Faculty Evaluation Plan, Department of Spanish and Portuguese

 

The Department of Spanish and Portuguese expects high performance in all three areas of teaching/advising, research, and service over time in accordance with the 40% (Teaching), 40% (Research), 20% (Service) division. Faculty who are in tenure-track lines will be expected to meet all of the Department’s requirements for tenure and promotion.

 

 

The record must demonstrate effective teaching. Faculty members are expected to meet and teach their courses, normally four per year; to prepare and follow useful and accurate syllabi; to prepare useful and pertinent discussions, lectures, quizzes, and exams; to assign written work, grade, and critique that work in a timely fashion; to teach at any level of the program; to direct and consult on dissertations; to evaluate students; to advise students; to participate in curriculum development and departmental decision making. Faculty members are expected to keep abreast of their field so as to make themselves informed and effective teachers.

 

 

The record must demonstrate clear evidence of developing an ongoing research program that goes well beyond research completed for the Ph.D., that has already resulted in products of high quality (as demonstrated in part by publication in sources of high quality that use critical standards for review), and that exhibits promise of continuing productivity. The results of faculty research should be presented in public forums which may take many forms: publication of books, individual or collaborative on-line texts/materials (when appropriate to a faculty member’s field), articles, notes, etc.; presentation of papers at international, national, regional, or local professional meetings; presentations at colloquia, round tables, etc.

 

 

The record must demonstrate a pattern of service to the Department, and should additionally include professional service at the College, University, national, and/or international levels. This can be accomplished in numerous ways: serving on committees in the Department, serving on committees at the College or University levels, professional conference organization, working with professional organizations, etc.

 

Faculty at the tenured Associate level must continue to meet the Department’s standards for high performance outlined above. In addition, for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor faculty members must demonstrate an established scholarly career; show continued effectiveness and growth as a teacher; and demonstrate an ongoing pattern of service reflecting substantial contributions to the University at one or more levels, to the profession, and/or to the local, state, national, or international communities.

The level of performance that will trigger the process for “does not meet” academic responsibility is as follows:

 

 

Where the overall level of performance fails to comply with Departmental and University expectations: to meet classes, to be adequately prepared to teach the assigned material, to evaluate exams and papers and return them in a timely fashion, to provide and follow syllabi, to hold regularly scheduled office hours, to fulfill advising obligations, to serve on dissertation committees, etc. the Chair will meet with the faculty member to ascertain the cause. The Chair can ask other appropriate faculty members to visit the class, meet with the faculty member, and suggest remedies. The Chair can ask the faculty member to meet with other more successful faculty members, to visit classes taught by other faculty members, and to work with them in an attempt to raise the level of performance.

 

 

Though lack of publications in and of itself is not necessarily proof of failure to meet one’s professional responsibilities, since not all research leads to immediate publication, nonetheless the Department views continued lack of publication as grounds for serious concern. A faculty member who has not published for a sustained period of time would be encouraged to meet with others in his or her field, to read their publications, to work on developing ideas and projects, to submit his or her outlines or drafts to colleagues, etc.

 

 

Where there is sustained failure to engage in an acceptable level of service activity, such as refusal to serve on committees, evidence of incomplete tasks assigned on Departmental, College, University or national professional levels, the Chair will meet with the faculty member to determine the cause. The Chair will then assign or reassign the faculty member to Departmental Committees and encourage her or his participation in College, University or professional meetings.

 

Acceptable levels of performance are indicated by the regular receipt of a 2 or higher as described in the Evaluation Scale (Appendix C). Although the receipt of an evaluation of 1.5 is not desirable, if it is out of the ordinary for the evaluated faculty member, a plan developed in collaboration with the chair will probably be sufficient for resolving the anomaly. However, a trend toward the receipt of 1.5 or 1 in any category over a period of time is a cause for alarm. If a faculty member fails to perform adequately in any

 

of the areas of teaching/advising, research and service (evidenced by failure to meet the department performance expectations in teaching/advising, research and service as defined above in Unit Expectations and the receipt of a 1.0 for performance in teaching/advising, research or service by the Evaluation Committee), the department chair and the individual will develop a written plan to address the areas of difficulty. Demonstration of a pattern of sustained failure to meet expectations over a three-year period may lead to the initiation of dismissal proceedings.

 

If a faculty member failed to perform adequately in any of the above-mentioned areas or failed to carry out suggested changes or if reallocation of effort did not improve overall performance, then the sustained failure to meet one’s academic responsibilities would be measured against the minimum standards of performance as specified in the University of Kansas Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct, as adopted by the Faculty Senate in 1971 and subsequently amended. Faculty duties are set forth in Article IV Faculty Responsibilities. Furthermore, should the faculty member demonstrate a pattern of sustained failure over a three-year period, the Department Chair may recommend to the dean, who, in turn, may recommend to the Provost that a tenured faculty member be dismissed.

