|
EVALUATIVE CRITERIA FOR ACADEMIC RANK | No. 8-13 | Rev. 5-11-95 |
| Date 11-12-80 | |||
I. POLICY
It shall be the policy of the University that the minimum evaluative criteria
established in this document are applicable to all academic colleges and the Library.
Except as outlined for exceptional persons or early promotions, no individual will be
advanced in rank without satisfying these minimum requirements. Individual colleges may
establish additional requirements and further delineate the items addressed in this
document.
II. CHANNELS
In order to allow for the legitimate different talents, aptitudes, preferences and
assignments of individuals as well as the needs and goals of the institution, several
equivalent channels of evaluation are made available. These channels consist of minimum
requirements and/or performance levels that must be met within four different categories
before an individual is eligible for consideration for advancement in rank. These
categories are: (1) credentials and probationary periods, (2) teaching, (3) scholarship
and (4) administration and/or professionally related service. Definitions and descriptions
of these categories are found under part IV of this policy.
The channels appropriate for evaluating a candidate for promotion from instructor to
assistant professor are as follows:
Administration
Credentials and and/or Profes-
Probationary sionally Related
Channel Periods Teaching Scholarship Service
A Satisfied Good -- Good
B Satisfied Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
C Satisfied Good Satisfactory --
D Satisfied Satisfactory Good --
The channels appropriate for evaluating a candidate for promotion from assistant
professor to associate professor are as follows:
Administration
Credentials and and/or Profes-
Probationary sionally Related
Channel Periods Teaching Scholarship Service
A Satisfied Satisfactory Good Good
B Satisfied Satisfactory Excellent Satisfactory
C Satisfied Excellent -- Good
D Satisfied Good Good Satisfactory
E Satisfied Good Satisfactory Good
Channels appropriate for evaluating a candidate for promotion from associate professor
to professor are as follows:
Administration
Credentials and and/or Profes-
Probationary sionally Related
Channel Periods Teaching Scholarship Service
A Satisfied Good Good Good
B Satisfied Good Excellent Satisfactory
C Satisfied Excellent Good Satisfactory
III. EVALUATIONS
Many items related to an individual's credentials and performance are considered to be
essential for performing at an adequate level. Such items are considered to be the base
upon which a case is built to justify promotion. Their lack is a negative factor in
promotion considerations. Examples of adequate level performance requirements include the
following:
A. Teaching a share of the more difficult or less popular courses
B. Completing a share of departmental committee assignments and other departmental
duties
C. Completing such class work, work experience, journal reading, etc. as is necessary
for maintaining credentials and keeping current in the field
D. Updating lecture notes and supplementing text material to keep courses current
E. Occasionally accepting and completing assignments at the college and University
level
F. Doing other work for which the individual was specifically hired and for which
provisions are made in assigned workload
When the candidate has achieved the minimum credentials, completed the probationary
period, applied for promotion or has been recommended for early promotion, ranking tenure
evaluation committees and other reviewers will evaluate the candidate in each of the
categories and compare the results with the standards established in each channel. To be
recommended for promotion, a candidate's evaluation in each category must meet or exceed
the standards in any one channel. Promotion shall not be attained by satisfying parts of
two or more channels. The candidate need not select any specific channel.
Some channels do not require performance in a particular category. Where a channel does
include performance, ranking tenure evaluation committees and other reviewers will
evaluate an individual's performance as (low to high) (1) unsatisfactory, (2)
satisfactory, (3) good or (4) excellent.
IV. DEFINITION OF CHANNELS
A. Credentials and Probationary Periods
1. The rank of instructor specialist is terminal. Transfer to other ranks is subject to
the normal criteria for appointment and promotion to those ranks. (See PPM 8-14, page one,
paragraph five)
2. Promotion from instructor to assistant professor
a. The master's degree, where offered, shall be required for advancement to the rank of
assistant professor. Where the master's degree is not offered in the specific discipline,
either a master's degree in a closely-related discipline or a baccalaureate degree will be
accepted upon approval of the faculty of the discipline, the chair, the dean, the provost
and the Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. Approval shall be
attained for the exception to the required degree prior to the initiation of the review
process for that academic year.
b. Four years of acceptable performance at the rank of instructor will be the minimum
probationary period unless an exception is noted at the initial time of appointment.
