college of education - jmu · 8/27/2012 · created a definition, evaluation scale, and rubric for...

College of Education

Department of Early Childhood, Elementary, and Reading Education

Guidelines for Faculty Evaluation

Approved, August 27, 2012

All statements and policies included in these guidelines reflect the policies of the JMU 2012

Faculty Handbook. The Faculty Handbook is designed to outline the duties, rights and

responsibilities of faculty members and be a guide for the relationship between the faculty members

and the university. It does not contain all the university's policies and procedures and should not be

considered to be a part of the university's contractual agreement with the individual faculty members.

Faculty Evaluation 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction to evaluation process in the Department of Early, Elementary, and Reading

Education

A. Academic ranks

B. Criteria for Satisfactory Performance

1. Teaching and advising

2. Scholarship

3. Service

C. Tenure and Promotion

D. Professional Benchmarks Toward Tenure and Promotion

II. Preparing the Initial, Annual, Three-Year, Tenure and Promotion Materials

A. Initial Evaluation

B. Annual Evaluation

C. Three-year Evaluation

D. Tenure and Promotion

III. Evaluation Process

A. Roles and responsibilities of the Department of Early, Elementary, and Reading

Education Personnel Advisory Committee

B. Faculty/Staff Evaluation Tasks and Timelines

C. Response to Evaluation Process

Appendix

A. First year Evaluation Form

B. Annual Performance Rating Form

C. Annual Performance Rating Form Rubric


I. Introduction to evaluation process in the Department of Early, Elementary, and

Reading Education

According to the JMU Faculty Handbook as approved by the Board of Visitors in July, 2012,

the purpose of evaluation of faculty members at James Madison University is to promote

professionalism, to encourage performance at the highest levels and to indicate areas in

which improvement is needed. Evaluations are also used in making personnel decisions,

including allocation of merit pay increases, continuation of employment and initiation of

post-tenure review.

The JMU Faculty Handbook, Section III.E., states that “All full- time instructional faculty at

JMU are subject to annual evaluation of their performance.” Furthermore, Section III. E. 2.b

states that “The areas of performance that shall be considered in all performance evaluations

are as follows: teaching, scholarly achievement and professional qualifications, and

professional service. Additionally, any aspects of a faculty member’s conduct that impacts

performance, positive or negative, should be addressed in the evaluation of these

performance areas.” Four types of evaluation occur within the Department of Reading, Early,

and Elementary Education and include:

Initial Evaluation: The initial evaluation shall be conducted at the beginning of a new

faculty member’s second full semester at James Madison University. The initial

evaluation becomes a matter of college record and is filed in the dean’s office. The initial

review is conducted by the Academic Unit Head.

Annual Evaluation: Annual evaluations of all faculty members shall be conducted after

the conclusion of each academic year. Annual evaluations become a matter of the

academic unit’s record and are filed in the academic unit office. Annual reviews are

conducted by Personnel Advisory Committee (PAC) and the Academic Unit Head

(AUH) independently.

Three Year Review:. The three year review evaluates the three most recent annual review

reports for evaluative purposes. This provides faculty with an overview of their progress

toward tenure and promotion. Three year reviews are conducted independently by PAC

and the AUH.

Comprehensive Evaluations: Comprehensive evaluations are concerned with promotion

and tenure decisions and are conducted in addition to the annual evaluation in the

appropriate year. They become a matter of the college’s record and are filed in the office

of the dean. Tenure and promotion are not tied together at James Madison University so a

faculty member may choose to apply for tenure and/or promotion. According to the JMU

http://www.jmu.edu/facultysenate/facultyhandbook/policies/evaluation.html#IIIE1


Faculty Handbook , “The promotion of an instructional faculty member shall be

determined by merit regardless of the distribution of faculty by academic rank within the

academic unit”(Section III.E.6). ”Tenure is intended to protect academic freedom,

provide a reasonable measure of employment security and enable the university to retain

a permanent instructional faculty of distinction” (Section III.E.7a).

Refer to the faculty handbook for the specific number of years required for

comprehensive evaluation review. The comprehensive evaluation for tenure and/or

promotion is conducted by PAC and AUH. The Department of Early, Elementary, and

Reading Education is committed to a fair and equitable evaluation process that ensures

that all faculty members understand and are involved in the evaluation process.

A. Academic ranks

When you join the EERE department, you are appointed to an academic rank and a type of

track. The faculty of James Madison University recognizes five distinct academic ranks that

include: Lecturer, Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. The

JMU Faculty Handbook, Section III.B.4, defines academic faculty ranks as:

III.B.4.a. Instructor

Appointment at the rank of instructor is normally for a fixed term but may be

employment at the will of the university with no fixed term. Appointment at the rank of

instructor may also be used for a faculty member who is hired with the expectation of

completion of a terminal degree by a specified date. Promotion to the rank of assistant

professor may be made automatic on completion of the terminal degree in the terms of

the appointment, subject to approval of the JMU Board of Visitors. .

III.B.4.b Lecturer

Appointment at the rank of lecturer can be made in the case of an Renewable-Term

Appointments (RTA). Individuals in the rank of lecturer are not eligible for promotion.

III.B.4.c Assistant Professor

Appointment at the rank of assistant professor normally carries with it teaching,

scholarship and service responsibilities, and normally requires a terminal degree in a

relevant discipline.

