College of Nursing

Faculty Evaluation

 

Policy Title: Faculty Annual Performance Evaluations (Administrative Review)

Effective Date: Winter, 2007

Policy

The plan outlined here refers to the College annual performance evaluation administrative reviews for tenure track and non-tenure track faculty members. This does not take the place of the reviews of tenure track faculty members by the ATP Committee for evaluation of progress toward tenure. Faculty members on the Non-Tenure Track (full time and adjunct) and the Tenure Track are included in this policy and procedure.

The philosophy behind these review processes is grounded in values of faculty development and continuous improvement in the achievement of the mission and goals of the College of Nursing. Annual performance evaluation reviews provide an opportunity for faculty members to work with the appropriate associate dean and the Dean in assessing performance, identifying ongoing needs for development as related to achieving the mission and goals of the College of Nursing and the individual faculty member's goals as related to the College. The process is designed to be as simple as possible while still providing meaningful and reliable data for assessing performance and planning for the future. This process is part of an overall College orientation to measurable outcomes, continuous improvement, and lifelong learning. The College of Nursing is an academic institution, embedded within the values and framework of a larger University and University system. Therefore, faculty support learning from past behavior and accomplishments, and working in partnership with the College's administration to identify goals and the types of support that might be available to make improvements in the future.

With the University of Missouri-St. Louis mission as a land grant, research intensive university, faculty believe it is appropriate to focus on excellence and scholarship in each aspect of faculty work, whether it be teaching, research, or service. Boyer's (1990; 1996) characterization of different forms of scholarship provides an organizing framework from which examples of scholarship related to teaching, research, and service are drawn in the text below.

Procedure:

Non-Tenure Track Faculty Members

  1. Non-tenure track (teaching and clinical) faculty members are evaluated annually, on a calendar year basis, prior to the issuance of a contract for the next academic year. This evaluation, conducted t by the person to whom they report (Associate Dean for the Undergraduate Program or the Associate Dean for Advanced Nursing Education, is a time for faculty to present their accomplishments for the previous academic year, and discuss goals,activities, and tentative teaching assignments for the upcoming academic year.
  2. In anticipation of the evaluation conference, faculty members should submit the following documents to the appropriate associate dean by the stated deadline.
    1. The FAS posted by the University system;
    2. A written self evaluation, including how goals for the past year were met;
    3. A statement of goals and activities for the upcoming year;
    4. Letters from the course coordinators of courses in which the faculty member teaches;
    5. Summaries of student evaluations for the courses taught by the faculty member during the year being evaluated;
    6. Other documents deemed by the faculty member to be pertinent - such as statements from clinical sites where faculty member has worked in the past academic year, letters from faculty participating in the course taught by the faculty member being evaluated, letters from mentees or precepted students from the calendar year of the evaluation, letters from committee members who have served with the faculty member, etc.

Criteria for evaluation- Faculty members are expected to show evidence of having met 3 or more of the following from each of the two categories (teaching and service).

  1. Teaching:
    1. Average of 3.5 or better (on a 4 point scale) on at least 60% of the items on the student evaluations. In courses in which fewer than five students respond, this criterion will not be included.
    2. Rigorous teaching and high expectations of students as evidenced by statements in the syllabus;
    3. Positive comments from other faculty teaching in the course - adjunct, non-tenured, full or part time, clinical or lab faculty;
    4. Evidence of integration of research into best practices included in courses;
    5. Peer evaluation if required or requested by faculty;
    6. Developer or co-developer of a new course or significant restructuring of an existing course;
    7. Mentoring of new faculty;
    8. Attendance at seminars and/or workshops for CEUs; and,
    9. Maintenance of national certification in specialty area or advanced practice.
  1. Service:
    1. 2 or more committee memberships - College, University or system;
    2. Volunteering to serve on ad hoc committees or task forces as needed or requested by college administration;
    3. Attendance at faculty meetings as class schedule permits;
    4. Faculty advisor to student organizations;
    5. Officer or board member, or active member of international, national, state, and /or local professional organizations;
    6. Attendance at several College and/or University functions - graduations, open houses, receptions, award ceremonies, etc. over and above the University requirement of attendance at one commencement ceremony annually.

Date for submission to appropriate associate dean: February 1 of each year for the prior calendar year.

To be included in Administrative Evaluation of Faculty:

  1. Comments on teaching, based on student evaluations and faculty self-report, and/or peer review. If faculty being reviewed is faculty of record, should include comments from other course members;
  2. Comments on service - based on committee letters, clinical site letters, etc.;
  3. Comments generally on leadership, team building, attitude; and,
  4. Comments on clinical scholarship, if deemed appropriate by faculty and appropriate associate dean.

Information from the submitted documents and the evaluation conference between faculty and the appropriate associate dean shall be submitted to the Dean by March 15. The Dean will determine if a new contract is to be offered and will send letters of intent by April 15. Contracts containing salaries will be mailed as early as possible in the summer, but no later than mid-July depending on the University guidelines for timing of contracts. Salary determinations will be based on University salary guidelines for the year.

Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty Members

  1. Faculty members receive annual performance evaluation administrative review, covering the period from 4/1-3/31 by the Dean. This is a time to present their accomplishments for the previous academic year, and discuss their goals for the upcoming academic year. This process is separate from the review for progress toward tenure by the Appointment, Tenure and Promotion Committee which is conducted during the same time period.
  2. In anticipation of the annual performance evaluation administrative review, faculty members should submit the following by the deadline to be determined:
    1. The FAS report posted on the University system
    2. A written self evaluation, including how goals from the previous academic year were met
    3. A statement of goals for the upcoming academic year
    4. A statement of how goals from the previous evaluation period have been met
    5. Any other supporting documents the faculty deem pertinent to the evaluation process, such as listings of articles submitted, in press, or not yet in press but accepted, listings of grants in process but not yet granted, etc.

