Faculty Development Policies (from the Revised July 2005 Faculty Handbook):
3.02. Faculty Development Policies
Operating policies for faculty development programs were devised by the Faculty Development Committee, approved by the faculty as a whole and promulgated by the Office of the Dean on September 23, 1981: Subsequently, the faculty on April 6, 1999, approved a plan for career-long faculty development, which is incorporated into this section.
3.02.1. Career-Long Faculty Development
The College of Liberal Arts actively encourages the professional development of its faculty members throughout their careers. The College supports faculty initiatives that facilitate the learning of students and that enhance their effectiveness as instructors, scholars, and citizens of the College and University communities. The principal components of its ongoing program of faculty development reside in a comprehensive plan of faculty goal-setting, and a recurring periodic review of success in accomplishing goals. The reviews occur in the first, second, fourth, and sixth year of service of probationary faculty members, and every five years thereafter. The program is entirely separate and distinct from reviews conducted with respect to promotion in rank and advancement to appointments on continuous tenure. The process functions as follows:
1. On or before January 31 of the first year of service of a non-tenured faculty member, and on or before November 30 during subsequent years of service for faculty members scheduled to participate in the process, faculty members will complete and submit to their department chairs portfolios known as “Faculty Development Profiles.” These portfolios will contain materials documenting faculty work in the three domains of teaching, scholarly and creative effort, and service. The three sections are respectively entitled the Teaching Profile, the Scholarship Profile, and the Citizenship [Service] Profile. The full Profile must contain a narrative report of individual effort during the review period, and an updated curriculum vitae. Each of the constituent Sub-profiles will offer its own appropriate material, as negotiated between the faculty member and the department Chair. The intent is to obtain as comprehensive and fair a body of evidence as may be helpful.
a. The Teaching Profile must include, but is not limited to: statement of teaching responsibilities, statement of teaching philosophy, detailed and representative course syllabi, statements of long- and short-term teaching goals, evidence of student learning, and tabulated results of common student opinion questions (see below). Optional are samples of examinations, evidence of student learning, evidence of excellence in academic advising, statements of teaching philosophy, reports of peer evaluations based on observation. Back to top
b. The Scholarship Profile seeks primarily to document maintenance of currency in the discipline. It must contain a statement of long- and short-term scholarly goals referencing adequate preparation, use of appropriate methods, significant results, effective presentation, reflective critique of ones work. Optional material could comprehend copies of papers presented; publications; works created, exhibited, directed, or performed; indications of activity in any of the “four scholarships” — discovery, teaching, application, integration. Back to top
c. The Citizenship [Service] Profile must include a statement of long- and short-term service goals, and a documentation of useful contributions through work on departmental, College and University committees. It may incorporate evidence of such things as fruitful contributions to boards, colloquia, work as a Chair, fund raiser, adviser to campus organizations, officer of professional bodies, and service to the Macon community where such service involves professional expertise. Back to top
Every Teaching component of the Faculty Development Profile will also include tabulated results from employment of the form recording Student Perceptions of Teaching (see form following this section). This form is one of several measurements that will help define faculty performance objectives; its usefulness will be determined in part by its congruence with other evaluative data. It is not, by itself, determinative: rather, its usefulness originates in its congruence, or non-congruence, with other data points. By action of the faculty in May of 1978, all faculty members must conduct student evaluations in a majority of their courses each year. In addition to any other instruments that a faculty member, department, or program may choose to employ to measure student course evaluations, the Student Perceptions of Teaching Form must be used in a majority of each faculty member’s courses each year. These may be used in the reviews of untenured faculty members, in the evaluation of untenured faculty members by the Advisory Committee on Faculty Tenure, and in the assessment of faculty members by the Advisory Committee on Faculty Promotions at the discretion of the faculty member.
Distribution, Collection Process. At the end of the term, the instructor will allow class time to collect student perceptions of teaching. Alternative methods, including web-based formats, are permissible so long as they maintain student confidentiality and do not involve faculty oversight.
It is important to emphasize that the common questions on the student perception form will constitute only a small part of the material submitted in the course of the review. During the scheduled review process, the department Chair may compare an individual’s results to results for department averages as a whole and discuss/report general trends. Only the Chair or Program Director having oversight of the course and the faculty member will have access to the raw numbers (including individual student responses, and class averages). After review by the Chair, the forms, the raw numbers, and the averages per course remain the property of the individual faculty member.
2. Upon reviewing the faculty member’s Development Profile, the Chair will send to that faculty member a written assessment of the accomplishments during the period of service under consideration, and make arrangements for a discussion of this assessment.
3. In their conversation, the Chair and the faculty member will employ the results of the Faculty Development Profile and the Chair’s review of it to establish development objectives for the next work cycle. A written summary of these will be forwarded to the Dean for further review. Upon being approved by the Dean, these objectives detail the plan for faculty growth and development for the ensuing period of service. This plan can be changed only by mutual consent, and any changes must be recorded in writing.
4. At their option, faculty members may invite additional faculty colleagues to examine their Faculty Development Profiles and share in the review process. They may also meet with the Dean to confer about performance and development matters.
5. Department Chairs under review must, in consultation with the Dean, identify a third colleague from the College faculty who will serve as reviewer.
