Provost

chemistry class 3

See also:

2.5 EVALUATION

2.5.1 Criteria for Evaluation

Faculty at Juniata College are evaluated in four major areas. They are: Teaching Effectiveness, Advising, Professional Development, and Service.

2.5.1.1 Teaching

Juniata College recognizes excellence in teaching as the most important attribute of a faculty member. Excellent teachers are professional role models who demonstrate content expertise and promote student learning through effective course and curriculum development, strong course delivery and management, active mentoring, and clear articulation and assessment of student outcomes. In addition, excellent teachers develop and teach courses that fulfill departmental and curricular needs, reaching beyond their specific areas of expertise when necessary; they also develop instructional materials and provide experiences that stimulate and support learning, create classroom environments and interact with students in ways that are conducive to learning, and employ effective pedagogical strategies that reflect their philosophy of education and increase the likelihood of student learning.

Teaching excellence is demonstrated by skill in the following areas:

    A.  Knowledge and Understanding of the Field:  Have appropriate academic credentials
    and demonstrate in-depth knowledge and current understanding of the field(s) being
    taught;  

    B.  Course Development and Instructional Design:  Carefully plan and communication
    course goals, expected student outcomes, reading materials, grading and attendance
    policies, and course assignments; carefully plan and develop course activities and
    materials that enhance student learning;

    C.  Course Delivery and Management: Use effective pedagogical strategies and methods
    to promote active engagement and enhance student learning; create positive
    classroom environments; provide support for all students; and use assessment results
    to inform instruction;

    D.  Student Assessment: Develop and use appropriate means of assessing student
    outcomes; provide constructive criticism; offer feedback in a timely fashion;

    E.  Mentoring: Serve as an engaged and supportive mentor for students;

    F.  Responsiveness to Curricular Needs: Understand and account for how one’s courses
    relate to other courses in the department and at the College; review existing course
    offerings in consultation with colleagues, and develop new courses as appropriate. 

    G. Acting as a Professional Role Model: Demonstrate enthusiasm for the course of study
    and for teaching and learning, and model discipline-specific competencies and
    professional behavior, including respect for students and colleagues.

    Evaluation of Teaching:
    Evidence of teaching effectiveness must include the following items provided by the candidate:

    A. Professional Data Sheet;

    B. Self-assessment of teaching activities;

    C. Syllabi;

    and the following items collected by PEC:

    D. Evaluations by colleagues, including the Chair or Program Director;

    E. Student evaluations

In preparing self-assessments, candidates should include such activities as serving as mentor to students doing research and supervising internships and other forms of experiential learning.  Faculty members who develop new courses or programs within their areas of previous training and experience should highlight those courses among their materials submitted as evidence of Teaching Effectiveness.  Course or curriculum development outside one’s area of previous training or experience may be considered as Professional Development (see § 2.5.1.3). 

Candidates are invited to include assessment materials other than those listed above to help make their case.  In such instances, it is incumbent upon the candidates to provide persuasive evidence that the assessment mechanism is appropriate.  Examples might include student work in a course or evidence of student success after leaving Juniata. 

The candidate’s self-assessment may include a teaching philosophy and a description of how one’s teaching supports it (why you do what you do); between the Professional Data Sheet and the self-assessment, PEC should find a complete record of continuing education, including professional meetings, coursework, and seminars/workshops that enhance teaching.

See Section 2.5.5 for specific evaluation procedures.

2.5.1.2 Advising

Juniata College's curriculum demands that great emphasis be placed on advising students. Advising is consulting with students individually concerning their academic and professional endeavors. Faculty members are expected to write letters of recommendation for current and past students when appropriate; to provide appropriate advice and referrals even to students who are not their advisees; and to participate in campus meetings and workshops as appropriate. Advisors should strive to act as professional role models for all students they advise. The hallmarks of good advisors include:

    A. Knowledge-of rules, regulations, requirements, and opportunities (scholarships, careers, etc.), including the educational requirements for those fields in which the faculty serves as a POE advisor;

    B. Accessibility-appropriate availability, effective communication, welcoming attitude, etc.;

    C. Diligence-working with students to design and approve schedules and POEs, confirming that advisees are on track, and assisting those who are not on track to establish appropriate goals.

