College of Education

Process for Annual Evaluations and

Annual Evaluation Rubrics*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Faculty should be informed that this rubric is the guide for annual evaluations of faculty members.  It does not directly relate to the faculty member’s evaluations conducted by the Tenure Committee or the Promotion Committee for decisions of promotion and/or tenure.  For further information about the promotion and tenure process, the faculty member should refer to Appendices C and D of the ECU Faculty Manual.

 

 

 

ANNUAL EVALUATION PROCESS

(CONDUCTED IN EACH DEPARTMENT)

 

 

1.      The Department Chair will meet with the entire department early in the academic year to discuss the evaluation rubric and the unique characteristics of this department (types of research opportunities available, quality of publications in this area, nature of teaching, definition of terms in department context, opportunities to assess teaching effectiveness, service opportunities, best practices and quality measures in research, teaching and service, etc.).  The department will openly discuss the workload of faculty within the department and the resources available to faculty to assist in accomplishing their individual and department goals.

 

2.      The discussions will include a review of the evaluation rubrics and how they will be used to evaluate performance in the department.  Faculty members and the Chair will discuss the kinds of evidence that will support the evaluation ratings in their department.  The Chair should ensure that new faculty members receive an orientation to the evaluation process in the department and the weights associated with each area. 

 

3.      By October 1 of each year, faculty will meet with the Chair to set weights and establish goals for the year.

 

4.      Faculty will be given the opportunity to have interim conferences with the Chair to discuss progress toward goals and/or revise goals.

 

5.      Throughout the year faculty should collect evidence that reflects their performance in all three evaluation areas.

 

6.      Faculty members are encouraged to bring data, materials, evidence or artifacts to the evaluation conference to demonstrate their accomplishments.

 

7.      The Chair will meet with each department member prior to finalizing the evaluation to ensure all relevant evaluation data has been considered.

 

 

TEACHING 

 

Teaching is a primary function for every faculty member in the College of Education.  As a vital part of a faculty member’s duties, the following descriptors are intended to assist faculty members and their evaluators to carefully assess teaching while using multiple forms of evidence.

 

5.0, Outstanding

There is evidence that teaching has been performed that is well above the level expected by faculty.  These activities are of an exceptionally high quality, meriting national or widespread recognition.  Evidence includes extensive continuing time and effort.  The quality of teaching and related areas is consistently outstanding.

 

Exemplars for the rating of outstanding are recipient of a university system-wide teaching award, recipient of a national teaching award, or median SOIS scores above 6.5 for all courses taught.  Criteria include three or more of the following or a combination of evidence from multiple categories:

 

·        Average SOIS is 6.5 or above

·        Teaching evidence represents high quality teaching, demonstration of best practices in the field using program and/or departmental expectations; evidence includes teaching materials and authentic student products, along with other evidence such as surveys or research data or videotapes or field experience evaluations or other evidence

·        Quality of student support is well beyond expectations; evidence includes student advising materials and surveys or thesis/dissertation support, or student clubs or other similar activities 

·        Commitment to ongoing professional development that is evident within teaching materials or program initiatives; evidence includes workshops attended or staff development or peer evaluation of teaching or meeting certification/licensure requirements

·        Demonstration of leadership in curriculum development or innovation efforts; evidence includes course development or program development or innovations in methodology or teaching awards or case study development or grant proposals related to teaching

 

4.0 or 4.5, Very Good

There is evidence that teaching has been performed that is very good when compared to the level expected by faculty.  These activities are of very good, meriting high quality.  Evidence includes substantial continuing time and effort.  The quality of teaching and related areas is consistently very good.