III.B.4.d. Associate Professor

In addition to the requirements for assistant professor, appointment at the rank of

associate professor is contingent upon substantial professional achievements, evidenced

by an appropriate combination of teaching, scholarship, and service.

III.B.4.e. Professor



http://www.jmu.edu/facultysenate/facultyhandbook/policies/status.html


In addition to the requirements for associate professor, appointment at the rank of

professor is contingent upon recognition of outstanding professional accomplishment.

B. Criteria for Satisfactory Performance

Faculty are evaluated in three areas – teaching effectiveness, scholarly achievement, and service

achievement as described in the following sections. Additionally, any aspects of a faculty

member’s conduct that impact performance, positively or negatively, should be addressed in the

evaluation of these performance areas. This is explained in Section III.B.4 of the JMU Faculty

Handbook.

At all times, faculty are held accountable to the university in accordance with state and federal

laws and with policies and procedures established by the JMU Board of Visitors. These rights

and responsibilities are outlined in the JMU Faculty Handbook, Section III. A.

1. Teaching

JMU faculty acknowledge excellent teaching as the primary goal of university faculty

members. To ensure fairness and equity in measuring teaching and advising, the faculty

created a definition, evaluation scale, and rubric for measuring teaching and advising

effectiveness.

a. Definition of teaching (Section III.E.2.b.(1))

Consideration of teaching performance must include, but need not be limited to, the

following: self-evaluation, evaluation by peers and/or academic unit heads, and

student evaluations. The EERE department evaluates courses through the on-line

process established by the College of Education. Consideration should be given to

faculty member’s commitment to student advising and innovations in teaching as

evidenced by development of new course work and teaching methodology. In those

academic units that do not use student evaluations in all classes taught by a faculty

member, the policy determining which classes will be evaluated shall be stated in the

academic unit’s evaluation procedures. Any such policy shall apply equally to all

similarly situated faculty members in the academic unit.

C. Areas of evaluation

Three levels of performance have been identified and outlined by the EERE

faculty: Excellent, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory. Satisfactory performance is

the minimum acceptable level of performance for teaching in the EERE.

http://www.jmu.edu/facultysenate/facultyhandbook/policies/status.html



Unsatisfactory performance indicates that faculty have not met the criteria

recognized as requisite for faculty members in the department in the area

of teaching and/or advising and/or reassigned load responsibilities.

Satisfactory performance involves satisfactory student evaluations for

teaching, satisfactory evaluations of reassigned load activities and

advising, self-reflections, AND innovations in teaching.

Excellent performance indicates that faculty exceeded the

expected levels of performance that are outlined at the

satisfactory level. Both teaching and advising must be above the expected

norms to achieve this rating.

These are further differentiated in the rubric that follows:

a. Rubric

Teaching

Evaluation

Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance

involves satisfactory student

evaluations for teaching,

satisfactory evaluations of

reassigned load activities, and

advising, self-reflections,

AND innovations in teaching.

Excellent

Excellent Performance

includes evidence of activity

beyond the satisfactory level

1. Student

evaluations

Student evaluations

below 3.

Student evaluations in

3.0-3.9 range.

Student evaluations in

4.0 -5.0 range

2. Self-reflections

Reflections do not

include specific

examples or insight.

Evidence of specific

insights gained from

teaching experiences

and/or feedback from

evaluations.





evaluations and

discussions of how

insights will influence

subsequent teaching.

3. Innovations in

teaching

Failure to make

changes in courses in

response to expressed

concerns.

Evidence of efforts to

keep courses and

delivery current and

respond to assessment

data.

Evidence of extensive

efforts to keep courses

current and evidence of

impact of innovations

on teaching.


4. Advising,

student relations

and /or student

interactions

Unavailable to

students.

Evidence of

satisfactory

performance in

advising and working

with students.

Evidence of exemplary

performance in

advising and working

with students.

5. Administrative

reassignment (if

applicable)

Failure to complete

assigned

responsibilities.

Evidence of

satisfactory

performance in

carrying out the

responsibilities of the

reassignment.

Evidence of excellent

performance in

carrying out

responsibilities.

6. Peer and/or AU

head evaluations

(if applicable)

Overall negative

feedback.

Overall positive

feedback.

Positive feedback from

a variety of sources

such as being viewed

as a resource by others.

2. Scholarship and professional qualifications

Faculty are expected to participate in on-going professional development to maintain and

enhance their professional qualifications. Scholarship is an important component of faculty

life at JMU and, due to the mission of the university, may manifest itself in different venues.

To ensure that faculty efforts are examined with fairness and equity, a definition, evaluation

scale, and rubric are included that depict required elements (Section III.E.2.b.(2).

a. Definition

Research and scholarship refer to conducting, disseminating, and publishing

research and scholarly studies. This can occur through a variety of different

venues such as:

1) publications in refereed and non-refereed journals or books,

2) presentations at professional conferences,

3) grant work at the local, state, or federal level,

4) editorial work for newsletters, quarterly reports, or journals, and

5) published reviews of books, textbooks, or articles.

6) consultation at local, state or national level

b. Areas of evaluation

Three levels of performance have been identified and outlined by the EERE

faculty: Excellent, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory.