    Evaluation of Advising:

    In assessing a candidate’s advising, PEC will examine evidence such as:
    A. Professional Data Sheet;
    B. Student evaluations;
    C. Self-assessment of advising activities;
    D. Evaluation by the Chair or Program Director;
    E. Colleague evaluations.

    Candidates are invited to include assessments other than those listed above to help make their case. In such instances, it is incumbent upon the candidates to provide persuasive evidence that the assessment mechanism is appropriate. For example, candidates are free to ask colleagues other than those writing the formal PEC evaluations to evaluate their advising if they feel there are those who can do so effectively.

    See section 2.5.5 for specific evaluation procedures.

    2.5.1.3 Professional Development

    One of the primary duties of a Juniata College faculty member is professional development, “the growth in competence as a teacher which follows from a continuing and lively pursuit of scholarly interests” (§ 2.9.5). Normally, evidence of professional development is provided by scholarly or creative activity that is recognized by professional colleagues outside the institution. Professional development enhances and acknowledges the expertise of the faculty member, enriches the classroom, and increases the visibility of Juniata College. Faculty members should involve Juniata students in their professional activities, either directly (by engaging with students in scholarship) or indirectly (by providing students opportunities to witness the practice of scholarly endeavors), and should act as professional role models for their students. Professional development includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:

    A. Individual or collaborative research, writing, or artistic production as recognized by experts in the particular field;

    B. Participation in professional meetings, especially by presenting peer-reviewed papers or
    posters, presenting workshops, or serving as a panel member or discussant;

    Faculty approved change to (B) December 3, 2008

    C. Board membership or consulting, where participation reflects the candidate’s standing as
    an expert in the field;

    D. Published reviews of the work of other scholars in the field;

    E. Invited testimony before government bodies as an expert in the field;

    F. Grant applications and funding for research from outside sources;

    G. Research on the scholarship of teaching and learning;

    H. Mastery of a field significantly outside the candidate’s previous training and experience
    (see § 2.5.1.1) to prepare and teach courses in support of departmental or college-wide
    priorities;

    I. Activities in support of the activities listed in A-H above (e.g., learning a new language or
    other research tool, attending a workshop or conference in support of a new line of
    scholarly inquiry).

    Candidates are also invited to include activities other than those listed above as professional development. Where a candidate presents activities not included in A-I above, the candidate should document how the activity constitutes professional development comparable to those enumerated in A-I, and explain how the quality of the activity and its results were assessed. Department chair and colleague evaluations should specifically discuss these activities as well.

    Evaluation of Professional Development:

PEC will evaluate the candidate’s professional development following the principles set forth in section 2.9.5. In particular, there should be documentation of the candidate’s pursuit of independent and/or collaborative scholarly and creative work. In assessing a candidate's professional development, PEC will look at evidence such as the following:

A. Professional Data Sheet;
B. Self-assessment of Professional Development activities;
C. Evaluations or statements by professional peers;
D. Evaluations by colleagues, including the Chair or Program Director;
E. Juried publications;
F. Non-juried publications, including book reviews;
G. External recognition of professional development activities;
H. Awards, grants, prizes, or commendations;
I. Participation in professional meetings;
J. Reports on sabbatical and other grants of leave; reports on the outcomes of
Professional Development funding, where relevant and appropriate.

Candidates are invited to include assessments other than those listed above to help make their case. In such instances, it is incumbent upon the candidates to provide persuasive evidence that the assessment mechanism is appropriate.

See Section 2.5.5 for specific evaluation procedures.

2.5.1.4 Service

As a community of learners, Juniata depends on its faculty for services to the College outside the classroom; service to the College is among the “normal duties of the faculty member” (§ 2.9.1). Service activities use a professor’s knowledge, interests, and skills to benefit the College, professional organizations, and the community. There are three types of service: service to the College, service to one’s profession, and service to the community.

A. Service to the College
Service to the College involves carrying out assigned and volunteer non-teaching duties or responsibilities, not necessarily related to one’s recognized area of expertise and not necessarily academic in nature, that contribute to the functional operation of the department and/or institution. Juniata expects all faculty to serve the College. Such activities may include:

1. participation and performance in College and Trustee Committees;
2. performance of administrative duties such as Department Chairperson, program/course coordinator, or facility director;
3. effective collaboration with departmental colleagues and active participation in departmental efforts and initiatives;
4. assistance with enrollment events;
5. active participation in campus life, such as advising student organizations, assisting with student extracurricular activities, serving on student life committees, and coordinating or offering assistance with campus events;
6. acting as a role model for students and colleagues in supporting the activities of the College community.