 

Exemplars for the rating of very good are recipient of a university-wide teaching award, recipient of a state teaching award, or median SOIS scores above 6.0 for all courses taught.  Criteria include two or more of the following or a combination of evidence from multiple categories:

·        Average SOIS is 6.0 or above

·        Teaching evidence represents quality teaching using program and/or departmental expectations; evidence includes teaching materials and authentic student products, along with other evidence such as surveys or research data or videotapes or field experience evaluations or other evidence

·        Quality of student support activities is clear, consistent, and effective; evidence includes student advising materials and surveys or thesis/dissertation support, or student clubs or other similar activities 

·        Involvement in ongoing professional development that is evident within teaching materials or program initiatives; evidence includes workshops attended or staff development or peer evaluation of teaching or meeting certification/licensure requirements

·        Demonstration of significant involvement in curriculum development or innovation efforts; evidence includes course development or program development or innovations in methodology or teaching awards or case study development or grant proposals related to teaching

 

3.0 or 3.5, Good

There is evidence that teaching has been performed that is good when compared to the level expected by faculty.  These activities are good, meriting recognition of quality.  Evidence includes continuing time and effort.  The quality of teaching and related areas is consistently good.

 

Exemplars for the rating of good are recipient of a unit-wide teaching award, or median SOIS scores above 5.0 for all courses taught.  Criteria include two or more of the following or a combination of evidence from multiple categories:

·        Average SOIS is 5.0 or above

·        Teaching evidence represents good teaching using program and/or departmental expectations; evidence includes teaching materials and authentic student products, along with other related evidence

·        Quality of student support activities is consistent in at least one area; evidence includes student advising materials and surveys or thesis/dissertation support, or student clubs or other similar activities

·        Involvement in at least one professional development activity annually; evidence includes workshops attended or staff development or peer evaluation of teaching or meeting certification/licensure requirements

·        Demonstration of involvement in curriculum development or innovation efforts; evidence includes course development or program development or innovations in methodology or teaching awards or case study development or grant proposals related to teaching

  

2.0 or 2.5, Limited Success

There is evidence that teaching has been performed has limited success when compared to the level expected by faculty.  These activities are limited and demonstrate limited quality. 

 

Exemplars for the rating of outstanding are median SOIS scores above 3.5 for all courses taught.  Criteria include one or more of the following or a combination of evidence from multiple categories:

 

The quality of teaching and related areas is consistently limited.

·        Average SOIS is 3.5 or above

·        Teaching evidence does not consistently meet program and/or departmental expectations; evidence includes teaching materials and authentic student products, along with other related evidence

·        Student support activities exist in at least one area; evidence shows limited and/or ineffective involvement; evidence includes student advising materials and surveys or thesis/dissertation support, or student clubs or other similar activities; 

·        Involvement in at least one professional development activity annually; limited evidence of application of professional development activity in teaching; evidence includes workshops attended or staff development or peer evaluation of teaching or meeting certification/licensure requirements

·        Demonstration of limited involvement in curriculum development or innovation efforts; evidence includes course development or program development or innovations in methodology or teaching awards or case study development or grant proposals related to teaching

 

1.0 or 1.5, Unacceptable

There is little or no evidence that acceptable teaching has been performed. Opportunities to provide acceptable teaching have not resulting in positive teaching results. 

 

The quality of teaching and related areas is consistently unacceptable.

·        Average SOIS is below 3.5

·        Teaching evidence does not consistently meet program and/or departmental expectations; evidence includes few or no teaching materials and authentic student products, along with other related evidence

·        Student support activities in at least one area are unacceptable; evidence shows unacceptable and ineffective involvement; evidence includes student advising materials and surveys or thesis/dissertation support, or student clubs or other similar activities; 

·        Unacceptable levels of involvement in at least one professional development activity annually; unacceptable evidence of application of professional development activity in teaching; evidence includes workshops attended or staff development or peer evaluation of teaching or meeting certification/licensure requirements

·        Demonstration of unacceptable involvement in curriculum development or innovation efforts; evidence includes course development or program  development or innovations in methodology or teaching awards or case study development or grant proposals related to teaching

 

RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY

 

Creating and presenting research/scholarly activity is a critical function for every faculty member in the College of Education.  As a vital part of a faculty member’s duties, the following descriptors are intended to assist faculty members and their evaluators to carefully assess research/scholarly activity while using multiple forms of evidence.