Unsatisfactory performance indicates that no scholarly work has been conducted

at the local, state, or national level.

Satisfactory performance includes professional development AND productivity

in one other area.

Excellent performance reflects a quantity or quality of activity that is notable.

Specifically, the faculty member has developed a state wide or national level of

recognition in at least one academic area of study.

c. Rubric

Scholarship Unsatisfactory Satisfactory

Satisfactory Performance

in Scholarship includes

Professional Development

AND one other area

Excellence

Excellent performance

reflects a quantity or quality

of activity that is notable

1. Professional

development

No evidence of

professional growth

and development.

Participates in

professional

development

opportunities

Evidence that

information gained

from participating in

professional

development

opportunities has been

used to improve

teaching, service, or

scholarship.

2. Presentations at

professional

conferences

No presentations at

state or national

conferences.

A presentation at a

state, regional, or

national conference.

Presentations at state,

regional, national,

and/or international

conferences.

3. Publications No publications. Publishes one article

in a refereed or non-

refereed journal,

conference

proceedings, national

publication, invited

chapter or article.

Published more than

one article in a refereed

journal and/or a

national publication,

invited chapter or

article, and/or a book.


4. Grant writing No grants submitted.

Submits grant

proposal either as in

individual or as a

member of a grant-

writing team and/or is

working on a grant

that was written by

another faculty

member.

Grant funded or project

for grant completed

successfully.

5. Consulting No consulting work. Evidence of

consultative work that

uses scholarly

expertise

National or state-wide

reputation results in

multiple opportunities

to consult.

6. Editorial No editorial work. Completes one

editorial assignment

in either a newsletter,

quarterly report, or

journal.

Completes more than

one assignment in

either a newsletter,

quarterly report, or

journal.

7. Academic

Reviewer

No review work. Publishes one review

of a book, textbook,

and/or article.

Publishes more than

one review of a book,

textbook, and/or

article.

3. Service (Section E.2.b (3))

Service is another major role of faculty at JMU. To ensure fairness and equity in

measurement, faculty created a definition, evaluation scale, and rubric for measuring service

to the college and community.

a. Definition

Service involves providing assistance to others based on professional

qualifications. A variety of services can be proffered to the institution, profession,

or community.

b. Areas of evaluation

Unsatisfactory performance reflects a lack of involvement in departmental,

college, university, or other professional entities.



Satisfactory performance includes service to the university at one level (e.g.,

program, department, college, or university), AND service to the profession at

one level (e.g., local, state, regional, national, OR international)

Excellence performance reflects leadership in areas that move the agenda of the

organization forward.

c. Rubric

Service Unsatisfactory Satisfactory

Satisfactory performance in

Service includes Citizenship,

service to the university at

one level (e.g., program,

department, college, or

university), AND service to

the profession at one level

(e.g., local, state, regional,

national, OR international)

Excellence


reflects leadership in these

areas that moves the

agenda of the organization

forward.

1. Department, College,

and/or University

committee attendance

and contributions

Minimum

involvement in

programmatic,

departmental,

College wide or

university issues and

concerns.

Evidence of regular

participation in

program, department,

and/or university

activities.

Evidence of regular

participation in

program,

department, and/or

university activities.

2. Work with student

organizations

Minimum

involvement.

Supports and

interacts with

student group(s).

Provides consistent

leadership for a

student group.

3. Collaborative

activities

Minimum work with

colleagues.

Evidence of

contributions in


and/or university

activities.

Evidence of

significant

contributions within

or outside the

program,

department, and/or


4. State and/or local

engagement

Minimum

engagement at the

local or state level.

Evidence of

enhancing the

profession beyond

the university. Could

Consistent

leadership evident at

the state or local


include leadership in

a professional

organization or

professional

development for the

field.

level.

5. National/international

engagement in

professional

organizations

Minimum

involvement in

professional

organizations at the

national level.

Evidence of

enhancing the

profession beyond


include leadership in

a professional

organization through

committees, task

forces, elected or

appointed offices.

Consistently viewed

as a leader in the

field. National

reputation evident in

at least one area.

6. Reviewer Does not serve as a

reviewer.

Evidence of work as

reviewer for external

funding agencies,

scholarly

publications, external

academic

organizations.

Consistently serves

as a reviewer.

C. Tenure and Promotion (Faculty Handbook, Section III.E.6 and 7)

A. Tenure is intended to protect academic freedom, provide a reasonable measure of

employment security and enable the university to retain a permanent instructional faculty of

distinction. The award of tenure is based on the qualifications, performance and conduct of

individual faculty members and the long-term needs, objectives and missions of the academic

unit, college and university. To be awarded tenure, the faculty member must meet performance

and conduct standards required for promotion to associate professor and should enhance the

academic environment of the academic unit and the university.

B. Normally, a faculty member should have completed five years in rank before being reviewed

for tenure and promotion and in the review, the pattern of prior annual evaluations should be

considered in the analysis of the application. Problems with a faculty member’s conduct may



disqualify a candidate for promotion in rank. In the evaluation of faculty members being

considered for promotion in academic rank, the following standards apply:

1. At least satisfactory ratings in all areas are required for promotion to assistant professor.

2. An excellent rating in one area and at least satisfactory ratings in the others are required

for promotion to associate professor.

