The institution regularly evaluates the effectiveness of each faculty member in accord with published criteria, regardless of contractual or tenured status.


Compliance Judgment:  In compliance

Narrative

 

East Carolina University, (hereafter, ECU or the institution), adheres to faculty evaluation policies, procedures, and criteria that are governed by 3.7.2 1 UNC policy manual 100 1 and 3.7.2 1 UNC policy manual 400 3 of the University of North Carolina Policy Manual.

 

Specific requirements for the annual evaluation of all faculty are defined in the Faculty Manual Appendix C. The performance from March 1 of the preceding academic year through the end of February of the current academic year of all part-time, full-time not eligible for permanent tenure (fixed-term), probationary term (tenure-track) and permanently tenured faculty is evaluated every April. The same general criteria in a given area, teaching, research, service, clinical and other apply to all categories of faculty and method of delivery of instruction (either face-to-face or distance learning). Additional criteria in one or more of these areas are contained in the department, school or college “unit code of operations.” The progress towards tenure of tenure track faculty is evaluated annually in a process distinct from the annual evaluation of all faculty. In addition, every five years after receiving permanent tenure, each tenured faculty member undergoes post-tenure review, wherein his or her performance of all duties for the previous five years is evaluated.  The information contained in Appendix C of the Faculty Manual is made available to all faculty at the time of employment.

 

As presented in the ECU Faculty Manual section entitled Guidelines for Creating and Changing Code Units and for the Creation and Revision of Unit Codes, ECU uses the term “code unit” to refer to a department, school or college whose operations are governed by a “unit code,” which defines the operations of the faculty group.  Differences between unit codes arise because of the subject matter and research methods of different code units.  These differences require unique procedures that govern teaching, research, service and other assignments as well as the specific code unit’s criteria for appointment, reappointment, promotion and tenure, as well as unit-specific policies regarding merit salary increment recommendations.  All ECU academic unit codes of operation are approved by the Faculty Senate Code Committee, the Senate, and the chancellor.

 

Annual Evaluations

 

ECU's Personnel Policies and Procedures in the Faculty Manual, Part VIII, Section I, includes a requirement for the annual review of all faculty. The performance of each faculty member in all employment categories is evaluated once annually by the code unit administrator (i.e. department chair, professional school director, or college dean). Each tenured, tenure-track, full-time fixed term and part-time fixed term faculty member’s duties are stated generally in his or her employment contract and specifically fixed for the upcoming academic year during a meeting with his or her unit administrator prior to the beginning of an academic year. Each March all faculty members prepare and submit a Faculty Annual Report on their accomplishments in teaching, research/creative activity, service, clinical and other activities the faculty member engaged in to fulfill his or her contractual duties for the academic year under review. The relative weight given to teaching, research/creative activity, service, clinical and other activities in individual annual evaluations are stated in each department, school or college unit code. In no case, however, is service weighed more heavily than either teaching or research/creative activity (Faculty Senate Resolution #97-43).

 

 

After receiving the faculty member’s annual report, the unit administrator prepares a written annual evaluation of the faculty member using ECU’s required faculty annual evaluation form and faculty annual evaluation form policy for using the form. Redacted examples of completed annual evaluations are given as follows: tenured faculty member, tenure track faculty member, full-time fixed-term faculty member.  Faculty members have the opportunity to discuss the evaluation and to enter responses to their evaluations before these are forward to the next higher administrator. Copies of the annual evaluation, with written responses from the faculty member, if appropriate, are placed in the faculty member’s personnel file, forwarded to the next higher administrator and from there to the vice-chancellor in charge of the division in which the code unit resides (the provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs or the vice chancellor for health sciences).

