Arkansas State University-Jonesboro

2008 Plan for Annual Faculty Performance Review

 I.              Description

Each academic department within Arkansas State University conducts an annual performance review of each teaching member of the faculty (full-time, part-time, and graduate teaching assistants), both tenured and non-tenured, within the department to ensure a consistently high level of performance.  Although each department may devise a review process that best addresses its particular needs and traditions, the review must consist of at least the following elements:

C                     Review of Student Evaluations.  At least once a year, department chairs conduct student evaluations of each teaching member of the faculty.  Student evaluations serve as one of the three major elements in the annual review of faculty.  Faculty members absent themselves from classes, evaluation instruments are administered to students by chairs or their representatives, and chairs compile results.  Chairs discuss student evaluations with faculty members after courses have concluded for the semester.  

C                     Review of English Proficiency.  Student evaluations of faculty include a section of evaluation of English proficiency of the faculty member.  Should English deficiencies be identified, department chairs will take reasonable measures to provide opportunities to assist deficient faculty members in becoming proficient in English and will report the steps being taken to the dean. Ultimate responsibility for acquiring English proficiency rests with the faculty member.  Concerns raised by students regarding language proficiency of faculty prior to student evaluations will be addressed by the department chair.   

C                     Review of Course Syllabi.  For each course taught, faculty members file syllabi with the department chair, who reviews them for objectives, material covered, reading required, grading policy, and special requirements.  

C                     Review of Annual Productivity Report.  Each faculty member compiles annually a report of productivity, outlining involvement in teaching, research and service.  Typically, the productivity report documents development of new courses; teaching assignments; supervision of undergraduate and graduate research, independent study, and readings; service on thesis and comprehensive exam committees; use of nontraditional teaching techniques; publication and creative activities; paper presentations; editorials activities; manuscript preparations; grant applications, involvement in student advisement; participation in committee work; special university assignments; student recruiting activities; and other service activities. 

Additionally, depending on the particular needs and traditions of the department, the review process may include class visitation, examination of graduation check sheets supervised by individual advisers, review of exhibitions and performances, review of theses chaired, and review of previously agreed upon goals and objectives.   

Annual assessment of faculty performance does include review of tenured faculty as outlined in the university=s Post-Tenure Review policy.  The purpose of post-tenure review is to ensure that tenured faculty are meeting their responsibilities through full productivity and satisfactory performance.  Unsatisfactory performance will result in a near-term plan of improvement and professional development. 

II.        Assessment by peers, students, and administrators

Department chairs combine results of student evaluations, review of course syllabi, review of annual productivity reports, and other assessment techniques used by the department to rank faculty in terms of annual performance.  Ranking techniques may vary throughout departments, but are developed by chairs in concert with faculty peers.  Faculty peers serve a major role at the department, college, and university levels in promotion and tenure recommendations.   Faculty peers also work with chairs to develop ranking techniques on which merit salary recommendations are made.  Chairs then develop a merit salary recommendation correlating with annual performance rank.  

Administrators_ chairs and deans_ review all assessment materials and make merit salary, retention, promotion, and tenure recommendations based on the annual performance review and the more intensive promotion and tenure evaluation process.  Faculty ranking and merit salary recommendations are passed from the chair to the college dean, who reviews all recommendations and forwards them to the vice chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research.  All recommendations are reviewed, and final recommendations provided to the president of the University. 

III.       Uses of the Faculty Performance Review

The annual faculty performance review is used in relation to promotion, salary increases, job retention, to redirect faculty efforts to improve or to increase productivity, and to identify and correct instances of substandard performance.  The annual performance review is also related directly to job retention for pre-tenured faculty.  Department chairs use all elements of the annual review to recommend retention or termination of pre-tenured faculty members.  

For promotion and tenure, the required review is even more intensive than the annual performance review.  All evaluative materialsBcovering the total pre-tenure period since the last promotional go to the a department committee of peers.  Thereafter, the faculty member=s file moves through a process involving the department chair, a college committee of peers, the college dean, a university committee of peers, the vice chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research, and the president of the university.  At all levels, evaluators consider evidence of teaching ability, research, publication, presentations, creative activities, and service to the public and to the university.   (Full-time faculty in the College of Education are required to work collaboratively with accredited public schools in the area, and such involvement will be included as part of the annual review of the faculty member.)  The annual review is not ever used to demote a tenured faculty member to a non-tenured  status. 

IV.       Institutional Monitoring of the Annual Faculty Performance Review

The annual performance review process for purposes of merit salary recommendations and retention recommendations is monitored by college deans and the vice chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research, who annually collect and review student evaluation instruments and productivity reports, and who examine faculty ranking by departments to assure that a direct positive relationship exists between rankings and merit salary recommendations. 

The performance review process for purposes of promotion and tenure recommendations is monitored annually by a university committee of faculty peers.  (The vice chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research is a non-voting member of the committee.)  The committee reviews all department promotion and tenure criteria for clarity and conformity to university standards. 

V.        Institutional Evaluation of its Annual Faculty Performance Review

Each faculty member will be informed annually by the department chair where that member ranked relative to all other department members.  Chairs will be expected to be prepared to explain to faculty members how rankings were determined.  When rankings cannot be explained satisfactorily, deans will work with chairs to reform the process. 

Each college dean will review annually the faculty performance review system at the department and college level.  Deans will seek to determine that review elements satisfactorily explain faculty rankings, and that rankings do relate directly to merit salary recommendations. 

The vice chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research will work with college deans to review annually the results of the performance review system and will recommend revisions when appropriate.