Appendix D - Recommended Guidelines for Annual Faculty Evaluation - Faculty Handbook   

 

 

Abstract: 
This set of guidelines helps to identify details of an effective evaluation and to facilitate the development of annual faculty evaluation policies.

Effective Date: 08/15/2023

 

Review/Revised Date: 08/15/2023

 

Category: Faculty Affairs

 

Policy Owner: Faculty Senate

Policy Contact: Faculty Policy and Procedures Committee

 
   
 
 

Appendix D
Recommended Guidelines for Annual Faculty Evaluation

I. Introduction

The UAB Faculty Handbook and Policies requires that all "regular" faculty, regardless of rank and tenure status, be evaluated annually so that their professional development and productivity can be measured and enhanced and the goals of these faculty members, their units, and the university can be achieved. (Section 2.14). There are also requirements for the annual evaluation of "temporary full-time" and "contingent" faculty who are instructors of record (Sections 2.9 and 2.14). The UAB Faculty Handbook broadly defines the policies regarding the annual faculty evaluation process. However, critical details that must be determined at the school, college, department, and division level are obviously not included. This document is not a policy, but a set of guidelines to help identify those details and facilitate the development of annual faculty evaluation policies appropriately customized to the unit's needs. Effective evaluations are fair and unbiased and should include shared trust and mutual respect; respect for academic freedom (Section 3.2); constructive feedback for continued growth of professional development; and assurance that quality and accuracy is maintained at every level of the evaluation process.

II. Who
  1. Each faculty member is responsible for timely submission of requested materials and active participation in the evaluation process.
  2. The academic unit defines who (dean, chair, or designee with supervisory authority) is responsible for discussing/reviewing the evaluation with the faculty member and providing a written summary of their appraisal to the faculty member who was reviewed.

III. Schedule

  1. UAB Faculty Handbook requires that each faculty member receive an annual evaluation.
  2. A schedule must be developed to allow sufficient time for budgeting and implementation of salary adjustments for the following fiscal year.
  3. The unit is responsible for determining dates for the review and should minimally publish the dates for the following:
    1. Evaluator request for information,
    2. Submission deadline for information from faculty member,
    3. Reasonable timeframe for the review meeting between the evaluator and faculty member,
    4. Completed, signed evaluations are due in dean's (or other) office.

IV. Format

  1. The unit defines the evaluation presentation (electronic form, Faculty Profiles, teaching portfolios, other)
  2. A comprehensive evaluation should include:
    1. Reporting of accomplishments,
    2. Consideration of areas for improvement,
    3. A comparison of performance versus previous years,
    4. Both self-appraisal (if required) and appraisal by the evaluator,
    5. Discussion of obstacles and opportunities affecting attainment of goals,
    6. Goal setting for following year.

