FACULTY PLAN - EVALUATION
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
Effective March 1, 1998
VALUES
The School of Business and Economics values the intellectual growth and development of people. We strive to create an environment that provides students with the opportunity to consume knowledge, think, ask questions, analyze and explore problems and their solutions, and articulate their own emerging theories. Teaching and research are complementary activities and important for maintaining instructional currency; advancing understanding of organizations, business, management, and economics; and maintaining faculty vitality overall. The systematic study of organizations, business, management, and economics is important because it meets the growth and development needs of our students, advances the body of knowledge about organizations, and serves the needs of our region and society in general. Service and outreach activities extend our expertise to the academy and to our community.
We believe that a faculty member should: be a mature authority in the primary teaching field (or a well-defined subset thereof), and have satisfactory knowledge about secondary and allied fields; effectively transmit that knowledge to and develop capability in students, practitioners, and other educators at different levels of proficiency; have a broad view of business education, and serve as an effective resource and advocate for the field in curriculum, research, and outreach program development; understand the goals and objectives of the School, and be an active participant in the development and implementation of plans and programs; actively engage in research activities to increase breadth and knowledge, increase quality of education of students, and disseminate, through publication, that knowledge to students, practitioners, and other educators; and provide the academy and community with access to their expertise.
OBJECTIVES
1. Clarify the School's performance expectations in the areas of teaching, research, and service/outreach and for meeting the School's goals and objectives.
2. Improve performance or the potential for performance by identifying areas for improvement and growth.
3. Develop and maintain consistency in the criteria and standards for annual merit reviews, annual reviews of probationary faculty, and for Promotion & Tenure reviews.
4. Provide a framework for making performance-based administrative decisions.
POLICY:
Currently, the School's overall pool of merit funds is divided to be allocated 65% for teaching and service and 35% for intellectual contributions. Teaching effectiveness, intellectual contributions, and service/outreach activities of faculty members will be reviewed annually. These reviews are carried out in accordance with University of Minnesota requirements and the UEA Contract. Faculty are expected to perform at level two (2) or above in all three areas (teaching, intellectual contributions, and service/outreach).
PROCESS:
A) For Merit Review teaching information, intellectual contributions, and service/outreach activities are indicated on the annual reporting form submitted to the Dean. Teaching and service evaluations are conducted at the departmental level for recommendation to the dean; intellectual contributions are evaluated at the School level for recommendation to the dean.
B) The process for the Annual Review of Probationary Faculty is conducted in accordance with University and UEA requirements. A supplemental probationary file, containing documentation of intellectual contributions, is located in the Dean's office and is available for review by tenured faculty in the individual's department.
C) The process for Promotion and Tenure follows University of Minnesota and UEA Contract requirements.
CRITERIA AND EVIDENCE OF PERFORMANCE for ANNUAL MERIT:
Teaching:
Qualifications:
| Authority in primary teaching area. Advanced Degree and/or evidence of continuous progress, development, and maturity achieved through study (scholarship), professional experience, or both.
|
| Preparation: | Syllabi and other course materials should show evidence of how thoroughly the faculty member prepares for courses and classroom activities, and how course objectives and expectations are communicated to students.
|
| Pedagogy: | Evidence of appropriate adaptation of pedagogy to different course levels. Evidence of systematic introduction of new pedagogical elements and styles.
|
| Effectiveness: | "What" and "How much" students learn--obtained from course content given in syllabi and examinations
and by the documented collective opinions of peer observers and/or students .
|
| Documentation: | Course Evaluations are submitted as required by the UEA contract. Faculty are encouraged to create and actively update a Teaching Portfolio to facilitate the review process
|
Intellectual Contributions:
| Achievement: | Only materials/activities relevant to the faculty member's area will be considered. Single-author and appropriate collaborative efforts will be treated alike. New faculty will be given appropriate credit for work completed prior to joining UMD. If a faculty member's academic record totals less than five years, the expectations for placing that individual into one of the four performance levels will be prorated.
