> Academic Governance > Faculty Evaluations

faculty evaluation

Annual Faculty Review Process (PDF)
Department of Agricultural Engineering
Michigan State University

Content

1. University Guidelines for Annual Faculty Review
2. Faculty Performance Criteria
3. Faculty Load Performance Expectations
4. Rating System
5. Professional Accomplishments - PDF, Word

1. FACULTY REVIEW
(from MSU Faculty Handbook 1997)

All units must have procedures for written evaluation of tenure system faculty at all ranks to support the annual merit process and to provide a basis for a clear statement of performance expectations and accomplishments. It is recognized that provisions and practices in units may vary; however, all evaluation procedures must incorporate, at the minimum, the principles included in this model policy for regular faculty review.

I. Principles
While some variation may occur in the approach to reviews, the following principles as implemented by unit procedures are to be followed by unit administrators (i.e., Deans, Chairpersons and Directors) and faculty. In the case of faculty with joint appointments, a lead unit administrator shall be designated. The process should be clearly defined by the bylaws or established personnel polices and procedures of each academic unit.

• Each tenure system faculty shall be evaluated on an annual basis and informed in writing of the results of his/her review by the unit administrator.
• Each unit shall have clearly formulated and relevant written performance criteria and shall provide these at the time of appointment, and subsequently as necessary, to all faculty to clarify expectations.
• Faculty shall be informed of all factors used for evaluation, the evaluation of their performance on each of these factors and the relationship between their performance and decisions on merit salary adjustments and, if appropriate, on reappointment, promotion and tenure. Faculty are entitled to have all their assigned duties given weight in the evaluation.
• These annual assessments of faculty reviews shall be reflected in recommendations to the Provost's Office regarding reappointment, tenure, and promotion.

II. Guidelines for Implementation

• Units should initiate the annual review process early enough so that the full process, including feedback to faculty, may be completed before the beginning of the fall semester.
• Each faculty member shall submit a written summary of activities for the appropriate period of time to the unit administrator in a timely manner prior to the review. These materials will be shared with the faculty in accordance with unit bylaws and procedures.
• If unit bylaws or procedures provide for performance evaluation by peer review committees, unit administrators shall rely on the advice of this designated group, in addition to their own judgment.
• Unit administrators or their designees, no later than 3 months after completion of the evaluation, shall provide to the faculty member a written evaluation of her/his overall performance. Whenever appropriate, such evaluations shall contain constructive and explicit recommendations and clarify expectations of what is needed to make additional scholarly progress in the tenure system.
• If, after receiving the written review, the faculty member disagrees with its content or chooses to provide additional documentation or comment, the faculty member shall have an opportunity to respond to the review. Any additional written faculty comment and/or documentation which is submitted within one month of receipt of the written review shall become part of the documentation for the review.
• The full documentation for this written review, including the faculty member's response, shall be placed in the faculty member's unit personnel file.
• Meetings between faculty members and unit administrators are encouraged prior to the written summary to provide feedback about expectations and evaluation. Each faculty member shall have the right to meet in person with the unit administrator or designee after the written review is received.

2. FACULTY REPORTING OUTLINE

Note: The examples listed under each section should be considered as examples, and are not listed in order of importance. Items listed will likely vary with each individual report and plan.

Instructional

• Courses taught student/credit hours generated
• New courses developed / new teaching material developed
• New teaching techniques utilized
• Number of M.S. and Ph.D. students in progress
• Student Evaluations (SIRS)
• Textbooks developed
• Professional Improvement
• Awards and honors for teaching
• Other

Research/Scholarship

• Peer reviewed publications
• Other publications
• Papers presented at conferences
• Professional Improvement
• Awards and honors received for research Numbers of M.S. and Ph.D. theses/projects completed
• Grant and contract support
• Proposals submitted
• Other

Extension/Outreach

• Focus and magnitude of extension activities developed and delivered
• Visibility in community, evidence of leadership and active programming
• Extension programs and short courses sponsored
• Extension publications
• Professional Improvement
• Awards and honors for outreach and Extension
• Extension Grant and contract support
• Proposals submitted
• Extramural courses and program development
• Other

Service
A.) Departmental Service

• Service on committees
• Student recruiting
• Student placement
• Alumni relations
• Departmental fund raising activities
• Industry affiliations
• Interaction with undergraduates, include student employees, clubs, guest lecturing, etc. (other than assigned classroom teaching)
• Other

B.) College and University Service

• Service in the formal aspects of academic governance
• Service on college committees
• Service on university committees
• Other

C.) Other Professional Activities

• Professional organization activities
• Review of manuscripts, textbooks, proposals, etc.
• Editorship of professional journals
• Other (including consulting)

International Activities

• University sponsored
• Non-university related
• Other

3. FACULTY LOAD and PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES

Funding for the Department depends on general fund (GF), Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES), Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) and other funds. With the exception of a few faculty members, most faculty carry a combination of these funds on their appointment. This issue is more confounded by the fact that some faculty members carry an annual appointment while others carry an academic year appointment. It is therefore important that we agree on some equitable system of determining faculty load and expectations.