 

5.0, Outstanding

There is evidence that research/scholarly activities have been performed that is well above the level expected by faculty.  These activities are of an exceptionally high quality, meriting national or widespread recognition.  Evidence includes extensive continuing time and effort.  The quality of research/scholarly activity is consistently outstanding.

 

Exemplars for the rating of outstanding are one national referred journal article and one national grant receipt.  Criteria include two or more of the following or a combination of evidence from multiple categories:

• One national refereed journal publication
• One book published for national market which contributes to the field
• Obtains significant, competitive grant at national, regional, or state level
• Presents research at more than one national refereed conference or presents more than one refereed research session at a national conference
• Editor of national journal in the field (i.e., compiles journal, edits all submitted manuscripts)
• Evidence of creative scholarly work meeting unique standards of the specific field and having impact at the national level (e.g., books in progress, digital software, refereed electronic publications); this work must be peer reviewed in some form
• Book chapter of national significance 

 

4.0 or 4.5, Very Good

There is evidence that research/scholarly activities have been performed that is very good when compared to the level expected by faculty.  These activities are of high quality, meriting regional or statewide recognition.  Evidence includes continuing time and effort.  The quality of research/scholarly activity is very good.

 

Exemplars for the rating of very good are one state refereed journal article, one grant received, and one work presented at a national conference.  Criteria include three or more of the following or a combination of evidence from multiple categories:

• One national journal article (refereed or non-refereed)
• One article in a regional refereed journal
• One article in a state refereed journal
• At least two articles submitted for peer review in national journals or a grant submitted for state or national funding
• Editorial board of national or regional journal in the field
• Obtains competitive grant at national, regional, or state level
• Book chapter publication
• Editor of book published this year
• Book contract with work toward product
• Submits grant proposal for national funding
• Technical report or monograph published in affiliation with professional organization
• Presents work at one national refereed conference
• Evidence of impact of action research conducted as part of mission of COE or its partners
• Directs a thesis or dissertation recognized for outstanding quality
• Evidence of creative scholarly work meeting unique standards of the specific field and recognized at the national, regional, or state level (e.g., digital software, electronic publications)

 

3.0 or 3.5, Good

There is evidence that research/scholarly activities have been performed that is good when compared to the level expected by faculty.  These activities contain quality.  Evidence includes sustaining time and effort.  The quality of research/scholarly activity is  good.

 

Exemplars for the rating of good are one monograph and one state conference presentation.  Criteria include two or more of the following or a combination of evidence from multiple categories:

• One regional refereed journal article published this year
• Two non-refereed journal articles or book reviews
• Two manuscripts submitted to refereed journals this year
• Technical report or monograph
• Paper published in ERIC document data base or paper published in proceedings
• Submits grant proposals to obtain internal or external funding to support institutional mission
• Scholarly work presented at state or regional conference
• Directs one thesis or dissertation
• Contributions to research agenda of institution (e.g., action research in own teaching, collaborating with school partners in research)
• Evidence of creative scholarly work meeting unique standards of specific field and used at the regional, state, or local level (e.g., print materials, digital software, electronic publications)

 

2.0 or 2.5, Limited Success

There is evidence that research/scholarly activities have been performed that shows limited success when compared to the level expected by faculty.  Evidence includes limited  time and effort. 

 

Exemplars for the rating of limited success are one article submitted to a state journal.  Criteria include one or more of the following or a combination of evidence from multiple categories:

• One article submitted to state journal
• Evidence of scholarly work in progress
• Limited contributions to the research agenda of institution
• Submitted article to professional newsletter
• Submitted monograph for publication
• Other evidence of scholarly or creative activity

 

1.0 or 1.5, Unacceptable

There is little or no evidence that research/scholarly activity has been performed. Opportunities to produce research/scholarly activity have been rejected.

 

 

 

 

SERVICE TO THE UNIVERSITY, PROFESSION, OR COMMUNITY

 

Providing service to the university, profession, or community is an important function for every faculty member in the College of Education.  As a vital part of a faculty member’s duties, the following descriptors are intended to assist faculty members and their evaluators to carefully assess service while using multiple forms of evidence.