Faculty Performance Evaluation (from the Revised July 2005 Faculty Handbook):
II. Mid-term Review of Faculty
The process for a mid-term review of untenured faculty members, approved by the faculty on May 10, 1988, is as follows:
In the fourth year of the probationary period (two years before review for tenure), the untenured faculty member and the Department Chair should conduct a mid-term review. This review process should include a self-evaluation, a Chair's evaluation, and, at the option of the faculty member, a peer review of teaching. The Advisory Committee on Faculty Tenure suggests the following guidelines for this review process. (Any materials generated by this review process are solely the property of the faculty member and may be retained for possible submission to the Tenure Committee at the time of formal application for tenure). In addition to the fourth-year review, faculty members on tenure track are expected to have discussions of their performance with their department chairs in the spring of the first year of appointment. A more formal review, including the preparation of a portfolio and discussion with the Dean, is expected in the spring of the second year of appointment.
In instances of appointments with credit towards tenure because of service elsewhere, the candidate, the department chair, and the Dean will arrange an appropriate schedule of pre-tenure reviews. Back to top
(Added by the Dean to reflect current practice, June 2005)
A. Self-evaluation
In the tenure review process, it will be incumbent on the candidate to make a strong case for tenure, based on specific achievements and clear evidence of potential. As preparation for the formal tenure review, the mid-term review should provide an opportunity for self-reflection and a candid appraisal of accomplishment and development during the probationary period. In the spring of the fourth year of the probationary period the candidate should submit a written report to the Department Chair. This report should address the following areas:
1. Teaching, including accomplishments, strengths and weaknesses, personal philosophy and methodology of teaching, and a summary of and response to student evaluations;
2. Professional development, including interests, accomplishments, and plans for future development (as scholar, artist, performer, researcher, teacher, community activist, etc.);
3. Contributions to Mercer, including contributions both to departmental and College-wide programs and processes, priorities for the future, and particular strengths brought to this collegial role, as well as contributions to the larger community in the role of Mercer faculty member;
4. Areas for improvement, including a response to any previous recommendations for improvement from the Chair or Dean. Back to top
B. Chair's Evaluation
In order to foster continuing professional development, the mid-term review should provide untenured faculty members with more constructive criticism than is normally part of informal annual evaluations. In light of earlier evaluations, this is an appropriate time for a realistic assessment of progress and success, as well as for focusing on areas needing improvement. This process should also help the Chair develop support for a later tenure recommendation to the Committee.
The Chair should respond to the faculty member's self-evaluation and should particularly consider teaching, professional development, contributions to College-wide programs, non-teaching responsibilities, and community service. The Chair's evaluation of teaching should also entail class (and laboratory) visits and examination of course materials and summaries of student evaluations. The Chair should discuss the overall mid-term review with the faculty member and give the candidate a written evaluation that includes specific recommendations for the remainder of the probationary period. Back to top
C. Peer Review of Teaching
Excellence in teaching is considered an especially important qualification for tenure. Thus, it is crucial that probationary faculty members have adequate opportunities for their teaching to be constructively reviewed by their Department Chairs and peers. Colleagues with whom one team teaches, colleagues who audit a course, and colleagues who are invited to visit classes provide informal opportunities for such review and critique. In the tenure review process, letters of evaluation from colleagues who have direct knowledge of the candidate's philosophy of education, pedagogical skills, and teaching effectiveness offer particularly valuable support for the candidate's application for tenure.
In some instances, the candidate or the Department Chair may conclude that a more formal peer review process is advisable as part of the mid-term review. A mid-term peer review of teaching could enable the candidate to assess areas of weakness and develop means of addressing them. It could also help confirm and document areas of strength. In such cases, the candidate and the Chair would invite a colleague to observe the candidate's teaching during the year. It would be essential that they select an experienced and objective faculty member to serve as a peer reviewer. It would be incumbent on the candidate to ensure that this observer would have an adequate opportunity to evaluate teaching effectiveness (including preparatory discussion of the syllabus and aims of the course, several class visits, and subsequent discussions of the teaching process as observed). At the conclusion of this process, the observer should share with the candidate a specific evaluation of the teaching effectiveness of the candidate. This formal evaluation conference could include a written assessment and, at the discretion of the candidate, could include the Chair as well. Information about this review process could be included as important documentation in the formal application for tenure. This colleague could also serve as a knowledgeable source for one of the recommendations required by the Advisory Committee on Faculty Tenure as part of the application.
In any event, it remains the responsibility of the Department Chair and the candidate to ensure that teaching effectiveness is adequately documented for the candidate's application. Back to top
2.11. Course Evaluations (from the Revised July 2005 Faculty Handbook):
By action of the faculty in May of 1978, all faculty members will conduct student evaluations in a majority of their courses each year. Faculty members may devise their own questionnaires or use evaluation instruments that are developed by departments. The results of student evaluations may be used in the mid-term reviews of untenured faculty members, in the evaluation of untenured faculty members by the Advisory Committee on Faculty Tenure, and in the assessment of faculty members by the Advisory Committee on Faculty Promotions. They may also be used by department Chairs as they evaluate the work of faculty members. For further information see Section 3.02.1. Career-long Faculty Development.Back to top