 

Use of Annual Evaluations

 

Annual evaluations directly impact faculty members. First, they determine raise increments. In years when faculty members receive pay raises from the State of North Carolina, the number of points (from 1 to 5) assigned to the faculty member in his or her annual evaluation as indicated above is used to guide the unit administrator’s recommendation of the faculty member’s salary increment (2009-10 Salary Increase Information). This procedure follows the policy stated in the unit code of the academic unit in which the faculty member resides. Several examples of criteria for salary increments are attached below:

 

Foreign Languages and Literatures

Nutrition and Dietetics

Nursing

 

Second, annual evaluations impact rehiring of fixed-term part and full-time faculty members, the annual progress towards tenure evaluations of probationary term faculty members and the five-year post-tenure review of faculty members with permanent tenure. Third, annual evaluations of research impact a faculty members amount of reassigned time from teaching to research (reduction in course load to engage in research).  Finally, annual evaluations also address disciplinary problems, as appropriate.

 

Course Evaluations and Other Means of Evaluating Teaching 

 

Each faculty member’s teaching is evaluated in every annual evaluation. Part VIII of the Faculty Manual requires that the quality of teaching must be evaluated by means of

 

(a) data from surveys of student opinion, when such data have been gathered in accordance with established procedures of the department or the university, which guarantee the integrity and completeness of said data. As part of the effort to evaluate the teaching of faculty members, each unit shall either: develop and use its own instrument(s) as approved by the chancellor to determine student opinion of teaching or utilize the instrument developed by the Committee to determine student opinion of teaching.

 

(b) formal methods of peer review of new and probationary term faculty, including direct observation of teaching, Methods to be used for this peer review are detailed in Faculty Senate resolution #93-44. The peer review instrument is provided in Faculty Senate resolution #05-03. The peer review instrument for on-line courses is provided in Faculty Senate resolution #11-53.

 

(c) procedures provided for in the ECU Academic Unit Codes of Operation.

 

Each fall term and each spring term, all faculty (part-time, fixed-term, tenure track and tenured) participate in an online survey of student opinion of teaching for every course taught in which six or more students are enrolled. This includes all face-to-face courses, lab courses, field courses, and distance education courses. Instructions for the use of all evaluation forms, for generating reports and for accessing results are on the Institutional Planning, Assessment and Research web site. In addition, all new faculty in their first year of teaching, including part-time and fixed term faculty, and all tenure-track faculty regardless of rank, are required to have in-class peer reviews of their teaching, with the results being reflected in the faculty member’s annual evaluation. For tenure-track faculty, the results also are reflected in their annual progress-towards-tenure letter (see Tenure and Promotion Reviews, below).

 

Policies, procedures and criteria for conducting peer reviews are published on the ECU website. All faculty members who conduct peer reviews are required to undergo peer review training. This training is provided four times each semester and by special request from a department or school by the Office for Faculty Excellence (OFE). The OFE maintains the current Faculty Senate Peer Review Policy on its website, along with the currently approved Peer Review Instrument, a list of faculty who have undergone training; the OFE also maintains instructions and criteria for academic units that wish to create their own peer review instruments and have them approved by the Provost (Academic Affairs Peer Review Instrument Criteria, Health Sciences Peer Review Instrument Criteria), and copies of all such approved discipline-specific peer review instruments, as well as documentation for Implementing Features for Peer Classroom Observation Procedures for peer observations. An additional resource is a link to the UNC Intercampus Dialogue on Peer Review of Teaching, Results and Recommendations; a sample peer review is attached.


Tenure and Promotion Reviews 


The institution’s tenure and evaluation policies, procedures and criteria are governed by 3.7.2 1 UNC policy manual 100 1 and 3.7.2 1 UNC policy manual 400 3 of the University of North Carolina Policy Manual. ECU’s tenure and evaluation policies are contained in the ECU Faculty Manual, Part IX  and Faculty Manual, Part X, in individual College documents and in each school and department’s unit code. The information contained in the Faculty Manual is made available to all faculty at the time of employment and can be accessed online (Faculty Manual (online)). Several examples of unit departmental tenure and promotion guidelines are attached below:

