College of Liberal Arts

Faculty Development Webpage

Site Contents

Past Faculty Development Opportunities (submit an entry)

2005-06

Grants and Other Opportunities (submit an entry)

Fast Funding Opportunities from Mercer Grants Office (November 12, 2007)

Useful Faculty Development Links (submit an entry)

The Faculty Development Committee: What We Do

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.

(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.

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.

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.

Members of the Faculty Development Committee

2008-09 Academic Year

Creighton Rosental, Chair

Craig Coleman

Frank Macke

David Nelson

Jose Pino

Yosalinda Rivero-Zaritsky

Ami Spears

Brian Whitfield

This page is maintained by the Faculty Development Committee of the College of Liberal Arts, Creighton Rosental, Chair.
Website maintained by: Creighton Rosental  

Last Revision: August 19, 2008