V. Content Assessment

  1. The Faculty Handbook indicates that decisions for faculty promotion and tenure should be based on the effectiveness in teaching, scholarly activities, and service (Section 2.10 and Appendix E). The unit may add effectiveness in clinical activities in their evaluations.
  2. The units should establish appropriate metrics in each area and how each activity will be objectively evaluated. The following examples, not meant to be exhaustive, describe possible metrics and other considerations for assessment. These examples may be equally applied to assessing readiness for promotion and/or award of tenure as well as annual performance review.
    1. Effectiveness in Teaching: As described in Section 2.10.1, measures beyond the student evaluation of instruction (IDEA or other evaluation methods) should be considered in the area of teaching effectiveness(e.g., peer review, teaching portfolios, etc.). Student (resident, fellow, trainee, junior faculty, etc.) mentoring, curriculum/course development, instructional program development, and assessment/accreditation activities should count either as teaching or service and their relative weight determined in the overall assessment. Use of Faculty Profiles, which populates the UAB Scholars site, are a possible means of documenting teaching activity. 
    2. Effectiveness in Scholarly Activity: Assessment of the diverse forms of scholarly activities follows. The relative weight of each will vary by discipline, departmental priorities, and expectations outlined for the faculty member initially in a letter of offer and subsequently as determined in annual evaluation. Use of Faculty Profiles, which populates the UAB Scholars site, are a possible means of documenting scholarly activity.
      1. Publication: Evaluation criteria of accomplishments for books, articles, manuscripts, and monographs in regard to the effectiveness of scholarly activity should be determined. Determination of the weight of other publications, such as educational work on traditional or digital media, reviews, conference proceedings/abstracts, and/or technical reports or other creative content should consider both the relative weight of peer-reviewed vs. non-peer reviewed material and potential impact (societal, discipline, etc.). Metrics for assessment of publications may include peer-reviewed status, journal impact factor, citation indices, author rank order (e.g., first author), etc. Additional guidance for metrics may be found in the UAB Libraries website as well as alternative scholarly metrics for non-traditional publications and related activities.
      2. Presentation: Evaluation criteria for scholarly presentations, both synchronous or asynchronous, may be determined based on both internal and external review of the prestige of the event/venue, audience (local, regional, national, international), keynote status, impact, etc.
      3. Extramural Funding and Sponsored Programs: Evaluation criteria of accomplishments with extramural funding, grants, contracts, etc. should be determined. Metrics vary by funding source and type, but common elements include number and/or type of grants/contracts submitted, success rate, funding awarded, and various returns on investment (teaching, research, or service outcomes; impact on the institution, discipline, or community; etc.).
      4. Intellectual Property and other Innovation & Entrepreneurial (I&E) activities: Evaluation criteria should be defined and weighted as appropriate for the faculty appointment. Common metrics may regard the quality, quantity, and/or impact of invention disclosures, patents, copyrights, small business grants, start-up company founding/funding including SBIR-STTR activities, licenses to external companies, financial return brought to university, etc.
      5. Visual and Performing Arts: Evaluation criteria of activities of faculty members in the visual and performing arts (exhibitions, concert, performances etc.) should be defined specific to the discipline. Assessment varies greatly but common elements include measures of creativity, quality, contextualization, audience (local, regional, national, international), impact, contribution to the discipline, and/or critical communication. These elements reflect peer review and dissemination.
    3. Effectiveness in Service: Service covers a wide range of activities, both intramural and extramural (Section 3.11) and may be vital to achieving UAB’s Mission. Clinical services may also be included. The unit should determine which of these activities should be included in the evaluation of service effectiveness, and their relative weight. Evidence of the level of participation, leadership, and impact are common metric elements. Use of Blazer Pulse are a possible means to documenting faculty service activities.
    4. Effectiveness in Administration: Evaluation criteria of administrative responsibilities may include achievement of defined goals, contributions to the institution, or management of resources. Evaluation of feedback from those impacted by the administrative duty is encouraged and, in some cases, required (Section 1.2.2.1.3). Unlike annual performance assessment, promotion and tenure assessments should be primarily based on academic merit, because administrative duties are entirely discretionary with the appointing administrator (See Section 2.5.3). However, where an individual being assessed has had administrative responsibilities during a period of assessment, it is appropriate to evaluate their effectiveness in carrying out those duties and to consider that evaluation in the overall assessment.
    5. Effectiveness in Institutional Commitment and Engagement: Evaluation criteria should recognize engagement in departmental, unit, and institutional goals as well as positive professional collegial relationships beneficial to the workplace environment through documentable activity and compliance to Standards of Behavior (Section 3.6). Effort associated in support of UAB Shared Values, should be considered.
  3. The process of appraisal, goal-setting, feedback, and salary adjustment are established by the unit. For example:
    1. Determination if the supervisor’s appraisal is given to the faculty member in advance of the face-to-face meeting,
    2. Criteria to be followed in setting the goals for the following period (typically a year) and if distribution of effort is incorporated into goal-setting,
    3. Verbal feedback is an important part of the evaluation process (Section 2.14). The unit should determine if an alternative to a face-to-face meeting, like virtual meetings (Internet conference, messaging, chat, phone, et), is allowed,
    4. Written documentation of the main points of the evaluation should be shared with the faculty member and archive This document should include goals for the next year and signatures by the evaluator and the faculty member,
    5. Determination of the procedure to be followed to offer the opportunity to the faculty member to include written comments/feedbacks to the evaluation, which are added to their unit’s record,
    6. Criteria used to link annual evaluation with merit salary adjustments.