other: e.g., performances, dramatic readings, workshops 5-30
Original Publication
4. Publication of a book 50-100
(Including but not limited to: monographs, edited texts, commentaries, textbooks, translations, reference works, and comparable works which may include software and creative writings)
5. Publication of a refereed article 25-50
(Including but not limited to: articles, essays, chapters, review essays, reviews of research, encyclopedia entries, scholarly notes, pamphlets, pedagogical materials, proceedings and comparable works which may include software and creative writings)
6. Publication of an un-refereed article (as defined above #5) 10-30
7. Minor works: e.g., book reviews, fora 5-10
Editing activities
8. Editor of a published book (as defined above #4) 40-60
9. Editor of a journal or series 10-15
10.Editor of a journal section 5-10
11.Other: e.g., editorial board, reader report 1-5
Work in Progress
Accepted for publication
12.Book (as defined above #4) 40-50
13.Refereed article (as defined above #5) 20-30
14.Un-refereed article (as defined above #5) 5-10
15.Minor works (as above #7) 1-5
Under Submission
16.Book (as defined above #4) 30-40
17.Article (as defined above #5) 10-20
Demonstrable progress
19. Book (as defined above #4) 20-30
20. Article (as defined above #5) 5-10
Grants in support of research
(Under "grant" is included any contract resulting in additional revenue, educational opportunity, or other tangible benefit to the faculty member or the department)
21.External funded grant 25-50
22.External grant application 15-25
23.Internal funded grant 10-20
24.Internal grant application 5-10
25. Items not listed above at discretion
Formal processes of review are to be distinguished from mere scholarly supervision, such as of electronic bulletin boards and fora. It is incumbent upon faculty submitting non-traditional publications for evaluation to provide accurate, detailed information regarding: the nature of the work, the medium in which it has been made public, the review process employed, and, when available, its reception. Faculty may submit any materials that would assist in the evaluation of a publication or publisher.
In accordance with the goals of East Carolina University, the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures encourages collaboration with faculty from other disciplines and other universities. The above scale is to be judiciously applied to multi-authored works, without the constraint of mathematical proportionality, recognizing the benefits of collaboration to the university and to the faculty member, yet considering the specific contributions of the faculty member. It is incumbent upon the faculty member to make the contributions of each author explicit.
VI. Evaluation of Service
Faculty shall list applicable items of service (using worksheet 4), and may self-score in the spaces provided. Faculty are encouraged to submit to the Chair materials in support of the self-scores selected. The Chair shall assign final scores for each service activity. If the Chair's total differs from the self-score total by more than 10 points, the Chair must provide written explanation. The total (max. 100) shall be divided by 20 and rounded to the nearest half number.
The following items and ranges are a guideline of typical professional activities, distributions, and weights. In case of extraordinary merit, higher scores may be awarded.
Range Max/category
Professional organizations
1. Member 1 5
2. Officer: international / national 10-40 40
state / regional 10-30
Conference Activities 40
3. Attendance at meeting 2
4. Panel organizer 10-20
5. Chair of section 4-8
6. Major role in conference organization 20-30
Editing Activities 60
7. Editor of journal or series 40-60
8. Editor of journal section 20-40
9. Other: e.g., edit. board, reader report, newsletter 1-20
10. Community service related to profession 5-15 15
11. Assistant Chair 15-30 30
12. Chair of Personnel Committee 15-30 30
13. Course abroad director 15-30 30
14. Language coordinator without reassigned-time 15-25 25
15. Academic advisor 10-20 20
16. Language club faculty advisor 5-10 10
17. Library Representative 15-25 25
18. Curriculum Committee Chair (non advising duties) 10-40 40
19. Major dept. committee (> 6 meetings) 10 40 (double for Chair, 1.5 for Secretary)
20. Other dept. committee (< 6 meetings) 5 20
(double for Chair, 1.5 for Secretary)
21. University and professional committees 5-20 40
(double for Chair, 1.5 for Secretary)
22. Application for service grants (double if funded) 10-20 40
23. Items not listed above (at discretion)
(For example: administering oral qualifying exams; covering classes for a sick colleague for more than a week, or without reciprocation.)