The Department of Spanish & Portuguese expects faculty to devote equal attention to teaching and research. When evaluating faculty performance, the department applies the weights of 40 percent for teaching, 40 percent for research, and 20 percent for service to the university, community, and profession. These weights are the same for tenured and non-tenured faculty, although the department recognizes that the specific contributions of faculty members to the department’s mission will differ depending on career stage.

 

Changes in the standards 40/40/20 allocation of effort for a set period of time can be initiated by the tenured faculty member or department chair. These changes can be short- or long-term and must correspond to changes in work-load not just evaluation criteria. Reasons for alterations can include short- term items such as funded research or longer term career-stage issues. Faculty members are not allowed to reduce their teaching or research to less than 10 percent on DAE agreements. Departmental needs take precedent over individual needs when making decisions to alter a faculty member’s allocation of effort; such redistribution must be consistent with the best interests of the unit. The most likely occasion for consideration of such changes is in discussion between the chair and the individual faculty member following annual performance evaluations, or sooner so that appropriate arrangements may be made at the unit level for the coverage of course offerings. Any individualized changes in faculty allocation of effort will be negotiated with the Chair and documented in the faculty member's personnel file.

 

For short-term DAE agreements (one academic year or less), the DAE is ultimately approved by the unit director or chairperson, with a copy of this endorsement sent to the contact associate dean. For long-term DAE agreements (lasting one year or beyond), approval must also be sought from the appropriate contact dean in the college. All DAEs are reported annually to the College Dean’s Office. Agreements for long- term DAEs must be reviewed every three years, although either the faculty member or chairperson/director may request an earlier review in response to changed circumstances or performance. At that time, the agreement may be revised, terminated, or continued.

 

The selection among these options should be made following the guidelines and process for approval of long-term DAEs contained in the University Policy on Differential Allocation of Effort (DAE).

The Department has a committee comprised of the Chair and two or three tenured faculty members. The committee reviews a portfolio describing each faculty member’s activities from January 1 through December 31 (portfolios are described below in section 2). The Chair appoints this committee each year, and for the sake of continuity, some overlap in service from year to year is desirable. The following timeline for faculty evaluation organizes the process:

NOTE: Faculty are responsible for annually maintaining their PRO record, which is also accessed by administration for reports such as the College snapshot of departmental productivity. PRO provides an annual activity report and faculty are advised to view and update their PRO reports before submission of the faculty member’s portfolio to the unit. In classifying your work as major and minor, please bear in mind the definitions in the unit’s Promotion and Tenure Guidelines.

 

In accordance with the Faculty Evaluation Plan of the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, each year all faculty members of the Department of Spanish and Portuguese submit a portfolio that documents the quantity and quality of their teaching/advising, scholarly or creative activity, and service. Each portfolio, when annually completed, must include the following items:

The portfolio may include other materials that provide additional evidence of the quantity and quality of an individual’s efforts, such as:

 

Faculty member must provide information about teaching/advising, research, and service accomplishments according to departmental guidelines (see above and also Appendices A and B). The Department normally assigns the following weights to Teaching/Advising (40%), Research (40%), and Service (20%) unless the individual faculty member has made arrangement in writing for an alternative differential allocation of faculty effort (see 3 above in Statement of Performance Expectations).

 

In addition to the “Faculty Annual Performance Report” and current curriculum vitae, the Evaluation Committee reviews (1) all student evaluations required of every faculty member. Particular attention is paid to those questions that address the quality of instruction and the course goals and objectives. Course syllabi and grade sheets are read and evaluated. The Committee reviews (2) all research activity and assesses the quality and quantity of publication, the presses, journals, or other venues in which the material appeared, the participation in professional meetings, the quality and number of meetings, copies of publications and or papers, book reviews and other items are likewise evaluated. The Committee reviews

(3) all statements of service.

The Chair provides a written report to each faculty member, based on the consensus evaluation. The report is provided in the format of a one-page letter that summarizes the general findings of the Committee, reports the consensus rating based on the Department Evaluation Scale, and offers information on progress toward tenure and/or promotion. A copy of the report is kept by the Department in the faculty member’s permanent file. The opportunity is provided for each faculty member to discuss his or her annual evaluation with the Chair. All members of the Department, tenure-track or tenured, may respond in writing to the evaluation and copies of this response will be included in their permanent file. Failure to meet departmental standards is explained above in part 2 of the Statement of Performance Expectations. Faculty members who receive low evaluations will be requested to meet with the Chair (or with the Chair and the Evaluation Committee if the faculty member prefers) to discuss the evaluation, to explain expectations for future performance, and to identify strategies for future improvement. Whenever such a meeting takes place, the Chair will write a summary of the meeting and goals for improvement for the faculty member under evaluation; this summary is provided to the faculty member and a copy is placed in the personnel file.