Tenure and Promotion Criteria, Department of Geological Sciences

Tenure and Promotion Criteria, College of Education

Tenure and Promotion Criteria, Department of Interior Design and Merchandising

 

Each spring semester, the unit tenure committee and unit administrator reviews the annual reports of each probationary term faculty member. On the basis of this review, the unit administrator, in consultation with the unit tenure committee, writes a progress toward tenure letter to each probationary term (i.e. non-tenured tenure-track) faculty member. This letter addresses the tenure candidate’s cumulative accomplishments to date as well as the unit administrator’s and the tenure committee’s ongoing expectations of the candidate. The individual faculty members have the opportunity to enter responses to their progress toward tenure letters before they are forwarded to the next higher administrative level. Copies of the progress toward tenure letter, and written responses by the faculty if appropriate, are placed in the faculty member's personnel file, and a copy is sent to the unit tenure committee and to the next higher administrative level. In April of each spring semester, the unit administrator and a representative of the unit tenure committee meet with the candidate and discuss the evaluation contained in the progress toward tenure. Copies of the letter are placed in the faculty member's personnel file, sent to the unit tenure committee and to the next higher administrative level.

 

The Office of the Provost and Office of the Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences send yearly Progress Toward Tenure (PTT) Letters to colleges concerning deadlines and policies.

 

A faculty member requesting consideration for promotion and/or tenure must complete a Personnel Action Dossier (PAD) according to the institutional timeline for personnel actions (Faculty Manual, Part X). External faculty within the discipline review a dossier of the candidate for promotion and/or tenure and submit a recommendation to the unit qualified faculty and the administrator. Qualified faculty members in that faculty member’s unit review the PAD, and a recommendation of approval of disapproval, together with a cumulative evaluation, is submitted to the unit administrator based on the unit tenure and promotion standards.  The unit administrator must prepare a recommendation and a cumulative evaluation and submit all materials to the appropriate dean. The dean must then make a recommendation and submit the paperwork to the appropriate vice chancellor. The appropriate vice chancellor makes a recommendation on each candidate to the chancellor. The chancellor makes a recommendation on each candidate to the Board of Trustees.

 

Using ECU Promotion and Tenure Recommendation Forms (tenure recommendation memo template, promotion recommendation letter template), the candidate shall be informed of all recommendations at every level, beginning with the appropriate unit committee’s recommendation and continuing up to the level where the final decision is made. The candidate has a chance to attach written responses to the cumulative evaluations written by the faculty body and unit administrator, if desired. The responses are attached to the documentation before forwarded to the appropriate dean.

 

The University recently has approved regulations and criteria for advancement in title of non-tenure track faculty (Faculty Manual Appendix C).  For advancement, consideration is given to the faculty member’s primary responsibility. The criteria for a new appointment at a higher title are included in each unit code.

Performance Review of Tenured Faculty

Consistent with the University of North Carolina Guidelines on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty, East Carolina University faculty members who hold permanent tenure are evaluated every five years, according to the East Carolina University Policy for Performance Review of Tenured Faculty, explained in Part IX, Section II of the Faculty Manual and summarized below.  Faculty members who have completed the five-year process for Performance Review of Tenured Faculty receive signed copies of the performance reviews placed in their personnel files (January 26, 2012 Memorandum).  

The Policy for Performance Review of Tenured Faculty contains the following points that are relevant to standard 3.7.2.