A 100% academic year, GF appointment will be considered a base appointment. All faculty on GF fund appointment will be expected to teach and conduct research. For faculty with split appointments, MAES and MSUE appointments will be considered special assignment. For faculty on annual year split appointment between GF and either MAES or MSUE, their summer appointment will be considered special assignment (i.e. MAES or MSUE).

All faculty, regardless of appointment, will be expected to perform service functions representing approximately 10% of their appointment. Examples of service activities are listed on the Faculty Reporting Outline (section 2).

For teaching, a 3 credit lecture course is nominally considered to represent 15% of the GF appointment. Courses with large enrollments or extra lab assignments can be considered as special assignment, with prior agreement of the Chairperson.

It is recognized that quality of programs is as important as the quantity. Before proceeding with the task of quantifying expectations, one must discuss quality indicators used to evaluate programs and activities. The following indicators of quality will be used when evaluating faculty performance:

• focus of activities
• identified stake holders
• magnitude and importance of issues
• visibility in community (locally and/or nationally)
• new knowledge generated
• evidence of leadership

The discussion is this section is considered to be minimum guidelines for faculty performance. The faculty member should negotiate with the Chairperson at the time of the annual performance review for special considerations. Other productivity and performance measures can be used in lieu of stated measures for individual cases, as agreed upon in writing by the faculty member and the chairperson.

TABLE 1. Minimum Performance for Typical Faculty Members (GF faculty on Academic Year Appointment)
Faculty Classification	Minimum Teaching Performance*	Minimum Research Performance over the Preceding Two Years
Teaching Intensive	Five 3-credit lecture course equiv. taught/yr.; evidence of teaching related scholarship; evidence of classroom exploration of emerging pedagogical techniques	1 peer reviewed paper published; OR 1 professional presentation; OR 1 proposal submitted
Teaching Active	Four 3-credit lecture course equiv. taught/yr.; evidence of teaching related scholarship	1 peer reviewed paper published; 1 professional presentation; 2 proposals submitted
Research Active	Three 3-credit lecture course equiv. taught/yr.	Fund 15% release time per year; 1 peer reviewed papers published; 2 professional presentations; 2 proposals submitted (incl. 1 for extramural funding); 1 active thesis student advised
* Respectable SIRS ratings from students in classes; chair will also consider anecdotal comments from chairperson-student meetings

 

TABLE 2. Minimum Performance for Faculty on Annual Year Split Appointment (MAES).
Appointment	Minimum Research Performance over the Preceding Two Years*
0 - 30%	1 professional presentation; 2 proposals submitted; 1 graduate committee service
31 - 60 %	1 peer reviewed paper published; 2 professional presentation; 3 proposals submitted (inc. 1 for extramural funding); 1 active thesis student advised
61 - 90%	2 peer reviewed paper published; 2 professional presentation; 4 proposals submitted (inc. 1 for extramural funding) 2 active thesis students advised
* All faculty members on MAES appointment must have an approved MAES project.

 

TABLE 3. Minimum Performance for Faculty on Annual Year Split Appointment (MSUE).
Appointment	Minimum Extension/Outreach Performance over the Preceding Two Years*
0 - 30%	1 peer reviewed extension publication, or 1 training video, or 1 computer software, or 1 handbook, or equivalent; and 2 formal public speaking engagements, or 1 field demonstration
31 - 60 %	1 peer reviewed extension publication, or 1 training video, or 1 computer software, or 1 handbook, or equivalent; and 4 formal public speaking engagements; and 2 field demonstrations; and evidence of interaction with students
61 - 90%	1 peer reviewed extension publication, or 1 training video, or 1 computer software, or 1 handbook, or equivalent; and 6 formal public speaking engagements; and 4 field demonstrations; and evidence of interaction with students
* Evidence of active participation in one Area of Expertise or similar multi-disciplinary programming committee. All faculty members with an MSUE appointment are expected to respond to information requests from stake holders and other Extension staff and contribute regularly to the departmental newsletter

 

4. RATING SYSTEM

Each faculty member will be rated on his/her appointment and in accordance to the above guidelines, and his/her agreement with the chairperson in regard to special assignments. There will be a direct relationship between performance rating (below) and salary adjustment.

1. Below Minimum Performance = the faculty member has not met minimum performance guidelines in one or more of the categories related to his/her appointment.

2. Meets Minimum Performance with Suggested Areas of Improvement = the faculty member has met, but not exceeded, minimum performance guidelines for all categories related to his/her appointment. Suggested areas of improvement will be noted by the chairperson.

3. Exceeds Minimum Performance = the faculty member has met minimum performance guidelines for all categories related to his/her appointment, and exceeded minimum performance guidelines in two of the categories.

4. Excellent = the faculty member has met minimum performance guidelines for all categories related to his/her appointment, and exceeded minimum performance guidelines in three of the categories.

---

Advisory Committee Members | Advisory Committee Minutes | Faculty Evaluation | Faculty Meeting Minutes | Department Bylaws(pdf) | Academics Committee Members | Academics Committee Minutes | Industry Advisory Minutes