B. Service to the Profession
Service to the profession involves voluntarily carrying out responsibilities or duties which contribute to the functional operation of a professional organization within one’s content field. Service in this capacity may include:
1. holding elected or appointed office in local, regional, state, or national organizations within one’s area of expertise;
2. organizing professional conferences and events; serving on professional organization task forces or committees;
3. reviewing books, articles, and grant proposals; and evaluating faculty, departments, and programs at other schools.

C. Service to the Community
A faculty member’s Community Service may enhance the quality of the education Juniata provides. Faculty should bring such service to the attention of PEC along with their rationale for the benefit to the college. One example might be service that increases internship or project possibilities for Juniata students. Another might be an activity that provides the faculty member with additional experience or training that enhances his/her effectiveness as a teacher or advisor.

Candidates are invited to include activities other than those listed above. In such instances, it is incumbent upon the candidate to document the activity and demonstrate how it constitutes service to the college, the profession, or the community comparable to those listed. Department chair and colleague evaluations should specifically discuss these activities as well.

Evaluation of Service:
PEC will evaluate the candidate’s service in accordance with the description of faculty duties set forth in sections 2.9 and 2.11. Candidates are expected to provide evidence of service to the college, and may also discuss professional and/or community service as appropriate. Demonstration of service activities should include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following documentation:

A. Professional Data Sheet;
B. Self-assessment of service activities;
C. Department Chair and/or Program Director Evaluations;
D. Evaluations from colleagues and administrators;
E. Evaluations from committee members or committee chairperson, or evaluations from the supervisor of an activity;
F. Statements from professional peers as appropriate;
G. Student evaluations as appropriate;
H. Statements from leaders of community groups as appropriate.

Candidates are invited to include assessments other than those listed above. In such instances, it is incumbent upon the candidates to provide persuasive evidence that the assessment mechanism is appropriate.

See Section 2.5.5 for specific evaluation procedures.

Approved by the Faculty, December 2008

Approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees, February 20, 2009

2.5.2 Policies of Personnel Evaluation Committee

The purpose of faculty evaluation is to provide information for use in making recommendations for contract renewal, promotion, and tenure.

  1. The Personnel Evaluation Committee will make no recommendation pertaining to a faculty member without evaluating the person involved. Specific evaluation procedures are outlined in Section 2.5.5.
  2. A faculty member shall be notified when he or she is being evaluated.
  3. The faculty member may collect data for and write letters to the Committee.
  4. Faculty members shall be informed of the results of the evaluation by a written summary.
  5. The Committee shall study all available evaluation documents and make its recommendations to the Provost and Vice President for Student Development.
  6. The Committee may seek additional documentation when it deems the current file inadequate to make an evaluation. The faculty member under review will be notified of such action.
  7. It shall be the responsibility of the Personnel Evaluation Committee to develop and review policies and procedures related to evaluation for promotion and contract renewal, except that evaluation of faculty members in the first two years is handled by the Department Chair and Provost and Vice President for Student Development (see Section 2.5.4). The implementation of the periodic review of faculty is the responsibility of the Personnel Evaluation Committee and the Department Chair.
  8. On the recommendation of the Provost and Vice President for Student Development, a department or program chair, or the faculty member, any member of the faculty may be evaluated by the Personnel Evaluation Committee at times other than for promotion or contract renewal.

2.5.2.1 Waiver of Evaluation

A faculty member who has served sufficient time in rank to be considered for promotion may ask not to be evaluated for promotion by presenting a written request to the Personnel Evaluation Committee. The member's name will remain off all subsequent evaluation lists until the faculty member requests reinstatement to the evaluation list in writing to the Committee. Since the Committee must consider evaluations of the four most recent semesters (excluding summer courses) of a candidate's teaching and advising at Juniata (see 2.5.5.3.2.B), the summary report will be made the year following the collection of data.