3. Excellent ratings in two areas and at least a satisfactory rating in the third area are required

for promotion to professor.

D. Benchmarks toward promotion and tenure

Year One: The Academic Unit Head provides a new faculty member with information

concerning the department’s evaluation procedures and criteria in the faculty member’s first

semester. The AUH will observe classroom teaching during the first semester. The initial

evaluation will be conducted by the end of the third week of the faculty member’s second

full semester of employment at JMU. The faculty member will submit a modified annual

performance report including goals for Teaching, Scholarly Activity and Service during the

2nd

semester. The new faculty member will submit a full annual report at the end of the

academic year, setting goals for the following year and subsequent years to

tenure/promotion.

Year Two: In year two the emphasis is on formative evaluation with the intent of guiding

development. Goal setting for subsequent years is also important. To maintain satisfactory

progress towards tenure, a faculty member should maintain ratings in all area equivalent to

next rank – excellent rating in one area and at least satisfactory ratings in the others for

promotion to associate professor, excellent ratings in two areas and at least a satisfactory

rating in the third area for promotion to professor.

Year Three: The purpose of evaluation at the end of year three is to provide the faculty

member with constructive feedback on their progress towards tenure and promotion, based

on criteria for promotion to the next rank. This will be a cumulative evaluation, including

all years of tenure track work in the department. Ratings of unsatisfactory indicate

unsatisfactory progress toward tenure. Goal setting should focus on achievement in all

areas.

Year Four and Five: Years four and five should see achievement of goals, particularly in

the area of scholarship, and ratings necessary for promotion to the next rank. The

cumulative effect of research and scholarship should reflect a clearly focused research

agenda or line of inquiry.

Year Six: All faculty members are required to go through the tenure decision process no

later than year six. The option of an earlier review can be negotiated in the hiring contract if


the faculty member brings tenure credit from another institution. In that case, the faculty

member’s entire record of teaching, scholarly activity and professional service is included in

the review. The record of activities and assignments completed in the service of the Early,

Elementary, and Reading Education department are most central to determining evaluation

ratings in those areas.

Years Post-Tenure: It is expected that faculty will continue to develop professionally and

be productive to meet the expectations of each rank. Annual evaluations will continue to be

conducted by the Personnel Advisory Committee and Academic Unit Head for tenured

assistant and associate professors. Once promoted to full professor, annual evaluation can

be done by the Academic Unit Head only using a negotiated reporting format. The Faculty

Handbook, Section III.E.8, outlines the process for post-tenure review, used to encourage

faculty development and productivity if a tenured faculty member fails to maintain a

satisfactory level of performance.

II. Preparing the Initial, Annual, Three-Year, Tenure and Promotion Materials

Faculty Evaluation materials provide a picture of your professional life as a faculty member in

the Early, Elementary, and Reading Education department at JMU. Specifically, it organizes and

communicates your professional goals and accomplishments during a specified period of time.

Organized materials assist review committees and others in understanding the quality and

significance of your work. Overall, your report or folio should be organized logically to provide

an evidential record that is thorough, meaningful, and succinct. A guideline for preparing

documents for different evaluation points are listed below.

A. Initial Evaluation

Materials to be submitted:

Modified Academic Performance Review is submitted to the Academic Unit Head

by mid-January.

See the Academic Performance Review form in the Appendix.

B. Annual Evaluation

Materials to be submitted:

Academic Performance Review is submitted to the Academic Unit Head who will

make these available to the Personnel Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC is a

standing committee of three tenured or tenure-track faculty who are elected to

serve three-year terms.

Materials not submitted by the date listed on the Academic Performance Review

will not be considered by the Personnel Advisory Committee.

Full professors may opt to submit to the AUH only, a highlighted VITA and a

statement of reflections on goals for the past year and goals for the next year.

C. Three-Year Evaluation


Materials to be submitted

All three Aacademic Performance Review forms are submitted to the Academic

Unit Head who will make these available to PAC.

D. Tenure and/or Promotion

Materials to be submitted.

As part of the tenure process, a portfolio is to be compiled and sent forward for review at

the departmental, college, and Provost’s level. The materials should be well organized

and additional supporting evidence may be provided. Materials will be kept at the

departmental level during the Performance Advisory Committee and Academic Unit

Head review process and then provided to the dean. Supplementary notebooks and

materials will not be forwarded to the Provost’s office (Faculty Handbook, Section

III.E.b.6. (5) .

1) Letter or application requesting tenure and/or promotion.

2) Curriculum Vita: A curriculum vita provides an overview of the faculty member’s

professional life. Accomplishments made during the time of evaluation

should be highlighted (one year to six years).