|
| Documentation: | Faculty submit information on an annual report form. Faculty are encouraged to create and update a Intellectual contributions Portfolio to facilitate the review process. Copies of relevant materials (publications, manuscripts, etc.) are submitted with the annual report form.
|
Service/Outreach:
| Breadth of participation: | Involvement in activities of increasing importance to the School and the University, whether internal or external. Also, instances of voluntary participation in ad hoc groups or task forces.
|
| Leadership: | Acceptance of group leadership and the achievement of the group's goals in a timely and effective manner.
|
| Citizenship: | Service to departments and colleagues.
|
| Documentation: | Faculty submit information on an annual form.
|
LEVELS AND CONSEQUENCES OF PERFORMANCE:
Teaching:
| Level 3-- truly meritorious: | Individuals placed into this category would be candidates for meritorious salary augmentations in the realm of teaching when available, if consistently placed in this category could expect to see a favorable School P&T recommendation pertaining to teaching, and should be considered as viable candidates for nomination for the University of Minnesota's Horace T. Morse award, or other campus or university-wide "outstanding" educator awards.
|
| Level 2-- solid and sound: | Individuals placed into this category would be candidates for meritorious salary augmentations in the realm of teaching when available, and if consistently placed in this category, could expect to see a favorable School P&T recommendation pertaining to teaching.
|
| Level 1-- substandard: | Placement into this category signals that the individual faculty member is in need of instructional development assistance. The department is encouraged to offer recommendations for developmental assistance. Placement into this category identifies an individual who would not qualify for annual merit monies in the realm of teaching. If consistently placed in this category, an individual would not receive a favorable vote in the School's P&T review process as it pertains to their performance in the teaching domain.
|
Intellectual Contributions:
| Level 4--high productive: | An individual placed in this category will receive four shares of merit pool dollars in the realm of intellectual contributions.
|
| Level 3--productive: | An individual placed in this category will receive three shares of merit pool dollars in the realm of intellectual contributions.
|
| Level 2--active: | Placement into this category signals that the faculty member may be in need of development. An individual placed in this category will receive one share of merit pool dollars in the realm of intellectual contributions.
|
| Level 1--substandard: | Placement into this category signals that the faculty member is in need of development. An individual placed in this category would not be eligible for any share of merit pool dollars in the realm of intellectual contributions
|
Service/Outreach:
| Level 3-- truly meritorious: | Designates a faculty member as truly an "outstandingly good organizational citizen." An individual placed in this category would be eligible for meritorious salary increase in the realm of service/outreach. If consistently placed in this category, the individual should be nominated as a candidate for outstanding campus or University service awards.
|
| Level 2-- solid and sound: | Recognizes efficient and effective involvement in institutional and professional service. An individual placed in this category would be eligible for meritorious salary increase in the realm of service/outreach. If consistently placed in this category, the individual could expect a favorable recommendation on service/outreach performance for promotion and tenure.
|
| Level 1-- substandard: | Designates substandard involvement in institutional and professional service. Individuals in this category do not qualify for merit money in the realm of service/outreach. If consistently placed in this category, the individual could expect a negative recommendation on service/outreach performance for promotion and tenure.
|
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Teaching:
| Level 3--truly meritorious: | Student-based Teaching Evaluations consistently indicate a significant number of scores greater than 84 percent on any evaluation scale. Faculty member likely engages in many teaching-enhancing activities such as mentoring of students, guiding student research activities, involvement of students in one's own research activities, high-quality in-class learning opportunities, and conducting research on teaching effectiveness and using results to guide design of learning opportunities. In determining level of effectiveness, variables such as teaching load, contact hours, availability to students, advising, preparation of course materials, and professional development are considered.
|
| Level 2--solid and sound: | Student-based Teaching Evaluations consistently indicate average scores (neither significantly high or low). Faculty member likely engages in some activities such as mentoring of students, guiding student research activities, involvement of students in one's own research activities, high-quality in-class learning opportunities, and conducting research on teaching effectiveness and using results to guide design of learning opportunities. In determining level of effectiveness, variables such as teaching load, contact hours, availability to students, advising, preparation of course materials, and professional development are considered.