2.5.3 Evaluation Files

The Personnel Evaluation Committee makes recommendations to the Provost and Vice President for Student Development on such matters as retention (contract renewal), promotion, and tenure. The files accumulated in the process of evaluation are maintained by the Committee.

2.5.3.1 Contents of Files

The Personnel File maintained by the Personnel Evaluation Committee contains all letters of evaluation written by colleagues and the Department Chair as well as copies of information gathered as a part of the administrative reviews during the initial probationary periods (Section 2.5.4.1) and any previous committee reports. The Personnel Evaluation Committee may solicit additional letters when it determines that the current letters in the file are insufficient to enable a conclusive evaluation. The File will also contain student evaluations with names removed, the Professional Data Form prepared by the faculty member, any materials requested by the committee, any unsolicited material, and any other materials which the faculty member wishes to add to the evaluation file. Excerpts of minutes of any meeting in which the evaluatee figured, such as an appeal, may be placed in the File.

2.5.3.1.1 Policy on Unsolicited Material

Unsolicited evaluation material that is submitted to the Chair and/or the Personnel Evaluation Committee will be placed in the Personnel File maintained by the Personnel Evaluation Committee. The evaluatee will be notified in writing of the existence of such information.

2.5.3.2 Access to Files

Files may be kept eclectronically and/or as paper records. The evaluatee, the Department Chair, and members of the Personnel Evaluatoin Committee may have regular access to the file. When the committee's evaluation is complete, it will send its report and recommendation to the Provost and provide the Provost and the President access to the evaluatee's file for administatrive review (section 2.5.4.2).


2.5.4 Administrative Review

2.5.4.1 Administrative Review of Initial Probation Period

During their first two years of appointment, faculty members on one-year contracts are evaluated by the Department Chair as specified in Section 2.5.5.3.1. The Department Chair must file a report with the Provost and Vice President for Student Development by January 15 of the academic year in which a first-year faculty member is evaluated and by November 15 of the academic year in which a second-year faculty member is evaluated. The evaluatee must file a Professional Data Sheet with the Vice President by the same date

The Provost and Vice President for Student Development will then review the report and any material that the faculty member chooses to submit. The Vice President will then meet with the faculty member to review the report. After each review, the Vice President will prepare in writing a summary of the meeting. The faculty member will have an opportunity to respond to this document, and it will be placed in the member's personal file in the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Student Development. Copies of the Chair's report, the Vice President's report, and the evaluatee's responses will also be placed in the evaluatee's File which is maintained by the Personnel Evaluation Committee. Student evaluations conducted during the first two years will be placed in the Personnel File maintained by the Personnel Evaluation Committee.

2.5.4.2 Administrative Review of Recommendations by the Personnel Evaluation Committee

The President and the Provost and Vice President for Student Development will independently review recommendations brought forward by the Personnel Evaluation Committee for retention (contract renewal), promotion, and tenure. In recommending these actions to the Board, the President and the Provost and Vice President for Student Development will consider the following factors:

  1. Level of support expressed by the Personnel Evaluation Committee.
  2. The four evaluation criteria which are the only criteria for retention, promotion, and tenure, as described in Section 2.5.
  3. The weighting system for the four criteria used by PEC and detailed in Article 2.5.5.3.2.D.1.
  4. For promotion in rank, the standards of performance described in Section 2.6.
  5. In the case of promotion, both time in rank and length of service.
  6. In the case of promotion, comparison with the achievements of the faculty in the rank to which the person may be promoted. Candidates for promotion should understand that the process is competitive. Denial of recommendation is not to be necessarily evidence of unsatisfactory performance.
  7. Considerations for tenure are specified in Section 2.7.2.

2.5.5 Procedures of Evaluation

All faculty will be evaluated on the basis of the criteria in Section 2.5.1, according to the policies and procedures specified in 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, and 2.5.5.

In cases of exceptional circumstances, as determined by the Provost and Vice President for Student Development the Personnel Evaluation Committee in consultation with the evaluatee, portions of the evaluation procedure may be modified to conform to those circumstances.