3) Evidence of meeting criteria through a narrative reflecting on the evidence or

explaining its significance for each of the three categories: teaching, scholarship,

and professional service.

a) TEACHING (3 page maximum)

a.1.) Candidate's statement on teaching and advising including philosophy,

methodology, materials developed, effectiveness, challenges, etc.

a.2.) Overall listing of evaluation statistics for all courses taught. Summary

instructor statistics provided by the College for each course are to be included in

addition to the average departmental and College statistics.

a.3.) Any other evidence of teaching effectiveness such as senior exit surveys,

alumni surveys, in-class peer visitation reports, or data on advising.

b) SCHOLARSHIP (3 page maximum)

b.1.) Candidate’s statement on research and scholarship.

b.2.) List of publications, presentations, etc.,

b.3 ) Impact of research/scholarship including literature citations, etc.

c) SERVICE (3 page maximum)

c.1.) Candidate’s statement on service activities

c.2.) Program and Departmental Service

c.3.) College and University Service

c.4.) Professional Service (local, state, and regional)

c.5.) Professional Service (national and international)




d) Administrative Duties, if appropriate.

e) Rubric for Tenure and promotion

Teaching Evaluation Excellence for Tenure and/or Promotion

1.Student evaluations The faculty member should address each of these areas if applicable

and reflect on his/her performance over the period since hired or since

last promotion. A pattern of satisfactory or excellent performance

should be shown.

2.Self-reflections

3. Innovations in teaching

4. Advising, student relations and /or

student interactions

5. Administrative reassignment (if

applicable)

6. Peer and/or AU head evaluations (if

applicable)

Scholarship Excellence for Tenure and /or Promotion

1. Professional development Regular and applicable participation in professional development is

expected and evidence of application should be apparent.

2. Presentations at professional

conferences

The faculty member should provide evidence of regular presentations

at and above the state level. Some of these should be invited or

refereed presentations.

3. Publications The faculty member should have published multiple articles in

refereed journals and/or national publications, invited chapters or

articles and/or a book

4. Grant writing Activities in these areas can be used to strengthen a satisfactory rating

in scholarship. 5. Consulting

6. Editorial

7. Academic Reviewer

Service Excellence for Tenure and/or Promotion

1. Department, College, and/or University

committee attendance and contributions

In addition to regular participation in departmental and college

activities, the faculty member has demonstrated leadership in their

work with students, or program/department activities and leadership

outside the department.

2. Work with student organizations

3. Collaborative activities

4. State and/or local engagement The faculty member is consistently viewed as a leader at the state,

regional or national level in their field.

5. National/international engagement in

professional organizations

6. Reviewer


III. Evaluation Process

A. Roles and responsibilities of EERE Personnel Advisory Committee

The Early, Elementary, and Reading Education Personnel Advisory Committee (PAC)

will be composed of at least three full-time faculty members, the majority of whom must

be tenured. Members shall serve for a three-year term. Terms will be staggered.

PAC members may serve one term. A member who has served is eligible to

serve again after being off the PAC one full year

A non-tenured and a tenured alternate will be elected to serve when regular

members are ineligible or unavailable. Alternates serve for a one-year term

Alternates will participate in PAC activities as needed and as appropriate;

Only tenured PAC members may vote on tenure decisions and there must be a

minimum of three; If necessary, tenured faculty from other departments or

colleges on campus will be appointed by the Associate Dean to serve in order

to meet this requirement

Nominations for Personnel Advisory Committee will be requested by the Academic Unit

Head the Monday following spring break. Nominations will be shared within a week and

elections will be held before April 1.

Service on the Personnel Advisory Committee is for the fall, spring and summer

semesters, since much of the annual review process occurs in the summer. These

guidelines are aligned with the JMU Faculty Handbook, Section II.E.2.a. AUPAC.

B. Faculty/Staff Evaluation Tasks and Timelines

Month Task Due date Comments

September Faculty submit intent to apply for

promotion/tenure

Sept. 1

Academic Unit Head confirms graduate

faculty status


Academic Unit Head meets with new

faculty to talk about evaluation process.

October Faculty submit promotion/tenure

materials to the Personnel Advisory

Committee and Academic Unit Head

Oct. 1

Written annual evaluations sent to

faculty by Academic Unit Head and

Personnel Advisory Committee

By Oct. 1

Faculty must appeal within 7 days of

receipt of annual evaluation of Annual

Performance Review

Academic Unit Head schedules

conferences with faculty to discuss

annual evaluation

By Oct. 21

Written summary of annual evaluations

of EERE faculty sent to Dean

Oct. 28

November Remediation recommendation for

tenured faculty found unsatisfactory in

two out of three most recent Annual

Performance Reviews.

Nov. 1

Letter regarding the recommendation of

tenure and/or promotion for faculty due

to Dean from Academic Unit Head and

Personnel Advisory Committee

A copy of written evaluations

provided concurrently to

faculty.

Nov. 15

December Provide semi-annual Annual

Performance Review to new faculty

Dec, 1

Letter regarding recommendation for

tenure and/or promotion due from the

Dean to provost

Dec. 15

Termination notice for faculty members

in 2nd

year of service


January New faculty Annual Performance Report

due

1st week of

semester

February Written notification of tenure/promotion

recommendation from Provost

Feb. 1

Confer w/ new faculty re: Annual

Performance Review

2nd

week of

semester

Written evaluation due to new faculty 3rd

week of

semester

Copy of signed new faculty Annual

Performance Review evaluation due to

Dean

3rd

week of

semester

If Academic Unit Head recommends

dismissal, AUPAC must review and

send recommendation to Dean

4th

week of

semester

March Annual Performance Review forms

distributed

Mar. 1

Request nominations for Personnel

Advisory Committee

April Election of Personnel Advisory

Committee

May Annual Performance Review and

Faculty Anticipated Activity Plan due

May or

June

June Review Annual Performance Review Jun. 15

July Confer w/Personnel Advisory

Committee on Annual Performance

Reviews

July 1


Begin to conduct annual evaluation

conferences

D. Response to Evaluation Process – Refer to the appropriate section of the Faculty

Handbook for all appeal procedures and timelines.