|
| Level 1--substandard: | Student-based Teaching Evaluations consistently indicate a significant number of scores less than 50 percent on any evaluation scale. (e.g., students are not being provided with a challenging learning experience, adequate course organization, or out-of-class mentoring.) In determining level of effectiveness, variables such as teaching load, contact hours, availability to students, advising, preparation of course materials, and professional development are considered.
|
Intellectual Contributions:
| Level 4--high productive: | Differentiation between levels 3 and 4 depends upon: Level of achievement, number of publications.
|
| Level 3--productive: | Achievement, based on a five-year rolling total, of:
3 refereed journal articles
OR 2 refereed journal articles AND 1 additional item from Category A AND 1 additional item from Category A, B, or C.
|
| Level 2--active: | Achievement, based on a five-year rolling total, of 1 item from Category A AND 2 items from Categories A, B and/or C.
|
| Level 1--substandard: | Achievement that does not meet minimal standards for Level 2.
|
Service/Outreach:
| Level 3--truly meritorious: | Consistently high level of active participation, assumes responsibility, takes initiative (volunteers), and demonstrates leadership in a wide variety of internal and external activities of importance to the department, School, and University. Behavior and levels of involvement identify the individual as a truly outstanding organizational citizen.
|
| Level 2--solid and sound: | Demonstrates meaningful and substantive contributions, assumes responsibility, takes initiative (volunteers), and exercises leadership in activities of importance to the department and School. Frequent participation of a similar type in University activities. Occasional participation of a similar type in external activities of importance to the School.
|
| Level 1--substandard: | Participation consists of attendance only or is judged to be habitually perfunctory. No active participation, as defined for levels 2 & 3, in internal or external activities of importance to the department, School, and University.
|
INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CATEGORIES
Category A: journal articles (published or unconditionally accepted), proceedings (full paper only, not to be revised and published elsewhere), books (scholarly, text), book chapters.
Category B: cases with instructional material, instructional software and related materials, monographs, reports summarizing the results of externally funded projects, simulations, proceedings (intermediate product), abstracts in journals, ancillary materials, books reviews, conference presentations, custom-published materials, editor (book, yearbook, monograph, journal), in-house publication, SBE Working Papers, invited workshop or seminar, manuscript reviews (for a journal, conference, or book), poster session presentation, non-refereed journal article.
Category C: complete post-doctoral training program, conduct on-campus faculty development seminar, conduct local workshop or seminar, plan or participate in a conference (as a session chair, panelist), receive award or certification from professional association, submit paper for presentation or publication.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
FACULTY EVALUATION POLICY
MARCH 1, 1998
| Effective: |
Merit Review Data |
Distribution |
For FY99 (July 1, 1998)
| 97-98
| FEP97-98 Review and distribution of merit; FEP 98-99 Review and compare to 97-98
|
For FY00 (July 1, 1999)
| 97-98; 98-99
| FEP 98-99 Review and distribution of merit; Prorate two years' data
|
For FY01 (July 1, 2000)
| 97-98; 98-99; 99-00
| FEP 98-99 Review and distribution of merit; Prorate three years' data
|
For FY02 (July 1, 2001)
| 97-98; 98-99; 99-00; 00-01
| FEP 98-99 Review and distribution of merit; Prorate four years' data
|
For FY03 (July 1, 2002)
| 97-98; 98-99; 99-00; 00-01; 01-02
| FEP 98-99 Review and distribution of merit; Full five years' data
|
For FY04 (July 1, 2003)
| 98-99; 99-00; 00-01; 01-02; 02-03; Drop 97-98
| FEP 98-99 Review and distribution of merit; Full five years' data
|
For FY04 (July 1, 2004)
|
99-00; 00-01; 01-02; 02-03; 03-04; Drop 98-99
| FEP 98-99 Review and distribution of merit; Full five years' data
|
RETURN TO:SBE POLICIESPAGE
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and
employer.
Comments here ~~> 
Page Copyright: Carolyn Zanko
Last Modified:Wednesday, June 03, 1998 - 3:54:19 PM
Page URL: http://www.d.umn.edu/~czanko/fep98.html