 

5.0, Outstanding

There is evidence that service has been performed that is well above the level expected by faculty in terms of professional contribution to the profession, university, K-12 schools, or the community.  These activities are of an exceptionally high quality, meriting national or widespread recognition.  Evidence includes extensive continuing time and effort.

 

Exemplars for the rating of outstanding are officer in a national organization, service on a national task force, or chair of the ECU Faculty.  Criteria include two or more of the following or a combination of evidence from multiple categories: 

·     Application of professional expertise to provide continuing leadership and support of multi-year K-12 school-based improvement initiatives or other related agencies

·     Leadership at the university level

·     Leadership in national, regional, and/or state organizations

·     Major international, national, or regional recognition for professional service or outreach contribution

·     Other professional service

 

4.0 or 4.5, Very Good

There is evidence that service has been performed that is above the level expected by faculty in terms of professional contribution to the profession, university, K-12 schools, or the community. Evidence includes substantial time and effort committed to service. 

 

Exemplars for the rating of very good are officer in a region or state organization, development of a major outreach project, or leadership of a major university or unit activity.  Criteria include two or more of the following or a combination of evidence from multiple categories:

·     Application of professional expertise to provide leadership and continuing support of multi-year K-12 school improvement initiatives

·     Active programmatic service in any of a variety of different activities in support of K-12 school operations (e.g., specific professional development presentations, evaluation projects)

·     Leadership and/or extensive involvement at the university, or school/college level

·     Leadership and/or extensive involvement in national, regional, and/or state  organizations

·     Major state or university recognition for professional service or outreach contribution

·     Other professional service

 

3.0 or 3.5, Good

There is evidence that service has been performed that is at the level expected by faculty in terms of professional contribution to the profession, university, K-12 schools, or the community.  There is evidence of a significant but not continuing level of time and effort.  Opportunities to provide service have been pursued. 

 

Exemplars for the rating of good are board member or chair of state committee, leading a significant partnership service project, chair of a university committee, and/or member of several university, unit, and departmental committees.  Criteria include two or more of the following:

·     Activities that involve the application of expertise to constituents associated with K-12 schools (e.g., variety of activities) or other related agencies

·     Activity in service at the school/college or department level

·     Activity in regional, state, and/or local organizations

·     Major unit or departmental recognition for professional service or outreach contribution

·     Other professional service

 

2.0 or 2.5, Limited Success

There is evidence that limited service has been performed, but it is below the level expected by faculty.  The faculty member interacts minimally with the field and some opportunities to provide service have been rejected.  Evidence includes limited time and effort associated with service.   

 

Exemplars for the rating of limited service are service on unit or departmental committees and school professional development activities.  Criteria include one or more of the following:

·     One activity involves the application of expertise to constituents associated with K-12 schools or other related agencies

·     One service activity at the school/college or department level

·     One service activity in state, and/or local organizations

·     Other professional service

 

 1.0 or 1.5, Unacceptable

There is little or no evidence that service has been performed. Opportunities to provide service have been rejected.

 

 

“OTHER”

 

 

The duties evaluated under the category of “Other” are defined between the department chair in conjunction with the department’s needs and the faculty member.  The code of the College of Education has a clear definition of duties and/or assignments that fit into this category.  The following rubric must be discussed and applied to the specific duties and/or assignments that define the “Other” category, specifically the indicators that would determine the quality of performance at each level.

 

5.0, Outstanding

The quality of duties and/or assignments is consistently outstanding.

 

4.0 or 4.5, Very Good

The quality of duties and/or assignments is consistently very good.

 

3.0 or 3.5, Good

The quality of duties and/or assignments is consistently good.

 

2.0 or 2.5, Limited Success

The quality of duties and/or assignments is consistently limited.

 

 1.0 or 1.5, Unacceptable

The quality of duties and/or assignments is consistently unacceptable.