 

This section includes information for faculty members undergoing Post-tenure Review.

The evaluation process of the Department of Spanish & Portuguese, seen in all its aspects, yields multiple outcomes. It acknowledges faculty accomplishments or shortcomings and makes them matters of record. It initiates discussions that influence the planning of both individual career development and unit evolution. It assists in the identification of opportunities for faculty improvement and renewal. It provides annual as well as cumulative data for merit-salary recommendations, sabbatical-leave and grant applications, tenure and promotion decisions, post-tenure review, and reassignments of responsibilities. And it provides documentation that may be used, at extremes, in support of either recognition or dismissal.

 

 

If the chair ascertains that a faculty member’s performance seems to be failing to meet academic responsibilities, the administrator and the faculty member shall develop a written plan of methods to improve the faculty member’s performance. The plan must conform to the Faculty Evaluation Policy, section #6.. The plan may include appropriate provisions for faculty development, such as campus opportunities for faculty continued renewal and development, or for other appropriate interventions. The chairperson may call upon the University administration for assistance in constructing such a plan, including provision for additional resources, where needed. A faculty member may reject any plan recommended to aid performance levels, but the faculty member must understand that a sustained overall failure to meet academic responsibilities is a basis for dismissal.

 

 

As stated above, a faculty member who disagrees with any part of her or his evaluation may make her or his views known verbally or in writing to the Chair. A faculty member may provide additional information by submitting explanations of performance that address the evaluation. The Chair or the faculty member under evaluation may ask other members of the Evaluation Committee to sit in on the discussion with the faculty member to attempt a mutual resolution of the conflict. The results of this meeting are then put in writing for the Committee, for the faculty member, and for the faculty member’s file.

 

If a faculty member has been informed that his or her performance fails to meet academic responsibilities, the faculty member may request a review at the college/school level in accordance with the University Policy on Faculty Evaluation. The review committee will issue a non-binding recommendation on the appropriateness of this conclusion to the unit administrator. The administrator may change the evaluation after receiving the committee's decision, or may choose not to do so. In any event, the report of the committee will become a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel file within the academic unit and shall be available to the faculty member.

 

Department chairs shall consult annually with the dean, and the dean shall consult annually with the Provost on the progress of any faculty member who fails within this category of failure to meet academic responsibilities.

 

Based upon the judgment that there has been a sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, the Dean may recommend to the Provost that a tenured faculty member be dismissed in accordance with the University Policy on Faculty Evaluation.. In making this determination, the Dean shall consider the nature of the failure to meet

 

academic responsibilities, the reason or reasons for this failure, the number of years that the faculty member has failed to meet academic responsibilities, the level of discernible improvement in the faculty member's performance after being notified of any failure in performance, and the extent to which the faculty member has complied with the terms of any plan developed to improve the faculty member's performance. The Provost will review the case and, if the Provost agrees with the Dean’s recommendation, the Provost will recommend to the Chancellor that the faculty member be dismissed. If the Chancellor agrees and recommends dismissal, this recommendation will go to the Faculty Rights Board.

 

Should any recommendation to dismiss be brought against a tenured faculty member based exclusively or in part on grounds of sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, both the report(s) of the review committee(s), the annual written evaluation(s) of the unit administrator concerning the faculty member, any outside evaluations, and any germane written response by the faculty member to the charges shall be made available to the Faculty Rights Board.

 

The Department of Spanish and Portuguese provides a variety of development opportunities.

 

Keeler Intrauniversity Professorships: The Keeler Family Intra-University Professorships is a faculty development program for tenured faculty at mid-career. The purpose of the program is to provide the faculty member an opportunity to strengthen his or her knowledge of an academic specialty, to broaden or achieve greater depth in a defined field of scholarship, or to achieve competence in a new area of scholarly endeavor. This opportunity should lead to increased collaboration and synergy across disciplines, as envisioned in the KU strategic plan Bold Aspirations.

 

Senior Administrative Fellows Program: The University of Kansas Senior Administrative Fellows program assist faculty who have an interest in or talent for administration. The Program is based on the philosophy from the American Council on Education (ACE) fellows, “Few institutions think systematically about the development of administrative leadership. Yet the skills and qualifications necessary for success as a professor are not the same as those required for success as a department chair, dean, or president.”. KU has a wealth of talent within its faculty ranks, however, few faculty have the luxury of taking an entire year off to participate in such excellent programs as the ACE Fellows.