 Criteria for evaluation - Faculty members are expected to show evidence of 3 or more from each of the following categories:

  1. Teaching
    1. Average of 3.5 or better (on a 4 point scale) on at least 60% of the items on the student evaluations. In courses in which fewer than five students respond, this criterion will not be included.
    2. Rigorous teaching and high expectations of students as evidenced by statements in the syllabus;
    3. Positive comments from other faculty teaching in the course - adjunct, non-tenured, full or part time, clinical or lab faculty;
    4. Evidence of integration of research into best practices included in courses;
    5. Peer evaluation if required or requested by faculty;
    6. Developer or co-developer of a new course or significant restructuring of an existing course;
    7. Mentoring of new faculty;
    8. Attendance at seminars and/or workshops for CEUs; and,
    9. Maintenance of national certification in specialty area or advanced practice.
  1. Research
    1. Presentation at national conferences on area of expertise;
    2. At least one publication in refereed journal;
    3. Authored or edited textbook chapter;
    4. Served as manuscript reviewer or member of editorial board for journal;
    5. Submitted or published scholarly papers (at least one per year is expected for all tenured and tenure track faculty members);
    6. Sought or obtained external and/or internal funding for education or research; and,
    7. Presented at an international, national, state or local conference or meeting where a publication is a direct result of the presentation. 
  1. Service
    1. Member, chair or board member of professional organization;
    2. Involvement in international, state, and local professional organizations; and,
    3. Membership on one College and one University committee (adjustments should be made for service requirements for tenure-track faculty).

Date for submission to the Dean - April 1 of each year.
To be included in the performance evaluation documents -

  • Comments on teaching, based on student evaluations and faculty self-report, and/or peer review;
  • Comments on scholarship - based on self-report of articles, chapters, books, grants, etc. received or in progress;
  • Comments on service - based on committee letters, etc.; and,
  • Comments generally on leadership, team building, attitude.

Adjunct Clinical Faculty

Evaluation of Clinical Adjunct Faculty

The evaluation will focus only on the adjunct faculty member's area of responsibility which normally will be teaching.

  • Evaluation of adjunct faculty shall occur at the end of each semester or each year for adjunct faculty members teaching more than one semester.
  • The appropriate associate dean and the faculty of record for the course shall conduct the evaluation.
  • Evaluation shall use student clinical evaluation data, plus information from clinical site as available.
  • Forms will be provided for clinical site personnel to evaluate adjunct clinical teaching faculty.
  • Forms will be provided for adjunct faculty members to complete that will include self-report on clinical skills and clinical teaching ability.
  • Forms will be provided for adjunct faculty members to evaluate the faculty of record for the course.

Procedure for Requesting A Rating of Outstanding on the Annual Administrative Evaluation

In those cases where a faculty member believes his or her performance in the prior calendar year to be outstanding, that individual may request consideration for a rating of "Outstanding" on the Annual Administrative evaluation. The Dean will review the request and make the determination for faculty members requesting a rating of "Outstanding". The request should include documentation of how the faculty member exceeded the goals established in the prior year's evaluation conference. Faculty should submit a table listing their agreed upon goals from the prior year and the specific ways in which they exceeded those goals.

Documentation to support a request for a rating of "Outstanding" on the administrative evaluation- In addition to submitting the FAS, and a progress report indicating how the faculty member met the goals and activities for the past year, those requesting consideration for an "Outstanding" rating should submit a letter indicating in measurable terms how they exceeded the goals and expectations agreed upon for the year. This may be done in tabular format as described above. The following examples are provided as a guide. In general, it is expected that three or more such accomplishments are required to justify an outstanding rating, although exceptions may be made if a faculty member provides sufficient justification for outstanding performance with fewer outcomes. Examples:

1. Non- tenure track faculty members

  1. Evidence of scholarly presentations - poster, abstract
  2. Participation in evidence-based clinical projects
  3. One or more publications in a refereed journal
  4. Nominated for or received award or recognition for meritorious teaching
  5. Participation in clinical research projects
  6. Received external funding for evidence-based clinical or educational research projects
  7. Podium presentation at local, state, national or international conference
  8. Participation in internally or externally funded projects of other types, such as demonstration grants, new initiatives, community-engaged scholarship or some other initiative reflecting the scholarship of application, teaching, or engagement" (Boyer, 1996).
  1. Tenure Track Assistant Professors
    1. More than one internal or external grant application submitted or funded per year
    2. More than one data-based manuscript published per year
    3. If an NP - practicing and conducting research with students at the same site 
  1. Tenured Associate Professors and Professors -
    1. More than one external grant submitted or funded per year
    2. More than one data-based manuscript published per year
    3. Service on IRB Committee for University that was not already part of one's assignment
    4. Appointment to a state or federal commission
    5. Appointment as editor of peer-reviewed and top-tier journal
    6. If an NP - conducting practice and research activities with students in a clinical site
International research involvement resulting in data based publication or publications
 
Rationale

To ensure that faculty evaluations are tools for growth and development and that faculty accomplishments are appropriately recognized.

Related Procedures

See student course evaluation forms and Faculty Activity System procedures.

Policy is __ ___ New __ XX ____ Revised

Policy developed by: Task Force on Faculty Evaluation Date: 3/16/07

Provided to Faculty Association Date: 3/22/07

Revised Date: 10/14/11