For the cumulative review of performance for the five-year period, the unit’s Tenure Committee shall review current standards of “exemplary,” “satisfactory,” and “deficient” performance and revise as necessary.  These standards should be consistent with changing goals of the unit and the university, while also considering varying expectations at the time of the granting of permanent tenure for individual faculty members and should address the faculty member’s teaching, research, service and other duties, including contributions to the departmental college/school and university goals, contributions to the academic programs in which the faculty member teaches and any other professional activities bearing on the faculty member’s performance of his or her duties during the period under review. 
 The Tenure Committee will elect a minimum of three faculty members and one alternate from the permanently tenured voting faculty not holding administrative status to serve on the Performance Review Committee. The alternate shall serve when a member is unable to serve. Members on the Performance Review Committee shall serve for one academic year.
A faculty member whose review process determines a deficient performance level shall have the opportunity to respond within 20 calendar days. The faculty member may request that the unit administrator and Performance Review Committee reconsider the evaluation based on additional substantive information provided by the faculty member. In reconsidering the evaluation, the unit administrator and Performance Review Committee shall have the opportunity to nullify, modify, or reconfirm the original evaluation (or evaluations, in the case of disagreement between the committee and the unit administrator). The response of the faculty member to the report of deficient performance and the decision of the committee and the unit administrator shall be reported to the next higher administrator.
When the committee and the unit administrator disagree on the appropriate action after a reconsideration initiated by the faculty member under review, every effort (including discussion and negotiation) shall be made to resolve the disagreement within the unit. If the effort fails, the conflicting responses to the reconsideration appeal by the faculty member under review shall be referred to the next higher administrator for final decision.

The final decision of a higher administrator shall be reported in writing to the faculty member and a copy of the final decision shall be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file and provided to both the Performance Review Committee and the unit administrator.
A faculty member whose performance review reflects deficient performance shall negotiate a formal development plan with the Performance Review Committee and the unit administrator. The development plan must: (a) identify specific shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member’s performance of his or her assigned duties; (b) state any modification of duties due to a less than satisfactory rating and take into account the new allocation of responsibilities; (c) include specific steps designed to lead to the required degree of improvement; (d) specify a time line, not to exceed three academic years, in which improvement is expected to occur; (e) schedule and require written records of progress meetings between the faculty member, the unit administrator and the chair of the Performance Review Committee at regular intervals no less frequently than twice each academic term; (f) state the consequences for the faculty member should improvement not occur within the designated timeline. The use of mentoring peers is encouraged.

The description of specific steps designed to lead to improvement shall state guidelines, present criteria by which the faculty member could monitor his or her progress, and identify the source of any institutional commitments, if required. The plan is a commitment by the faculty member, the Performance Review Committee, and the unit administrator to improve the faculty member’s performance. Adequate resources shall be provided to support the plan. The plan shall be consistent with the faculty member’s academic freedom (as defined by the Faculty Manual, Part V), shall be self-directed by the faculty member, and shall be sufficiently flexible to allow for subsequent amendment, if necessary. Such amendment will follow the same process as the development of the original plan. If the unit administrator, Performance Review Committee, and faculty member cannot agree on a formal development plan, each party’s draft of a plan will be forwarded to the next higher administrator, who will make the final decision. The faculty member’s development progress shall be reviewed in a meeting that occurs at least twice each academic term by the Performance Review Committee and the unit administrator, who shall provide a written evaluation of progress to the faculty member. A copy of this evaluation will be provided to the faculty member and placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.


Review of ECU’s Evaluation Policies

 

The Faculty Governance Committee reviews ECU policies on faculty evaluation every five years. Changes to the policies in Faculty Manual, Part VIII are recommended to the Faculty Senate, the Chancellor, and then to the Board of Trustees.  Changes to the policies in Faculty Manual, Part IX of the ECU Faculty Manual are recommended to the Faculty Senate, the Chancellor, the Board of Trustees, and then to the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina.  In addition to being reviewed every five years, all faculty employment policies have been reviewed as part of a major reorganization of the Faculty Manual in conjunction with the creation of an East Carolina University Policy Manual that consolidates the publication of all ECU policies.

