Faculty Evaluation Training for �File Submitters

Spring 2025

Marian Bruce, Faculty Services

Colin McGill, Faculty Success

Agenda: What we will cover today

1. Overview of review process
2. Evaluation Criteria
3. Content of Review Files
4. Notes on Policy & Procedure

​

Faculty Evaluation

1: Overview

Overview: Levels of Authority in Reviews

Departmental Guidelines

Unit Guidelines (FEGs)

UAA Fac. Eval. Policies & Procedures (FEPPs)

BOR Policy & Regulations

CBA

Procedures

Criteria

Overview: Faculty Deadlines

• Before the end of the academic year contract, faculty who intend to stand for promotion and/or tenure must
• notify the dean of their intent to stand for tenure
• submit CV
• Submit the names and contact information for 2 external reviewers
• Last day of contract for AY24-25: Sat, May 10, 2025 (deadline to notify is 5pm on Monday, May 12)
• Files due September 12^th at 5pm
• Review bodies vary by type of review file (e.g., Annual vs. Promotion vs. Post-tenure)
• Optional responses from faculty under review – the CBA establishes a period for response after each level of review
• Faculty member is notified of the Chancellor’s decision by May 1.

​

​

​

Overview: Review Body Workflow

Faculty Evaluation

2: Criteria

Cover Sheet

​

​

​

• Cover sheets will be provided to you prior to the submission deadline
• Check that information on it is correct
• “Period of Review” shows what years should be included
• Faculty indicate which unit guidelines they want to use.
• Grandfathering rules on college/unit evaluation guidelines that may be used are on the UAA FEPPs page 29
• Space for your “Marked Strength”

Focus of Evaluation

• Fulfillment of Workloads (1 year past snapshots)
• Extent of professional growth & development across review period (trend)
• Prospects for continued professional growth and development (future)
• Changes or improvements required in past reviews for tenure, promotion, and continued professional growth (adjustments)
• Processes available to assist in improving performance.

Key Terms for Faculty Evaluation

• UAA FEPPs
• When preparing their files, faculty candidates are advised to
• know the descriptors for performance at their current rank
• know the descriptors at the next rank (if applicable)
• use the vocabulary of the FEPPs in their self-evaluations.
• When writing reviews, reviewers have greatest impact if they
• are expressed in the language of the FEPPs
• use that language (key terms) terms in the “Findings or Conclusions”
• avoid ambiguous terms
• “outstanding,” “remarkable,” “unlike others in the field”

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Key Terms for Faculty Evaluation

• UAA FEPPs: Key general terms
• Old “success” ⭢ new “effectiveness”
• “Evidence” of…
• accomplishments in the various components of the workload
• “sustained” or “continuing” performance
• quality & significance
• impact
• leadership
• recognition from peers or community external to UAA
• a marked strength in at least one area of workload

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Key Terms for Faculty Evaluation

• UAA FEPPs: Key terms by rank
• Assistant Professor: Evidence of…
• effectiveness in each area of workload;
• promise of continuing achievement

​

• Tenure & Promotion to Associate: Evidence of…
• sustained record of effectiveness;
• emerging recognition
• Marked strength in one area of the WL

​

• Promotion to Professor: Evidence of….
• sustained excellence;
• leadership;
• external recognition
• Marked strength in one area of the workload.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Workload-wide�Benchmarks & �Criteria in UAA FEPPs�(Handouts)

Page and paragraph numbers reference the locations in the Faculty Evaluation Policies & Procedures (FEPPs).

Component-Specific�Benchmarks & �Criteria in UAA FEPPs�(Handouts)

Page and paragraph numbers reference the locations in the Faculty Evaluation Policies & Procedures (FEPPs).

Items without references are CAS-specific

Faculty Evaluation

3: Content of Review Files

Annual Reviews

• Content (input)
• Current CV
• Annual Activity Report form
• Summary of each area of workload
• Teaching
• Service
• Research/Creative Activity (if applicable)
• Self-evaluation (more about this later)
• Other materials at the discretion of the faculty member
• E.g., materials on teaching, research, service
• more information 🡺 more feedback

​

Annual Reviews

• Feedback (output)
• Dean, Director or Designee’s evaluation of annual performance
• Is based on:
• assignments in the approved Workload
• Approved WL = signed by dean (or designee).
• allocation of effort specified in approved WL.
• There is no template or standard for distribution of effort (e.g., 3:1:1)
• WL assignments vary considerably
• Annual Activity Report (AAR) submitted by the faculty member
• Becomes part of a comprehensive file.

​

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• 4th-year Comprehensive Review
• progression toward tenure

​

• Tenure and Promotion Review

​

• Promotion Review

​

• Comprehensive Post-tenure Review

​

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• CBA provides
• a list of required documents (next slides),
• plus provision for materials…
• specified by the MAU
• UAA’s FEPPs specify some additional materials
• Limited to materials from the period under review
• specified by unit guidelines (e.g., college and department)
• added at the discretion of faculty.

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• Required contents (CBA + UAA FEPPs):
1. Current CV
2. All workloads for the period under review.
3. Annual Activity Reports
• for all years in the period under review* and
• responses from Dean (or Designee) to AARs as applicable.**
4. A Cumulative Activity Report summarizing each area of the workload across the period of review
5. Self-evaluation

​

*Files may not contain some AARs since faculty are not required to prepare/submit them if they submit a comprehensive file.