 

Sabbatical Leave: The sabbatical leave program is designed to provide an opportunity for faculty development. A leave may be granted "for the purpose of pursuing advanced study, conducting research studies, or securing appropriate industrial or professional experience" (Regents’ policy). Included in the scope of the sabbatical leave program are in-depth study in one's field of expertise and in related fields, research projects, development of new teaching materials and concepts, development of the use of technology to enhance teaching, preparation of a manuscript, a book, a play, or other scholarly or creative activities in one’s discipline and in related disciplines.

 

Big XII Faculty Fellowship Program: The University of Kansas participates in a program to stimulate scholarly initiatives through creation of an academic community within the institutions in the Big XII Athletic Conference. The Big XII Faculty Fellowship Program offers faculty the opportunity to travel to member institutions to exchange ideas and research. Faculty may work on collaborative research, consult with faculty and students, offer a series of lectures or symposia, acquire new skills, or take advantage of a unique archive or laboratory facility.

 

Center for Teaching Excellence: CTE provides opportunities for faculty to discuss students' learning and ways to enhance learning in their classrooms; supports faculty as they implement their ideas for improving students' learning; brings research about teaching to the attention of the university community; encourages involvement in the scholarship of teaching and learning; offers course assistance at any stage; fosters instruction innovation; and advocates and recognizes excellence in teaching.

The Department of Spanish and Portuguese uses the official data summary report from the “Student Survey of Teaching: The University of Kansas” form (2008). In addition, we collect written comments on the following form:

 

Spanish & Portuguese Department Teaching Evaluation

Page 2: Written Comments

Please answer the following questions:

 

• What elements of this course were effective for your learning?

• What changes do you suggest?

• If you have any useful comments about any of the items on the numerical survey, please write them below.

University of Kansas

Form revised spring 2013

Name:

Calendar year of evaluation:

 

Please indicate the semester and year you began your current position (e.g., if you were promoted in spring 2005, fall 2006 would be the first semester in your current rank).

Semester:

Year:

Would you like the Promotion Committee to review your file in the fall to evaluate your progress toward promotion (required in fifth year)?

 

___Faculty Annual Performance Report

___Current curriculum vitae

___Student Evaluations of teaching for each class with course syllabus

___Publications or manuscripts accepted

___Manuscripts submitted or draft of research in progress

___Peer Evaluations of teaching

___Other materials that document faculty efforts in teaching, research, or service.

Please assist the Faculty Evaluation Committee in quantifying your efforts by filling in the following tables.

List the classes you taught each semester. Include course number, title, and number of students enrolled.

List the Honors projects you directed. Indicate the semester, student name, and project topic or title.

List the dissertations you have directed. Indicate the name of the student, the dissertation title, and indicate the status (defended, in progress, inactive).

List the dissertation committees on which you serve as a second or third reader. Include student and indicate the status of the dissertation.

List the dissertations, in the Department or in other departments, for which you have served as the fourth or fifth reader at a defense. Indicate the department in which the defense took place and the date or semester of the activity.

List the dissertation proposals in which you have been involved. Indicate the student; your role as chair, 2nd/3rd reader, or 4th/5th reader; and the semester in which the exam took place.

List the Ph.D Advisory Committees on which you serve and indicate the role you play (chair or member).

List the names of your M.A. Advisees.

a. Number of majors assigned to you?

b. Number you regularly see for advising?

c. Other advising activities?

You may include items that have been reprinted.

a. Books

b. Articles

c. Reviews

Please include the forthcoming place and anticipated date of publication and if these have appeared on previous annual reports.

a. Books

b. Articles

c. Reviews

a. Books

b. Articles

4. Papers read this calendar year

Please indicate the date and kind of presentation: 20 minute refereed conference paper; invited presentation; 45 minute plenary presentation; etc, and if it was a national, regional or international meeting.

 

In the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, the role of faculty mentoring liaison is carried out by the Department Chair. While mentoring is mostly informal in nature, a senior colleague is assigned as mentor for each assistant and associate faculty member. The role of the mentor is to provide advice and support. Faculty mentorship complements the more formal role of the chair by providing guidance during personnel reviews. The mentor acts as advisor and advocate for her/his mentee. For associate professors, the mentorship relationship helps in the development of strategies for enhancing the teaching and research programs to bring them to levels that garner international recognition commensurate with those expected for promotion to full professor.

 

Mentors should provide guidance by:

Mentoring Oversight and Incentives: The Department’s chair will provide routine oversight of the mentoring program for junior faculty and associate professors. Grounds for dissolution of the arrangement can include dissatisfaction on the part of either the mentor or mentee, as well as concerns by the (chair/director) that the interaction is not productive. Progress in all performance areas—teaching/advising, research, and service— should be monitored on a regular basis. Once a year, in conjunction with the annual performance evaluation, junior faculty members should discuss with their mentor progress on their research and teaching goals in detail. More long-term assessments of the mentorship will focus on mentee productivity and one’s success in achieving promotion to full professor.