However, up to one year for professionally related activities can be counted toward
fulfilling this requirement.
3. Promotion from assistant professor to associate professor
a. The doctorate, where offered, shall be required for advancement to the rank of
associate professor. Where the doctorate is not offered in the discipline, either a
doctorate in a closely related discipline or a master's degree will be accepted upon
approval of the faculty of the discipline, the chair, the dean, the provost and the
Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. Approval shall be attained
for the exception to the required degree prior to the initiation of the review process for
that academic year. The following are approved exceptions to the doctorate for advancement
in rank to associate professor:
College of Health Professions
Master's degree plus current professional certification and three (3) years of work
experience.
College of Arts and Humanities
Master of Fine Arts for the disciplines of ceramics, drawing, jewelry and metals,
painting, photography, printmaking, sculpture, weaving and textiles, graphic design,
costume design, scene design, technical directing and dance.
College of Applied Science & Technology
For Business Education/Administrative Systems and Computer Science, a master's degree
plus five years of experience and appropriate certification; for Engineering Technology
and Sales and Service Technology, a master's degree plus five years of experience; for
Design Graphics and Machine Tool Technologies, a master's degree plus six years of
experience. (All degrees and experience must be in approved fields/competencies and at
appropriate levels, as outlined in the college promotion and tenure policy.)
Stewart Library
Master's degree in Library Science, or its equivalent, from a library school accredited
by the American Library Association.
b. Four years of satisfactory performance at the rank of assistant professor will be
the minimum probationary period. However, up to one year for professionally related
activities can be counted toward fulfilling this requirement.
4. Promotion from associate professor to professor
a. The doctorate, where offered, shall be required for advancement to the rank of
professor. Where the doctorate is not offered in the discipline, either a doctorate in a
closely related discipline or a master's degree will be accepted upon approval of the
faculty of the discipline, the chair, the dean, the provost and the Appointment,
Promotion, Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. Approval shall be attained for the
exception to the required degree prior to the initiation of the review process for that
academic year. The following are exceptions to the doctorate for advancement to the rank
of professor:
College of Health Professions
Health Professions faculty that obtain the rank of associate professor on or before
July 1, 1995, will have six (6) years in which to obtain the rank of full professor under
the pre-1995 criteria.*
College of Arts and Humanities
Master of Fine Arts for the disciplines of ceramics, drawing, jewelry and metals,
painting, photography, printmaking, sculpture, weaving and textiles, graphic design,
costume design, scene design, technical directing and dance.
College of Applied Science & Technology
For Business Education/Administrative Systems and Computer Science, a master's degree
plus five years of experience and
*Master's degree plus current professional certification and three (3) years of work
experience for the disciplines of Dental Hygiene, Health Sciences, Clinical Laboratory
Science, Radiologic Technology and Respiratory Therapy.
appropriate certification; for Engineering Technology and Sales and Service Technology,
a master's degree plus five years of experience; for Design Graphics and Machine Tool
Technologies, a master's degree plus six years of experience. (All degrees and experience
must be in approved fields/competencies and at appropriate levels, as outlined in the
college promotion and tenure policy.)
Stewart Library
Master's degree in Library Science, or its equivalent, from a library school accredited
by the American Library Association.
b. Five years of satisfactory performance at the rank of associate professor will be
the minimum probationary period. However, up to one year for professionally related
activities can be counted toward fulfilling this requirement.
NOTE: Exceptional candidates who have not completed the appropriate probationary period
shall also be eligible for consideration for advancement in rank as provided for in PPM
8-12.
B. Teaching
Teaching is defined as instruction conducted under the auspices of Weber State
University. This category includes formal classroom instruction and student activities
directly related to classroom instruction including supervision of laboratory activities,
research projects, co-op education and course-related field trips. This category also
includes the preparation and use of teaching materials such as course syllabi and other
materials intended for instructional use.