VII. Evaluation of Other Responsibilities (FM C-5 III.5)
A. Coordinators
Faculty receiving no reassigned-time for coordinating a language shall be evaluated only under service (above section VI. item 14).
Faculty receiving at least 2 courses per year of reassigned-time to coordinate language instruction shall be evaluated by the Chair. To aid the Chair, a meeting of the curriculum committee shall be held without the coordinator for the purpose of making written recommendations concerning the coordinator's fulfillment of the terms of that position. The coordinator may provide to the committee any pertinent supporting materials. This recommendation shall be submitted to the Chair and to the faculty member.
Faculty receiving reassigned-time to supervise teacher certification programs shall be evaluated by the Chair unless alternative means of evaluation (such as student-evaluations conducted in the School of Education) shall be acceptable to the member and the Chair.
B. Assistant Chair
The Chair shall prepare a preliminary evaluation of the Assistant Chair and seek a recommendation for approval or amendment from the Administrative Committee before completing a final evaluation.
C. Other
The Chair shall evaluate responsibilities not covered in A or B, unless alternative means of evaluation shall be acceptable to the member and the Chair.
VIII. Evaluation of Fixed-Term Appointments (FM D-4 II.B.2)
Full-time fixed-term appointees shall be evaluated with teaching @ 75% and with such other duties as shall be agreed as the terms of employment @ 25%. Teaching shall be evaluated according to the criteria listed in IV above. Other duties shall be evaluated at the discretion of the Chair, adapting appropriate elements of the above criteria. Part-time appointees shall be evaluated in accordance with the terms of their contracts.
Worksheet 1
Method for Calculating Merit Increment
A) Step 1 Add together average scores of entire departmental faculty.
Step 2 Divide 1/2 available money by the total score from Step 1.
Step 3 Multiply individual faculty member’s score by sum from Step 2.
B) Step 4 Multiply total salary of the dept. by Step 1; divide by number of faculty.
Step 5 Divide 1/2 available money by sum from Step 4.
Step 6 Multiply together: individual faculty member’s scorex salaryx sum from Step 5
Step 7 Add Steps 3 and 6
Sample. Imagine a 3 person department, with the following faculty and $1000 in merit money:
|
|
Faculty Member A
|
Faculty Member B
|
Faculty Member C
|
|
Salary
|
$28,000
|
$36,000
|
$44,000
|
|
Score last year
|
4.5
|
4.25
|
5.0
|
|
Score this year
|
3.0
|
2.25
|
3.0
|
|
Average
|
3.75
|
3.25
|
4.0
|
Step 1 Add average scores: 3.75 + 3.25 + 4.0 = 11.0
Step 2 Divide 1/2 money by Step 1: $500 ÷ 11.0 = $45.45
Step 3 Multiply Individual scores by Step 2:
|
Faculty Member A
|
Faculty Member B
|
Faculty Member C
|
|
$45.45x 3.75 =
$170.44
|
$45.45x 3.25 =
$147.71
|
$45.45x 4.0 =
$181.80
|
Step 4 Multiply total salary by Step 1: $28,000.00
$36,000.00
+ $44,000.00
$108,000.00x 11.0 = 1,188,000 (Salaryx pts)
Divide by # faculty: 1,188,000.00 ÷ 3.0 = 396,000 (Av. Salaryx pts)
Step 5 Divide 1/2 money by Step 4: $500 ÷ 396,000 = 0.001262626 (Merit $ / Avg. $x pts)
Step 6 Multiply member scorex member salaryx Step 5:
|
Faculty Member A
|
Faculty Member B
|
Faculty Member C
|
|
3.75x 28,000x 0.001262626 = $132.58
|
3.25x 36,000x 0.001262626 = $147.73
|
4x 44,000x 0.001262626 = $222.22
|
Step 7 Add sums from Steps 3 and 6. Total of all merit $ awarded: $1002.48
|
|
Member A 3.75
|
Member B 3.25
|
Member C 4.0
|
|
Method A
|
$170.44
|
$147.71
|
$181.80
|
|
Method B
|
$132.58
|
$147.73
|
$222.22
|
|
Total
|
$303.02
|
$295.44
|
$404.02
|