2.5.5.1 Selection of the Faculty to be Evaluated

At the beginning of each academic year, the Provost and Vice President for Student Development forwards to the Department Chair and the Personnel Evaluation Committee a list of faculty to be reviewed. This group of faculty will include those on one-year contracts, and those eligible for contract renewal, promotion, and/or tenure in the following academic year. The Committee will inform all prospective evaluatees, and those who wish to waive the evaluation may do so following procedures outlined in Section 2.5.2.1. The Committee then presents that list to the faculty at the earliest possible faculty meeting, omitting those who have waived evaluation, so that faculty who wish to be included on the list may register with the Provost and Vice President for Student Development or the Chair of the Committee.

Persons who wish to nominate a faculty member under the policy of "Special Promotions" (see Section 2.6.3) should send the nomination to the Committee by March 1, so that the Committee can include that person in the schedule of evaluations for the following year.

The Provost and Vice President for Student Development may also request an evaluation of any faculty member. Such a request must be made in writing before the beginning of any semester.

2.5.5.2 Evaluation Documents

Four main types of data are used in preparing evaluation reports for faculty under review. They are: student evaluations of teaching and advising, colleague evaluations, Portfolios, and Department Chair evaluations. Copies of all forms are available from the Personnel Evaluation Committee.

  1. Student Evaluations
    Two written forms are used to evaluate teaching: (1) a standardized evaluation instrument of classroom performance which is subject to statistical analysis, and (2) a written comment sheet. Students are also asked to evaluate advising by completing the Advising Comment Sheet. In addition, students may be interviewed by the Committee. Student evaluation data, with names removed, will be maintained in the Personnel File maintained by the Personnel Evaluation Committee.
  2. Colleague Evaluations
    Selected colleagues (see Section 2.5.5.3.2 C) are asked to complete a colleague evaluation form that calls for comments and ranking in the four major evaluation areas: teaching effectiveness, advising, professional development, and service. These forms are kept in the Personnel File maintained by the Personnel Evaluation Committee.
  3. Portfolios
    The evaluatee prepares a professional portfolio that includes (1) The Professional Data Sheet; (2) a current curriculum vitae; (3) a personal statement, including a philosophy of teaching and information that helps the committee to contextualize the candidate's professional activities; (4) copies of syllabi and other course materials; (5) evidence or professional development; and (6) any other materials that will be helpful to colleague evaluators and the committee in evaluting the candidate's teaching, advising, professional development, and service. The committee will set a deadline by which this portfolio should be available to colleague evaluators and the committee (see Section 2.5.5.1).
  4. Department Chair Evaluations
    The Department Chair plays an important role in all faculty evaluations by gathering data and submitting a written evaluation. In the case of the first two years of a probationary appointment, the Department Chair conducts the evaluation and files a report with the Provost and Vice President for Student Development. In cases of contract renewal, promotion, and tenure, the Chair files the report with the Personnel Evaluation Committee. Further description of the Department Chair's role follows in Section 2.5.5.3.1.
Approved by the faculty, Sept. 2011 and approved by the Board of Trustees, Feb. 2012

2.5.5.3 Evaluation Processes

Criteria areas and major types of data collected are the same for all faculty under evaluation. However, evaluation of faculty with probationary, one-year contracts is carried out by the Department Chair and the Provost and Vice President for Student Development. The Personnel Evaluation Committee evaluates faculty who are being considered for contract renewal, promotion, and/or tenure. The steps for each category follow.

2.5.5.3.1 Evaluation of Faculty on Initial One-Year Contracts

New faculty members who are on initial one-year contracts (normally first two years) are evaluated in the following way:

  1. After consulting with the faculty member to select a mutually agreeable time for the classroom evaluations, the Personnel Evaluation Committee will conduct course evaluations for all courses taught by the evaluatee. The evaluatee must leave the classroom during the evaluation.
  2. The Personnel Evaluation Committee will arrange to survey the advisees of the evaluatee with the cooperation of the Registrar's office.
  3. The Chair distributes and collects the Professional Data Sheet from the evaluatee by November 1 of the academic year of evaluation.
  4. The Chair may make classroom visits. A twenty-four hour notice must be given to the faculty member.
  5. The Chair may call a department meeting by December 1, of the same year for department members to discuss the evaluatees's performance. The department may decide whether to allow the evaluatee to be present during this meeting.
  6. The Chair meets periodically with the evaluatee to discuss progress toward departmental and professional goals. The Chair reviews student evaluations with the evaluatee.
  7. The Chair meets periodically with the evaluatee to discuss progress toward departmental and professional goals. The Chair reviews student evaluations with the evaluatee.
  8. After receiving the report, the Vice President and Dean follows the procedures outlined in Section 2.5.4.1.