It shall be the responsibility of the candidate and department to provide evidence of
successful teaching experiences; therefore, teaching performance shall be evaluated by
students, peers and appropriate administrators. Two or more teaching evaluations must be
completed in each year of the candidate's probationary period. The evaluations shall
include department or college-wide comparisons. (See PPM 8-11)
To be evaluated in the teaching category and to have the year count towards the
probationary period, a candidate must teach a minimum of 12 hours or its equivalent as
determined by the department chair and the dean. However, up to one year for
professionally related activities can be counted toward fulfilling this requirement.
Equivalency for the Library will be determined by the director of the Library and the
provost.
C. Scholarship
The scholarship category includes the following types of activities (the listing is not
intended to be exhaustive).
1. Publications, i.e., books and/or publications in refereed regional or national
journals.
2. Formal, post-graduate education or work experience beyond the attainment of the
terminal degree.
3. Development of new areas of expertise which are of benefit to both the candidate and
the department.
4. Development of new courses and/or programs within a college as well as significant
modifications of existing courses or programs.
5. Presentation of professional papers at regional or national scholarly meetings.
6. Funded research and/or grants at a regional or national level.
7. Creative activities that significantly impact the appropriate discipline on a
regional and national level.
8. Organizing and presentation of regional and/or national workshops for one's peers.
9. Development of technically oriented improvements or inventions that have a
significant impact at the regional and/or national level.
10. Other evidence that indicates that the candidate is recognized for scholarly
contributions.
NOTE: It should not be assumed that listing several different possibilities in this
category implies that an individual should address all or even several of them. An
excellent job of publication could very well be sufficient for a rating of
"excellent" in this category. Likewise, a good job in each of several areas
could result in an overall rating of excellent. Quality and quantity of effort and the
results obtained are the standards of measure.
Final determination of which items in this category are of primary importance,
secondary importance and so forth will be left to individual colleges with the exception
that publication will be an item of primary importance in all colleges.
D. Administration and/or Professionally related Service
Types of activities relating to this area are as follows:
1. Professionally related community service
2. Speech making in the area of the candidate's expertise
3. Consulting and/or work experience
4. Committee work
5. Participation in projects relating to the operation of the department, college and
University
6. Membership in professional societies and attendance at professional meetings and
similar activities that enhance the reputation of the individual and the college
7. Assumption of offices or administrative positions within professional societies
8. Performance as a department chair or director of a major program area
9. Student advisement activities which assist students in achieving their educational
potential
No requirement is included or intended to the effect that an individual must address
more than one item within this category. In particular, no special emphasis is placed on
University committee work as opposed to other items listed above. Heavy concentration in a
single area might be evaluated the same as moderate concentration in several. Quality and
quantity of effort and the results obtained are the standards of measure. For candidates
who are submitting evidence of administrative and/or professionally related service, it
should be noted that the emphasis should be on the quality of the service and not on the
level of the service. Active committee service which is of high quality, whether it is on
the department, college or University level, or if it is outside of the University and
related to the professional role of the candidate, should count toward advancement in
rank.
It shall be the responsibility of the candidate to provide evidence of successful
administrative and/or professionally-related service. Therefore, it is recommended that
ongoing evaluation be made concerning the candidate's service.
V. STANDARDS OF EVALUATION
Positive evaluations should be based on evidence to support such an evaluation.
Consequently, each candidate is responsible for maintaining a complete and up-to-date
file. A file containing insufficient supportive evidence may be considered as grounds for
a low rating.
The type of evidence in a file is also of concern. The more concrete the evidence, the
more weight evaluators should give it. Thus, an expressed opinion that someone is an
excellent teacher when not accompanied by any indication that an evaluation was actually
conducted would not normally be weighted as heavily as the same recommendation from a
formal evaluation. Individuals, departments or colleges that refuse to utilize evaluations
which distinguish among faculty should realize that they are handicapping candidates.
Listed in several of the categories are areas of endeavor which would normally be
considered as evidence of achievement, but may not, in some instances, be regarded as
satisfying criteria for advancement in rank. For example, consulting and work experience
would usually be considered as beneficial activities. The burden of proof is on the
candidate to justify that consulting and/or work experience is of positive benefit.
Similarly, not all work beyond the attainment of necessary credentials is automatically
of benefit to individuals in their jobs. Community service, if not professionally related,
would not normally be considered. Neither committee membership nor administrative
positions in and of themselves should be given much consideration. Performance within the
position is what evaluators should consider. In all questionable cases, the burden of
proof lies with the candidate.
