ACADEMIC POLICIES & PROCEDURES

Faculty Personnel Policy

Faculty Development and Evaluation Policies

Teaching, scholarship/research, contributions to the institution and to the profession and performance of non-teaching or administrative duties are the professional responsibilities at the university. While this is primarily a teaching university, it is a basic principle of higher education that scholarly research informs effective teaching. At the same time, the university faculty contribute a richness to the culture of the community at large through their unique skills and talents. Evaluation of faculty performance considers these four areas and provides a critical process for continuous improvement of the university and faculty.

Both the importance and the imperfection of a faculty development and evaluation system are duly considered in the Rogers State University scheme. It is designed within the following guidelines:

1. The Faculty Development and Evaluation System is designed to improve faculty performance.
2. The Faculty Development and Evaluation System will provide important information for promotion and tenure decisions.
3. The System utilizes several sources of data, and these sources are clearly communicated.
4. Evaluation procedures are individualized and flexible.
5. Individualization considers the institution’s nature, directions, and priorities, the administrative unit’s needs, and the individual’s interests.
6. An annual academic performance review (Faculty Development and Evaluation Summary) is submitted for each full-time faculty member. A formal evaluation is conducted for each non-tenured member each year and for each tenured faculty member at least each third year.

Faculty Evaluation System

In addition to previously stated education and experience requirements for appointment to various ranks, the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma has specified four basic categories upon which academic rank and promotion in rank are based: (1) effective classroom teaching, (2) scholarship/research, (3) contributions to the institution and to the profession, and (4) performance of non-teaching or administrative duties.

The Faculty Development and Evaluation System of Rogers State University is designed to promote faculty development and to assess faculty performance on those prescribed criteria. Instrumentation of the system consists of four documents:

1. Faculty Development and Evaluation Criteria (Appendix B)
2. Catalog of Faculty Development and Evaluation Criteria (Appendix B)
3. Faculty Development Agreement (See Department Head)
4. Faculty Development and Evaluation Summary (See Department Head)

The document entitled "Faculty Development and Evaluation Criteria" lists criteria for evaluating faculty performance in the four categories.

The document "Catalog of Faculty Development and Evaluation Criteria" presents exemplars for each criterion. The exemplars are non-inclusive, but do provide examples and extend the definitions of the criteria. These exemplars should be used as guidelines and adapted according to the individual discipline area.

The document "Faculty Development Agreement" is an agreement for areas of emphasis for the forthcoming year. It is not an implicit evaluation of criteria not listed, however.

"The Faculty Development and Evaluation Summary" provides for listing the education and experience of the faculty and then a rating of the faculty member’s performance in the categories of (1) effective classroom teaching (2) scholarship/research, (3) contributions to the institution and to the profession, and (4) performance of non-teaching or administrative duties. It also provides for a rating of overall performance. Provision is made for commentary and signatures on the back.

Performance of non-teaching/administrative duties/assignments is interpreted to include those duties or assignments that result in a reduced teaching load such as serving as department head, program coordinator, or project director.

Procedures

The "Catalog of Faculty Development and Evaluation Criteria" is utilized for establishing individual faculty development plans and for guiding individual faculty evaluations. Performance in each category is weighted by negotiation between the faculty member and the department head within limits set by the institution and the administrative unit.

Institutional emphases define the weights of each category as follows:

All faculty are rated on negotiated criteria in Categories 1, 2, and 3, based on established limits. Those duties or assignments that result in a reduced teaching load will also be considered in Category 4.

The rating on overall performance is a composite of the ratings in the categories.

Administrative units may also set limits for each category within the institutional parameters.

Completion of the "Faculty Development and Evaluation Summary" is based upon a conference of the department head and the individual faculty member during which the relevant criteria for each criteria for each category are rated. Not all criteria for each category apply to every faculty member. Relevancy of individual criteria is negotiated by the department head and the individual faculty member.

Commentary is provided on the reverse side of the "Faculty Development and Evaluation Summary" instrument as indicated. The "Faculty Development and Evaluation Summary" is signed by both the department head and the individual faculty member. The faculty member’s signature denotes that the evaluation has been conducted according to approved procedures. It does not necessarily mean agreement with the ratings.

A completed "Faculty Development and Evaluation Summary" for each full-time faculty member is submitted by the department head to the respective dean of the school for review.

The dean of the school reviews the evaluation, provides comments, and signs the instrument. The dean of the school keeps a copy in the dean’s office and sends a copy to the department head and a copy to the faculty member.

Procedural Principles and Guidelines

The Faculty Development and Evaluation System of Rogers State University will be administered within the following procedural principles and guidelines.