Appendix A

First Year Evaluation Form


New Faculty Semi-Annual Performance Report

Please provide data identified below to your department head by the first week of January. This

request, and the information reported in it, does not restrict academic freedom as defined by the

American Association of University Professors. In your report letter, please provide the

information asked for in italics and then address items I, II, and III.

Name:

Current Rank:

Dates of Service in Current Position:

Department (Program):

Courses Taught Fall 2007:

Courses Teaching Spring 2008:

For each semester above, please list any reassigned time with corresponding credit hours that

you were/are assigned:

I. TEACHING

Reflect on your teaching and field supervision. In this section, you might discuss ways that

you gathered feedback about your teaching, collaborative activities which impacted your

teaching, ways that you stayed current in your field, ways that you supported and interacted

with students, etc. If you had specific goals, describe your progress toward achieving them

here too.

II. SCHOLARLY ACHIEVEMENT & PROFESSIONAL

QUALIFICATIONS

http://www.jmu.edu/facultysenate/facultyhandbook/policies/evaluation.html

http://www.jmu.edu/facultysenate/facultyhandbook/policies/evaluation.html


Reflect on your scholarly achievements and professional development activities. In this

section, in addition to listing your professional development activities, when appropriate, you

should cite bibliographic references of your publications and presentations, information about

your grant-related proposals or activities, citations about organizations with whom you

engaged in consulting, book reviews done, research in progress, etc.

III. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Reflect on your professional service related to the university (university, unit, college, and/or

your program) and to the professional organizations of your discipline (national, regional,

state, and/or local-levels).

IV: Future Professional Goals Provide a brief statement describing your professional goals over the next 18 month period as

you complete your first and second years as a faculty member at JMU


Appendix B

Annual Performance Report

2012--13

Personal Data

1. Name

2. Department

3. Current Rank and Title(s)

4. Date and name of highest academic degree earned

5. Rank of initial JMU faculty appointment

6. Years of prior service as faculty at other colleges and universities (names and dates)

7. Year of effective appointment to present rank

8. Ranks held at JMU and years (include dates) in each

9. Assigned duties at the University

10. Employment - Provide in chronological order any position held during the past 10 years

which are not indicated above.



Annual Performance Report

Period covered: May 2012-May 2013

Name:_________________________________ Rank: __________ Years in rank: _____

This form is for submitting data to the PAC and to department head. The requests made and

the information reported does not restrict academic freedom as defined by AAUP.

Directions:

Submit completed form (paper and electronic) to the Department Head’s office by the

third Friday in May. Personnel Advisory Committee will only review forms received by

this date.

Provide activities within the prescribed time period

Provide information in the requested formats: Rows may be added to/deleted from tables as

needed. Text boxes must be limited to 300 words.

If an activity is listed in more than one area (scholarship, teaching, etc.), an explanation

must be provided for its inclusion in each area.

Goals for the past year

Area Goals Completed/In

Progress/Not Begun

Teaching 1.

2.

3.


Service 1.

2.

3.

Scholarship 1.

2.

3.

Reflection on Goals. Explain your progress, challenges, and concerns related to reaching each

of your goals (300 word limit).

I. TEACHING, STUDENT RELATIONS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE

ASSIGNMENT(S)

Returning faculty: Include summer, fall and spring of the last academic year in the teaching

section.

First year faculty: Include only fall and spring in the teaching section.

A. Teaching

1. List evaluation averages (by course) for spring, summer and fall semesters/sessions.


Information can be cut and pasted from your online student course evaluations..

Summer Courses Taught

Course

prefix

and #

Course Title (w/ credit hours)

Nature of

course (i.e.,

lab, lecture,

practicum,

online)

# of

students

Course #1

Course #2

Course #3

Course #4

Summer Course Evaluation Scores

Content &

Organization

Instruction &

Evaluation

Climate &

Rapport

Scheduling &

Facility

Semester

Average

Rating

Course #1

Course #2

Course #3

Course #4

Fall Courses Taught


Course

prefix

and #

Course Title (w/ credit

hours)

Nature of

course (i.e., lab,

lecture,

practicum,

online)

% of

load # of

studen

ts

Course #1

Course #2

Course #3

Course #4

Course #5

Course #6

Fall Course Evaluation Scores

Content &

Organization

COE mean =

Instruction &

Evaluation

COE mean =

Climate &

Rapport

COE mean =

Semester

Average

Rating

COE mean =

4.53

Course #1

Course #2

Course #3

Course #4

Course #5

Course #6


Spring Courses Taught

Course

prefix

and #

Course Title (w/ credit hours)

Nature of

course (i.e.,

lab, lecture,

practicum,

online)

% of

load # of

students

Course #1

Course #2

Course #3

Course #4

Course #5

Course #6

Spring Course Evaluation Scores

Content &

Organization

Instruction &

Evaluation

Climate &

Rapport

Semester

Average

Rating

Course #1

Course #2

Course #3

Course #4

Course #5

Course # 5

For items 2 - 4 responses are limited to 300 words.