To facilitate obtaining concrete evidence, it is stipulated that departments should
complete, at least annually, teaching evaluations and include them, along with
departmental college comparisons, in the candidate's file. It is further recommended that
chairs of University committees submit annual reports so that individuals' contributions
can be noted and placed in their files. The chair of the Faculty Senate shall evaluate the
chairs of Senate committees, note their contributions, and place these evaluations in
their files.
The performance of department chairs may be evaluated. Such evaluation would normally
be made by the immediate superior of the individual but would not have to be restricted to
that individual. Items that should be addressed are whether or not the candidate
accomplished (and to what extent) one or more of the following:
A. Improved working conditions
B. Provided a stimulating intellectual climate
C. Procured and allocated resources in an adequate and just fashion
D. Completed routine duties and assignments
Some leeway is afforded in the final determination of the importance of many activities
within individual colleges and departments. Each college and department should prepare,
and have approved by the Faculty Senate, a document further delineating what relative
importance should be placed on items within a category. Such documents may be more
stringent than the general requirements within this document but they may not be less. In
particular, publication and research must be items of primary importance within the
scholarship category. Other items may also be considered to be of primary importance but
need not be.
Standards set by individual colleges and departments should conform to the following
philosophy: Each case is to be considered on its own merits, with quality and level of
productivity being the major criteria for judging performance. It is generally understood
that, lacking evidence to the contrary, achievements (speeches, publication, service,
etc.) at the national level should be judged as being more important than that at the
regional level and that participation at the regional level should be judged as being more
important than that at the local level. Work at the University level is more important
than at the college level and so forth.
Publications which are subject to formal acceptance processes and editorial review will
normally be considered more favorably than those that are not. Likewise, publications
arising from research will normally be considered more favorably than those which did not.
Evaluations should take into account the quality of journals, the impact of articles or
textbooks on the field, the length of the work and so forth.
In cases in which there is a particular benefit to the department derived from a
candidate's having obtained additional credentials, such work will be judged positively.
Some effort is expected in terms of maintenance. Therefore, judgments will be made as to
whether or not such work is beyond maintenance. Furthermore, not all work serves to
improve credentials to any great degree. In addition, judgments will be made as to the
degree to which the University supported the attainment of improved or additional
credentials. Work done entirely on one's own will be viewed more favorably than work
supported in whole or in part by the University.
Courses or programs developed or revised by an individual or individuals will be
evaluated in terms of the effort required and the benefit to the University. A useful
course which is innovative in a field will be considered more favorably than courses
having definite models at other institutions.
Presentations of papers at scholarly meetings is encouraged and considered to be
worthwhile. However, formal publication will normally be considered as being preferable.
Funded research/grants will be judged in terms of the worth of the project to the
University or profession, the type of grant and so forth. Innovative projects that would
not be funded except for the excellence of the proposal will be considered more favorably
than solicited proposals for which funding is more or less automatic.
When making final evaluations for promotion, individuals and ranking tenure evaluation
committees should address a candidate's performance throughout the probationary period. A
candidate does not necessarily have to address each category within a specific channel
each year. For example, one year a candidate might perform heavily in the administrative
area and in another might engage mostly in teaching and research.
Special attention should be given to improvements in performance. Candidates should
exhibit the required levels of performance over a long enough period of time that it is
reasonable to expect continued performance at or above such levels. However, performance
during the entire probationary period, particularly during the early part, does not
necessarily have to meet or exceed the designated performance levels.
Descriptions and Clarifications of Ratings
Unsatisfactory
Teaching Candidates shall be rated unsatisfactory if they are consistently rated by
students and peers as inadequate relative to other faculty members and/or make no effort
to develop new materials, new methods or other innovative techniques to improve their
teaching performance.
Scholarship Candidates shall be rated unsatisfactory if they have no publications
and/or have made no visible effort to write for publication. A college may elect to
substitute equivalent activities in lieu of regional or national refereed publications. No
record of completing a formal education program or a work experience which would help the
candidate keep current in the discipline would also be viewed negatively, as would no
evidence of presenting papers, making speeches, developing courses and/or programs, or
writing grants in the area of expertise.