In summary, ECU regularly evaluates the effectiveness of each faculty member in accord with published criteria and regardless of contractual or tenured status

 


Documentation

 

Reference Title

Location

2009-10 Salary Increase Information

2009-2010 salary increases

Academic Affairs Peer Review Instrument Criteria

3.7.2 14 peer rev inst criteria AA

Distance Education Courses - Student Opinion Survey

3.7.2 10 DE survey form

ECU Academic Unit Codes of Operation

Unit Codes of Operation

East Carolina University Policy for the Performance Review of Tenured Faculty

3.7.2 20 ECU Post Tenure Review

East Carolina University Policy Manual

Policy Manual

Faculty Annual Evaluation Form

3.7.2 7 FACULTY EVALUATION form

Faculty Annual Evaluation Form Policy

3.7.2 8 USE OF EVAL FORM

Faculty Annual Report

Faculty Annual Report

Faculty Governance Committee

3.7.2 21 Fac Gov Comm Charge

Faculty Manual (Online)

Online Faculty Manual

Faculty Manual, Part V

Faculty Manual part5

Faculty Manual, Part VIII

Faculty Manual Appendix C

Faculty Manual, Part VIII, Section I

Faculty Manual Appendix C

Faculty Manual, Part VIII, Section I.III

Faculty Manual Appendix C

Faculty Manual, Part VIII, Section I.VI

Faculty Manual Appendix C

Faculty Manual, Part IX

Faculty Manual Appendix D(B)

Faculty Manual, Part X

Faculty Manual part10

Faculty Senate Resolution #97-43

3.7.2 4 FSR 97-43

Face-to-Face Courses - Student Opinion Survey

3.7.2 9 SOIS face to face

Field Courses - Student Opinion Survey

3.7.2 9 2 field course survey form

Foreign Languages and Literatures - Salary Increment Criteria

criteria for salary increment foreign languages

Full-Time Fixed Term Faculty Member

3.7.2 5 fixed term eval example

Guidelines for Creating and Changing Code Units and for the Creation and Revision of Unit Codes

3.7.2 ECU Faculty Manual Unit Codes

Health Sciences Peer Review Instrument Criteria

3.7.2 15 per rev inst criteria HS

Implementing Features for Peer Classroom Observation Procedures

3.7.2 16 peer observation procedures

Institutional Planning, Assessment and Research web site

3.7.2 IPAR SOIS

January 26, 2012 Memorandum

2012-01-26 Performance Review of Tenured Faculty

Lab Courses - Student Opinion Survey

3.7.2 9 1 lab survey form

Nursing - Salary Increment Criteria

criteria for salary increment nursing

Nutrition and Dietetics - Salary Increment Criteria

criteria for salary incredement nutrition and dietetics

Office for Faculty Excellence (OFE)

3.7.2 12 FoE webpage

Peer Reviews

3.7.2 11 peer rev policy

Performance Reviews

Post-tenure review redacted

Peer Review Instrument

3.7.2 13 peer rev instrument

Policy for Performance Review of Tenured Faculty

Faculty Manual Appendix D(B)

Promotion Recommendation Memo Template

PC memo - Promotion Recommendation 4-2011

Progress Toward Tenure Letter

3.7.2 18 prog towards tenure letter policy

Sample Peer Review

faculty peer review doc

Tenured Faculty Member

3.7.2 6.1 tenured fac eval example

Tenure and Promotion Criteria, Education

Tenure and Promotion Criteria for college of education

Tenure and Promotion Criteria, Geological Sciences

tenure and promotion criteria for geological sciences

Tenure and Promotion Criteria, Interior Design and Merchandising

tenure and promotion criteria for interior design and merchandising

Tenure Recommendation Memo Template

PC memo - Tenure Recommendation 4-2011

Tenure Track Faculty Member

3.7.2 6 Ten Track eval example

UNC Intercampus Dialogue on Peer Review of Teaching, Results and Recommendations

3.7.2 unc_dialogue

UNC Policy Manual, Chapter 100.1

3.7.2 1 UNC policy manual 100 1

UNC Policy Manual, Chapter 400.3

3.7.2 1 UNC policy manual 400 3

University of North Carolina Guidelines on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty

3.7.2 19 UNC Post Tenure Review