1. Each faculty member will be evaluated on all Category 1 criteria and on criteria from other categories as determined in negotiation with the department head. However, the development plan to be composed at the beginning of the development-evaluation cycle will specify only areas the faculty and department head identify for development. These areas may be ones from Category 1 in which the faculty needs improvement as well as special tasks in other categories. It is assumed that performance on required criteria not listed in the development plan will remain stable over the evaluation cycle. Cycle-end evaluation will address both the areas listed in the development plan and the other required criteria.
2. The department head assumes that the faculty member is functioning at a level of "proficient" unless there is evidence to the contrary. For a rating lower than proficient, the head has the responsibility of presenting evidence; and for a rating higher than proficient, the faculty member has the responsibility of presenting evidence.
3. Faculty development and evaluation criteria are generally stated in minimum terms. Ratings on criteria vary according to the fruitfulness of efforts.
4. The ratings on the evaluation scale are as follows:
   1. Outstanding: Performance is among the best of colleagues in similar appointments in similar institutions in the respective field nationwide. On applicable criteria faculty member has recognition beyond the state.
   2. Commendable: Performance is among the best of colleagues in similar appointments in similar institutions in the respective field statewide. On applicable criteria, faculty member has statewide recognition.
   3. Proficient: Performance is productive, effective, and consistent with the achievement of the emphases, objectives, and interests of the institution, the administrative unit, and/or the individual.
   4. Needs Improvement: Performance is less than adequate for achieving the emphases, objectives, and interests of the institution, the administrative unit, and/or the individual.
   5. Critical: Performance fails to contribute to the achievement of the emphases, objectives, and interests of the institution, the administrative unit, and/or the individual.

   Teaching effectiveness and contributions to the institution are characteristics that should be evaluated primarily within RSU. While some statewide recognition or recognition beyond the state is possible for these categories, such recognition is not expected or necessary to achieve commendable or outstanding ratings. The opportunities for statewide recognition or beyond are rare for teaching effectiveness or contributions to the institution. However, there are more opportunities for recognition for contributions to the profession. "Scholarly Activity," on the other hand, is clearly an area where statewide recognition or recognition beyond the state is required for commendable or outstanding ratings. Thus, some interpretation is required when statewide recognition or recognition beyond the state is applied.

5. The "Faculty Development and Evaluation Summary" covers a year of performance except in certain instances; i.e., new faculty, faculty on leave, etc.
6. Only activities, contributions, and involvements directly related to the university or to the faculty member’s educational field are considered in the evaluation.
7. While formal evaluations of tenured faculty are required at least each third year, formal evaluations may occur more frequently at the request of either the faculty member or the department head. In years when a complete evaluation is not done, a continuation form will be submitted.

Faculty Development and Evaluation Process

The faculty development and evaluation process for the year includes the following three steps:

1. Step 1 - By September 15
   • The faculty revises and updates the previous year’s "Faculty Development Plan" as outlined in the following section entitled "Faculty Evaluation Guide." It should list any activities completed the preceding year and not previously included in the "Faculty Development Plan." The faculty forwards the revised plan to the department head.
2. Step 2 - By October 1
   • The faculty and the department head meet for a year-end Evaluation. The department head should send the completed "Faculty Evaluation Form," "Faculty Development Plan," and documentation (if applicable) to the dean of the school.
3. Step 3 - By November 1
   • The faculty and the department head complete the current year’s "Faculty Development Plan."

Faculty Evaluation Guide

1. The following documents should be used:
   1. Faculty Development and Evaluation System (See department head for format)
   2. Faculty Development Plan
   3. Faculty Evaluation form (See department head for format)
2. The evaluation for the preceding year should be made during September of the current year on the basis of the "Faculty Development Plan" completed in the fall of the preceding year and revised in August/September of the current year.
   1. Before the conference with the department head, the faculty should conduct a year-end self-evaluation and succinctly describe progress for each exemplar listed in the preceding year’s "Faculty Development Plan." A brief statement indicating whether the exemplar was fully accomplished, partially accomplished, or not addressed is appropriate.
   2. As the faculty formulates an overall self-rating in the area of teaching, he/she should analyze progress on several exemplars and accurately combine these to give an overall rating. Overall self-evaluation with only one exemplar is not acceptable. Citing marks from a student evaluation, for example, is not adequate evidence for a rating in the area of teaching. The results from the student evaluations represent only one dimension of teaching effectiveness. Multiple methods need to be used to formulate an overall self-rating. For example, results from peer-evaluations, student evaluations, ETS Major Field Achievement Tests, and other exemplars should be combined to support the rating for teaching effectiveness.
   3. In the areas of scholarship/professional activities and service, again evidence from several exemplars needs to be combined to formulate the rating in each area.
   4. The faculty should write a summary paragraph that combines various activities to give an overall rating for performance. If the standard evaluation form is used, the faculty should mark it to show his/her self-evaluation.
3. Both the faculty member and the department head should have copies of each of the basic documents.
4. When the self-evaluation is complete, the department head and the faculty member should schedule a conference.
5. In the conference, the department head should review the faculty member’s self-evaluation and make his/her own evaluation of the faculty member and mark it on the evaluation form. Documentation is required for ratings above or below proficient and should be attached to the evaluation forwarded to the dean.
6. By October 1, the department head should send a copy of the completed "Faculty Evaluation Form," the "Faculty Development Plan," and documentation (if any) to the dean of the school.
7. By October 31, the dean should write comments about the evaluation and return the copy to the department head.