2. What additional feedback data do you have on your teaching and/or

supervision/clinical duties (e.g. other student feedback, peer observation, video taping

lessons, consulting with other faculty).

a. Add comments for A.2.a here. (300 word limit)

b Add comments for A.2.b here. (300 word limit)

c. Add comments for A.2.c here. (300 word limit)

d. Add comments for A.2.d here. (300 word limit)

e. Add comments for A. 2.e here. (300 word limit)

3. Given the evaluation data, including student comment and other feedback, what

conclusions can you draw about your teaching/supervision and how will this inform

your teaching in the next year?

Add comments for 3. here. (300 word limit)


4. Describe your efforts to keep courses current and delivery up-to-date and relevant,

including use of specialized knowledge, recent and appropriate research and

developments and/or technologies. (For example, How are your courses evolving in

response to changes in the field, in schools, and/or your personal professional development?

Describe any teaching materials or techniques, courses, programs, etc., developed or revised.

Be specific in identifying what you have read, conferences you’ve attended, research you’re

conducting and the link to how these activities have helped you remain current.)

B. ADVISING AND STUDENT RELATIONS

1. Indicate the number of advisees, and the nature of the advising you provided.

2. Describe any work with independent studies, honors and/or graduate thesis/project

committees and comprehensive exam committees.

Add comments for .4.A here. (300 word limit)


Student’s Name Title or name of

project

Type, e.g.

Honor’s thesis,

independent

study, etc.

Your role

e.g. chair,

member

Completion

date or

expected

completion

date

3. Describe any other relations with students other than those above. Include university

programs, students in research or professional service, letters of reference, meeting

with students).

Add additional comments for B.2 here. (300 word limit)

Add additional comments for B.3 here. (300 word limit)


C. ADMINISTRATIVE AND/OR OTHER REASSIGNED TIME

1. Describe any administrative assignments/reassigned time that you were awarded.

Administrative

Assignment

Load Equivalent What are the activities

related to this position

that you carried out

during the past year.

Student Relations

Activity

Number of Students

involved

Description of Activity


2. What evaluation feedback did you receive and how did it/will it impact your activities?

IV. SCHOLARLY ACHIEVEMENT & PROFESSIONAL

QUALIFICATIONS

A. List the specific activities that have impacted your professional development and

describe how they have enhanced your teaching, scholarship or service (e.g., JMU

faculty development, professional conference sessions, collaborative work).

Professional

Development

Date Area of

Impact

(Teaching,

Scholarship,

Describe how your professional

qualifications were enhanced by

the professional development

experience.

Add additional comments for C.2 here. (300 word limit)


Service)

B. List papers/projects in progress (under development, submitted/proposed, in press,

etc.)

Working title of paper/projects

Anticipated date

for submission

or

completion of

project

C. List publications for the past report year using APA format.

Refereed publications:


Non-refereed publications:

A. List curriculum and materials published for use beyond JMU course work, using APA

format. Provide information on the intended audience or use if reviewers would not be

familiar with the format.

Curriculum and other materials

F. List published reviews completed in APA format. These are reviews of book or other

materials that appear in a journal or other source with you as author.

Published reviews


G. List positions you have held as editor of a newsletter, report or journal

Editor position Time period Activity/production

H. List professional presentations using APA format.

Level of Presentation Citation in APA format

National and International

State and Regional

Local and units smaller than state-

wide

I. List grants proposals submitted, funded, and/or completed and your role in each

activity


Title Source Amount

Date

submitted

Funded

(yes/no)

Your

Role

Da

te

co

mp

let

ed

J. List consulting. Consulting in this category refers to the development of new materials,

analysis and synthesis of information related to the consulting topic, and any follow-up

report.

Topic/purpose

Client

/Organization

(e.g., school

district, business

organization)

Number of

hrs/days

including

preparation,

delivery, &

follow-up

Your Role

Documentation

produced/result

ing from your

involvement

III. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

A. List current professional organization memberships, offices, and boards beginning with

international, national, then regional, state and ending with local. Give full name and acronym. Include dates to

indicate years of service.


Name of Organization

Level (e.g.,

national,

state, local)

Level of involvement (e.g., position held, meetings

attended, responsibilities)

B. List reviews completed. Include type of document (e.g., journal article, book review,

chapter review, conference proposals, etc.). These are reviews that are returned to an

editor or conference chair as service to your profession rather than reviews intended for

publication.

Type of Document For what organization

Date

C. List university related committees/commissions, boards and/or student hearings, etc.

Name of

Committee

Level:

University,

College,

program

etc.)

Position

held

# meetings

attended

per

academic/yr

# meetings

possible

Level of

involvement

beyond meeting

attendance


D. Field Related Services provided to schools, agencies, businesses, etc. These in-service

sessions do not involve the development of new or different content on the part of the

presenter.

Topic/purpose

Client /Organization

(e.g., school district, business

organization)

Number of hrs/days

including

preparation, delivery,

& follow-up

Your Role

E. Describe collaborative activities in which you have been involved (e.g., team

teaching/co-teaching; partnerships with schools, agencies, businesses; guest speakers;

collaboration across departments in the university and/or with other institutions, etc.).