Administration and/or Candidates shall be rated unsatisfactory in service
Professionally Related if they unreasonably decline to participate on Service
departmental, college, or University committees, task forces, or advisory groups when
asked. Refusal to serve in any capacity in their professions and/or being passive in
interest and action in any of the above shall also be viewed negatively.
Candidates shall be rated unsatisfactory in administration if they fail to perform
routine duties in an acceptable manner and are consistently rated by their immediate
superiors and subordinates as unsatisfactory.
Satisfactory
Teaching Candidates shall be rated satisfactory if they are consistently rated by
students and peers as satisfactory relative to other faculty members and provide evidence
of having occasionally developed new materials, new methods or other innovative techniques
to improve their teaching performance.
Scholarship Candidates may be rated satisfactory when they provide evidence of writing
and/or publication. A college may elect to substitute equivalent activities in lieu of
regional or national refereed publications. Evidence of candidates' completing some formal
education and/or work experience which would support their keeping current in the
discipline should be viewed as positive. Evidence of having presented papers, delivered
speeches, written grant proposals, etc., shall be viewed positively. A positive rating in
all of the indicated activities should not be necessary to receive a satisfactory rating
in this area.
Administration and/or Candidates shall be rated satisfactory in service
Professionally Related if they accept and perform in an acceptable manner Service those
duties constituting an average share of the work load in the department, college,
University or academic community.
Candidates shall be rated satisfactory in administration if they perform routine duties
in an acceptable manner and are consistently rated satisfactory by their immediate
superiors and subordinates.
Good
Teaching Candidates shall be rated good if they are consistently rated by students and
peers as good relative to other faculty members and provide evidence of having often
developed new materials, new methods or other innovative techniques to improve their
teaching performance.
Scholarship Candidates may be rated good if they provide evidence of a regional and/or
national refereed publication since the date of their last promotion.
A college may elect to substitute an equivalent activity in lieu of a regional or
national refereed publication. A partial listing of equivalent activities that a
candidate, department and college may wish to consider can be found in PPM 8-13, part
IV.C. However, in the cases of equivalent activities, it will be the responsibility of the
candidate, department and college to provide evidence that the particular activity is
equivalent to a regional or national refereed publication.
Administration and/or Candidates shall be rated good in service if
Professionally Related their leadership within the department, college Service
University or academic community is recognized as stronger than average or if their
influence in the development and/or implementation of new curricula, new programs,
improved operations or organizational changes is recognized as considerably above average.
Candidates shall be rated good in administration if they set ambitious goals and achieve many of them. Candidates should also be consistently rated as good by their immediate superiors and subordinates in improving environmental conditions, stimulating a positive intellectual climate and procuring and allocating resources competently.
Excellent
Teaching Candidates shall be rated excellent if they are consistently rated as
excellent by students and peers relative to other faculty members and provide evidence
that they are continually developing new methods, new materials or other innovative
techniques to improve their teaching performance.
Scholarship Candidates will normally be rated excellent if they provide evidence of
more than one refereed publication at the regional and/or national levels since the date
of their last promotion. A college may elect to substitute equivalent activities in lieu
of regional or national refereed publications. A partial listing of the equivalent
activities that a candidate, department, and college may wish to consider can be found in
PPM 8-13, part IV.C. However, in the case of equivalent activities, it will be the
responsibility of the candidate, department and college to provide evidence that the
particular activity is equivalent to regional or national refereed publications.
Administration and/or Candidates shall be rated excellent in service if Professionally
Related they provide leadership within the department, Service college, University or
academic community, on a major project, committee or activity in which their work
significantly influenced development and/or implementation of new curricula, new programs,
improved operations or organizational changes. The candidate's being recognized locally,
regionally and/or nationally for work in extra University activities usually serving in a
working position of leadership in appropriate associations and organizations is evidence
of significant service work in the academic community.
Candidates may be rated excellent in administration if they set ambitious goals and achieve most of them. Candidates should also consistently be rated excellent by their immediate superiors and subordinates in improving environmental conditions, stimulating a positive intellectual climate, procuring and allocating resources competently and facilitating the operation of the organization in setting up and achieving objectives.