Faculty Handbook Appendix D - Recommended Guidelines for Annual Faculty Evaluation

Faculty Handbook Appendix D - Recommended Guidelines for Annual Faculty Evaluation

This set of guidelines helps to identify details of an effective evaluation and to facilitate the development of annual faculty evaluation policies.
Effective Date:
Responsible Party:
None Assigned
Administrative Category:
Applies To:
Material Original Source:

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 “non-regular” 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 his or her 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:
a.      Evaluator request for information,
b.     Submission deadline for information from faculty member,
c.      Reasonable timeframe for the review meeting between the evaluator and faculty member,
d.     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)
1)     A comprehensive evaluation should include:
a.      Reporting of accomplishments,
b.     Consideration of areas for improvement,
c.      A comparison of performance versus previous years,
d.     Both self-appraisal (if required) and appraisal by the evaluator,
e.      Discussion of obstacles and opportunities affecting attainment of goals,
f.      Goal setting for following year.

V. Content/Assessment

1)     The Faculty Handbook states effectiveness in teaching, scholarly activities, and service are to be evaluated. The unit should determine if clinical activities are included.
2)     The units should establish appropriate activities in each area and how each activity will be objectively evaluated. For example:
a.      Measures beyond the student evaluation of instruction (IDEA or other evaluation methods) to be considered in the area of teaching effectiveness. If student mentoring, curriculum/course development, instructional program development, and assessment/accreditation activities should count as teaching or service and their relative weight in the overall assessment,
b.     Evaluation criteria of accomplishments such as extramural funding, books, articles, manuscripts, and performances in scholarly activity. If other publications, such as education publications, reviews, conference proceedings/abstracts and/or technical reports are considered. Relative weight of peer-reviewed vs. non-peer reviewed material. Evaluation criteria of intellectual property development (invention disclosures, patents, etc.). Evaluation criteria of activities of faculty members in the visual and performing arts (exhibitions, concert, performances etc.),
c.      Service covers a wide range of activities, both intramural and extramural (Section 3.11). The unit should determine which of these activities should be included in the evaluation of service effectiveness, and their relative weight,
d.     Evaluation criteria of administrative responsibilities,
e.      Evaluation criteria to recognize engagement in departmental, unit, and institutional goals as well as positive professional collegial relationships beneficial to the workplace environment. 
3)     The process of appraisal, goal-setting, feedback, and salary adjustment are established by the unit. For example:
a.      Determination if the supervisor’s appraisal is given to the faculty member in advance of the face-to-face meeting,
b.     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,
c.      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, etc.), is allowed,
d.     Written documentation of the main points of the evaluation should be shared with the faculty member and archived. This document should include goals for the next year and signatures by the evaluator and the faculty member,
e.      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 his/her unit’s record,
f.      Criteria used to link annual evaluation with merit salary adjustments.