2.5.5.3.2 Evaluation for Contract Renewal, Promotion and Tenure

The Personnel Evaluation Committee conducts evaluations of faculty being considered for contract renewal, promotion and tenure, writes a summary report, and makes a summary recommendation to the Provost and Vice President for Student Development according to the following process:

  1. After receiving a list of faculty eligible for consideration, the Committee notifies each individual on the list as specified in Section 2.5.5.1.
  2. The Personnel Evaluation Committee reviews evaluations of the four most recent semesters (excluding summer courses of a candidate's teaching and advising at Juniata. Candidates whose employment contracts specify that they are to be evaluated by the Personnel Evaluation Committee before they have taught for four semesters at Juniata are evaluated on the basis of at least one full year of teaching and advising. In some circumstances the Personnel Evaluation Committee may conduct a review using one full year's of course and advising evaluations (for example when a review follows a sabbatical leave, a leave of absence, or when faculty receive teaching credit towards tenure and/or promotion). Faculty will be notified of exceptions at the beginning of their review cycle.
  3. The Personnel Evaluation Committee will collect six written colleague evaluations. The Committee will select at least three colleagues, one of whom is normally the Department Chair, and notify the evaluatee of the choices. The evaluatee will select three additional colleagues, who may or may not be members of the evaluatee's department to complete additional colleague evaluations. The six colleague evaluators will be given access to the student evaluations of the evaluatee's teaching and advising and to the evaluatee's portfolio. Such access will cease on the deadline for submission of colleague evaluations.
  4. After all of the data specified in Section 2.5.5.2 has been reviewed, the Committee prepares a summary report.
    1. The summary is divided into four categories: teaching effectiveness, advising, professional development, and service. The committee, after discussion of the document, assigns a "score" to each section of the report. These "scores" are then weighted according to the following factors: Teaching Effectiveness, 50 to 70 percent; Advising, 10 to 25 percent; Professional Development, 10 to 25 percent; Service, 10 to 25 percent. The weighting factor is chosen so as to maximize the faculty member's "score" with the total weighting not to exceed 100%.
    2. Each member of the committee assesses the results of the evaluation on an individual basis and a secret ballot is taken whether to recommend, recommend with reservation, or not recommend for the pending action. Members who have recused themselves from voting on the candidate must vote "abstain." Members who have not recused themselves may not vote "abstain." The Committee's vote is tabulated and included in the summary report.
    3. The report is then sent to the evaluatee with a memo advising that the faculty member may appeal to the Committee concerning any aspect of the report, or accept the report as written. The evaluatee may also attach an additional statement/document to the report before it is transmitted to the Provost and Vice President for Student Development. The faculty member has one week to submit a written appeal to the Committee. The Committee will then consider all appeals and finalize the report.
    4. After the end of the appeals period, the final report with any modifications is sent to the Provost and Vice President for Student Development for action as specified in Section 2.5.4.2 of this handbook. The evaluatee receives a copy of the final report and a copy is placed in the Personnel File maintained by the Personnel Evaluation Committee.

Revisions to Sections 2.5.1.3 and 2.5.4.2 were approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees, May 1996.

Revision to Section 2.5.5.3.2 was approved by the Faculty, May 2004.

Revision to Section 2.5.1 was approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees, February 2009.

Revision to Section 2.5.3 was approved by the Faculty, October 2010.

Revision to Section 2.5.5.3.2. was approved by the Faculty, 2011 and approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees, February 2012.

Revision to Section 2.5.5.3.2.B was approved by the Faculty, May 2013.
Revision to Section 2.5.5.3.2.B was approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees, July 2013.

Revision to Section 2.5.2.1 was approved by the Faculty, April 2014
Revison to Section 2.5.2.1 was approved by the Board of Trustees, April 25, 2014.

Revision to Section 2.5.5.3.2.C & D was approved by the Faculty, April 2014.
Revision to Section 2.5.5.3.2.C & D was approved by the Board of Trustees, April 25, 2014.