**Older AARs (circa 2013-2015) did not require a response from the Dean. See table on Faculty Svcs webpage

​

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• Required content (a drill-down):
• Notes on the Self-Evaluation
• Address each applicable area of the workload, focusing on significant contributions or achievements.
• Teaching, Service, Research/ Creative Activity
• Address professional development, e.g.,
• new technology, CAFÉ training, webinars, disciplinary development
• Articulate professional agenda or goals
• Identify and explain “marked strength”
• If prior feedback from dean, director, or designee noted areas for improvement, a summary of progress in addressing those areas must be included

​

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• Required content (CBA + UAA FEPPs continued):
6. Evidence of teaching effectiveness, including
• List of courses taught (indicate new preps)
• Representative syllabus for each course taught
• Summarized teaching evaluations for the period (more on the next slide)
• Other evidence at the discretion of the faculty member such as:
• Evaluation by peers
• Innovations in pedagogy; high-impact practices
• Evidence of student success (student accomplishments, exit tests)
• Discussion of course assessment and SLO’s (linkage of assignments & SLO’s aggregate student performance data, impact on instruction)
• Development of curriculum or revision of existing courses
• Mentorships and advising

​

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• Required content (CBA + UAA FEPPs continued):
6. Evidence of teaching effectiveness (a drill down):
• Notes on the Summarized Teaching Evaluations:
• IDEA evaluations (up to Fall 2024) were initiated for classes w/enrollment of 3 or more students.
• If too few students participate, reports may not be generated or reliable.
• If an IDEA report was generated, the overview should be included in the file.
• Starting Spring 2025, college evaluations should be included
• Faculty should note and explain any missing course evaluations
• do not need a note from Faculty Services
• Faculty may also conduct & submit alternative surveys of student satisfaction
• Faculty are responsible for demonstrating that they gather and consider student opinions.

​

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• Required content (continued):
6. Evidence of teaching effectiveness (another drill down):
• What is considered to be “teaching”?
• Partially defined by P.3 of workload.
• Instruction in regular courses (e.g., PSY A111)
• Other instructional activities as defined by page 3 of the Workload Load form, including “activities benefitting students’ academic development”
• Instructional activities also defined in UAA FEPPs, pages 13-15

​

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• Required content (CBA + UAA FEPPs continued):
7. Evidence of Research/ Creative Activity (as applicable)
• P3 of WL defines research/creative activity
• and UAA FEPPs p 15-16
• Describe products of research or creative activity
• Publications
• Grants awarded
• Performances or exhibitions
• Address progress in research/creative agenda
• Manuscripts in draft? Under review? In revision?
• Grant proposals submitted
• Performances or exhibitions scheduled

​

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• Required content (CBA + UAA FEPPs cont’d):
8. Evidence of Service
• P3 of WL defines service (and UAA FEPPs p17-19)
• Possible areas of service:
• Department
• University
• Professional (disc, regional, national)
• Public/Community
• professionally related;
• not just good citizenship
• Documentation of nature and impact of service.
• Extent of service appropriate to the type of review where higher ranks have different expectations

​

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• Required content (CBA + UAA FEPPs continued):
9. Findings and recommendations from the most recent comprehensive review (if applicable, when they fell within the period of review).

​

• Verification of degrees, certificates, or licenses
• Memo from Faculty Services saying that official transcripts are on file
• Initial letter of appointment
• only needed to document prior years of service (i.e., “credit towards tenure”)
• Other material required by unit guidelines (if applicable)
• Other materials at the discretion of the faculty member

​

​

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• Required content (CBA + UAA FEPPs continued):
14. For tenure and/or promotion only, letters from at least 2 external reviewers:
• “External” means external to the UA System
• Faculty must submit names of two external reviewers when they inform the dean of their intent to stand for review
• Dean may select up to two additional external reviewers.
• Reviewers are asked to submit letters by September 1.
• External review letters are provided to the faculty member by the Dean’s office for inclusion in the file by September 8.
• Dean provides written notice of the number of reviews requested and the number received, for inclusion in the file. External letters are annotated to indicate whether Dean or faculty member selected the reviewer.

​

​

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• Required content (CBA + UAA FEPPs continued):
14. External reviewers (a drill down):
• Reviewers might be more persuasive if they
• Have standing in the discipline
• e.g., at a higher rank than the candidate’s rank
• Do not have a close professional connection with the candidate under review.
• CBA specifies that Dean distributes CV to external reviewers by June 30.
• Faculty may want to prepare a special CV with additional information for this purpose
• Faculty member should communicate and follow up with faculty-selected reviewers

​

​

Comprehensive (multi-year) Reviews

• Post-tenure reviews: A drill down
• Assesses whether evidence shows that performance continues to meet expectations.
• Performance is satisfactory if it meets standards for the faculty member’s current rank.
• Evaluation of progress toward promotion, if applicable, is a separate judgment with separate feedback.
• No external reviews or letters of support

​

Faculty Evaluation

4: Some Policies & Procedures

File Presentation

• File must be submitted to the E-Wolf (ePortfolio) system
• Faculty will be given a cover sheet to include in the file before the submission deadline
• We recommend using the file template in ePortfolio to create your file, but this is not required
• An ePortfolio “assessment group” for each college will be created for faculty to submit to

​

​

​

​

Adding Documents

• In general, the faculty member’s file is complete at the time of submission, except for
• reviews by UAA review bodies and
• faculty responses to UAA review bodies
• At the time of a response,
• a faculty member may submit additional evidence that was not available at the time of file submission if it relates to a scholarly accomplishment previously documented in the file.
• File continues forward with additional evidence
• File does not go backward to prior review bodies so additional evidence is not seen by those bodies.

Withdrawing a Comprehensive Review File

• If a comprehensive review is initiated at the faculty member’s discretion, the file may be withdrawn at any point prior to the final level of review.
• The option to withdraw the file applies to
• Optional reviews for promotion
• Optional tenure reviews prior to mandatory year
• except when tenure & promotion review was elected instead of a 4^th Year Comprehensive Review.
• If a file is withdrawn, the faculty member must submit an annual activity report by November 1.