F. Describe your involvement in designing new courses/programs and/or reviewing,

evaluating, and revising programs.

G. Describe your work with student organizations

IV. RELATED PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES


Use this portion of the APR form to discuss professional activities not addressed elsewhere or to

explain activities in the above sections that may not be a good “fit” in the sections assigned.

V. GOALS

In preparation for your evaluation conference with the Department Head, list your

professional goals and expected activities for the next academic year. Note: These goals

may be adjusted based on your personal reflections, feedback from the Personnel Advisory

Committee and feedback from the Academic Unit Head. In addition, you may propose a

negotiated load for consideration by the Academic Unit Head.

1) Teaching

2) Scholarly achievement and professional qualifications

3) Professional service

Teaching Evaluation Unsatisfactory Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Performance involves

satisfactory student

evaluations for

teaching, satisfactory

evaluations of

reassigned load

activities and

advising, self-

reflections, AND

innovations in

teaching.

Excellent

Excellent

Performance includes

evidence of activity

beyond the

satisfactory level

1.Student evaluations Student evaluations Student evaluations in Student evaluations in


below 3. 3.0-3.9 range 4.0 -5.0 range

2.Self-reflections Reflections do not

include specific

examples or insight.





evaluations





evaluations and

discussions of how

insights will influence

subsequent teaching.

3. Innovations in teaching Failure to make

changes in courses in

response to expressed

concerns.

Evidence of efforts to

keep courses and

delivery current and

respond to assessment

data.

Evidence of extensive

efforts to keep courses

current and evidence of

impact of innovations

on teaching.

4. Advising, student

relations and /or student

interactions

Unavailable to

students.

Evidence of satisfactory

performance in advising

and working with

students

Evidence of exemplary

performance in advising

and working with

students

5. Administrative

reassignment (if

applicable)

Failure to complete

assigned

responsibilities.

Evidence of satisfactory

performance in carrying

out the responsibilities of

the reassignment.

Evidence of excellent

performance in carrying

out responsibilities.

6. Peer and/or AU head

evaluations (if applicable) Overall negative

feedback

Overall positive

feedback.

Positive feedback from

a variety of sources

such as being viewed as

a resource by others.

Scholarship Unsatisfactory Satisfactory

Satisfactory Performance

in Scholarship includes

Professional

Development AND one

other area

Excellence


reflects a quantity or

quality of activity that is

notable

1. Professional

development No evidence of

professional growth

and development.

Participate in

professional

development

opportunities

Application of

information gained

from participating in

professional

development

opportunities.

2. Presentations at

professional conferences No presentations at

state or national

conferences.

A presentation at a state,

regional, or national

conference.

Presentations at state,

regional, national,

and/or international

conferences.

3. Publications No publications. Publishes one article in a

refereed or non-refereed

Published more than

one article in a refereed


journal, conference

proceedings, national


chapter or article.

journal and/or a national


chapter or article,

and/or a book.

4. Grant writing No grants submitted. Submits grant proposal

and/or is working on a

grant that was funded.

Grant funded or project

for grant completed

successfully.

5. Consulting No consulting work. Evidence of

collaborative work that

uses scholarly expertise

National or state wide

reputation results in

multiple opportunities.

6. Editorial No editorial work. Completes one editorial

assignment in either a

newsletter, quarterly

report, or journal.

Completes more than

one assignment in either

a newsletter, quarterly

report, or journal.

7. Academic Reviewer No review work. Publish one review of a

book, textbook, and/or

article.

Publishes more than one

review of a book,

textbook, and/or article.

Service Unsatisfactory Satisfactory

Satisfactory performance

in Service includes

Citizenship, service to

the university at one

level (e.g., program,

department, college, or

university), AND service

to the profession at one

level (e.g., local, state,

regional, national, OR

international)

Excellence


reflects leadership in

these areas that moves

the agenda of the

organization forward.

1. Department, College,

and/or University

committee attendance and

contributions

Minimum

involvement in

programmatic,

departmental, College

wide or university

issues and concerns.

Evidence of regular

participation in program,

department, and/or


Evidence of regular

participation in


and/or university

activities.

2. Work with student

organizations Minimum

involvement.

Supports and interacts

with student group(s).

Provides consistent

leadership for a student

group.

3. Collaborative activities Minimum work with

colleagues.

Evidence of

contributions in


and/or university

activities.

Evidence of significant

contributions within or

outside the program,

department, and/or


4. State and/or local Minimum Evidence of enhancing Consistent leadership


engagement engagement at the

local or state level.

the profession beyond


include leadership in a

professional organization

or professional

development for the

field.

evident at the state or

local level.

5. National/international

engagement in

professional organizations

Minimum

involvement in

professional

organizations at the

national level.

Evidence of enhancing

the profession beyond


include leadership in a

professional organization

through committees, task

forces, elected or

appointed offices.

Consistently viewed as

a leader in the field.

National reputation

evident in at least one

area.

6. Reviewer Does not serve as a

reviewer.

Evidence of work as

reviewer for external

funding agencies,

scholarly publications,

external academic

organizations.

Consistently serves as a

reviewer.

college of education - jmu · 8/27/2012 · created a definition, evaluation scale, and rubric for...

Documents