CON Faculty Evaluation: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(72 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 34: Line 34:
     </tr>
     </tr>
     <tr>
     <tr>
         <td width="60%">Section 4.0 - Information</td>
         <td width="60%">Section 4.0 - Faculty Policies/Guidelines</td>
         <td width="40%">Originating Date: October, 1975</td>
         <td width="40%">Originating Date: October 1975</td>
     </tr>
     </tr>
      
      
     <tr>
     <tr>
         <td valign="top" width="60%">Responsible Reviewing Agency:<br /><div style="margin-left:3em; line-height:1.2;">Executive Council</div></td>
         <td valign="top" width="60%">Responsible Reviewing/Approving Agency:<br /><div style="margin-left:3em; line-height:1.2;">Executive Council</div></td>
         <td valign="top" width="40%">
         <td valign="top" width="40%">
          
          
             <table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
             <table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
                 <tr>
                 <tr>
                 <td>Revised: October, 1997<br />Revised: May, 2003<br />Revised: [[CON Faculty Evaluation version November 2007|November, 2007]]<br />Revised: January, 2015</td>
                 <td>Revised: October 1997<br />Revised: May 2003<br />Revised: [[Special:PermanentLink/5700|November 2007]]<br />Revised: [[Special:PermanentLink/7296|January 2015]] ([[Special:Diff/5700/7296|changes]])<br />Revised: [[Special:PermanentLink/10384|February 2016]] ([[Special:Diff/7296/10384|changes]])<br />Revised: [[Special:PermanentLink/12651|September 2018]] ([[Special:Diff/10384/12651|changes]])<br />Revised: [[Special:PermanentLink/13978|January 2022]] ([[Special:Diff/12651/13978|changes]])<br />Revised: June 2024 ([[Special:Diff/13978/{{REVISIONID}}|changes]])</td>
                 </tr>
                 </tr>
             </table>
             </table>
Line 50: Line 50:
         </td>
         </td>
     </tr>
     </tr>
<!--
 
     <tr>
     <tr>
     <td valign="top"><small>J:/RESOURCE MANUAL/Table of Contents College of Nursing Resource Manual</small></td>
     <td colspan="2" valign="top">Related Documents: <br /><div style="margin-left:3em; line-height:1.2;">[[CON_Standards_and_Guidelines_for_Promotion_and_Tenure_for_Academic_Rank|Appendix A1 - Standards and Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure for Academic Rank]]<br />[[CON_Standards_for_Promotion_for_Clinical_Rank|Appendix A2 - Standards for Promotion for Clinical Rank]]<br />[[Media:4_2_7_Annual_Faculty_Activity_Review_Form_2024_06.docx| Annual Faculty Activity Review Form]]<br />[[CON_Guidelines_for_Doctorally_Prepared_Faculty_Role_Differentiation|Appendix B1 – Guidelines for Doctorally Prepared Faculty Role Differentiation]]<br />[[CON_Promotion_and_Tenure_for_Academic_Rank|4.4.6(1) Promotion and Tenure for Academic Rank]]<br />[[CON Promotion for Clinical Rank|4.4.6(2) Promotion for Clinical Rank]]<br />[https://digitalcommons.unmc.edu/iae_tools/1/ UNMC Interprofessional Academy of Educators (IAE) Peer Feedback on Teaching for Health Professions Lectures Form]<br />[[CON_Peer_Feedback_for_Teaching_Mission|4.2.9 Peer Feedback for Teaching Mission]]<br />[[CON Student Ratings of Instruction|5.1.8 Student Ratings of Instruction]]<br />[https://nebraska.edu/-/media/unca/docs/offices-and-policies/policies/board-governing-documents/bor.pdf Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska Procedure 4.5: Standards for Promotion, Continuous Appointment, and Salary Adjustment]<br />[https://nebraska.edu/-/media/unca/docs/offices-and-policies/policies/board-governing-documents/bor.pdf Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska Procedure 4.6: Evaluation of Faculty Performance]</div></td>
     </tr>
     </tr>
-->
</table>
</table>
<br />
<br />
===Purpose===
<p style="margin-bottom:15px;max-width:70em !important;">The purposes of faculty evaluation are the following:</p>
<ul style="margin-bottom:15px;max-width:67em !important;">
    <li>Review contributions to the tripartite mission of teaching, scholarship/research and service/practice</li>
    <li>Review and assist faculty development, including career advancement such as promotion and recognition</li>
    <li>Identify goals and strengths of individual faculty to better match the University mission</li>
    <li>Identify plans for growth, mentoring, and improvement</li>
    <li>Provide for an annual review of goal achievement</li>
</ul>
===Scope===
<p style="margin-bottom:15px;max-width:70em !important;">This policy applies to all faculty.</p>
===Policy===
===Policy===
<p style="margin-bottom:15px;">All faculty are evaluated at least annually by their Chair/Division Assistant Dean.</p>
<ol style="margin-bottom:15px;max-width:70em !important;">
<p style="margin-bottom:15px;">Multiple sources of data are used for faculty evaluations. At a minimum, annual evaluations are based on faculty self evaluation, student evaluation, and Chair/Division Assistant Dean evaluation. Other data, such as peer evaluation or evaluation by outside consultants, can be sought at the discretion of the Chair/Division Assistant Dean and/or the faculty.</p>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">In accordance with the Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska Procedures 4.5 & 4.6, all faculty are evaluated at least annually by their division assistant dean or appropriate supervisor. The supervisor makes merit recommendations with rationale, including a completed performance appraisal, to the dean.</li>
<p style="margin-bottom:15px;">To prepare for an annual evaluation, faculty members submit to Chair/Division Assistant Deans the following: 1) self evaluation; 2) student/course evaluations; 3) proposed future activity goals 4) updated C.V.</p>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The Associate Dean for Research collaborates with the supervisor and is included in the evaluation meeting for those faculty who have >30% scholarship effort.</li>
<p style="margin-bottom:15px;">New faculty members are evaluated at the end of the first semester as well as the end of the year; the first semester evaluation typically is mentoring and counseling in nature.</p>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The Associate Dean for Transformational Practice & Partnerships collaborates with the supervisor and is included in the evaluation meeting for those faculty who have >40% practice effort.</li>
<p style="margin-bottom:15px;">Graduate Assistants (GA), whether teaching or performing other College of Nursing work such as research or practice, also are evaluated annually by their Chair/Division Assistant Dean or other appropriate supervisor. If appropriate, student evaluations are submitted to the Chair/Division Assistant Dean to be considered in the evaluation.</p>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The designated supervisor shall orient newly hired faculty to evaluation policies, procedures and forms at the time of employment.</li>
<p style="margin-bottom:15px;">For regular faculty (non-GA personnel), Chair/Division Assistant Deans make merit raise recommendations with rationale, including a completed performance appraisal, to the Dean.</p>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The period of evaluation is from January 1 to December 31 of the previous year. For a faculty member employed for a partial year, the supervisor shall consider the time period employed during the review of the faculty’s contributions related to the metric benchmarks.</li>
<p style="margin-bottom:15px;">Evaluation records are confidential. Chair/Division Assistant Deans have access to files of faculty whom they supervise. The Dean has access to all faculty files. Faculty evaluations are kept in the official personnel file.</p>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">Multiple sources of data are used for faculty evaluations from each mission area where faculty are assigned Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) allocation.</li>
 
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">Metrics for each mission area are delineated in categories and by level of achievement. Levels of achievement are listed for each rating level using UNMC performance ratings. Level 1 (unsatisfactory performance seldom meets established standards), Level 2 (needs improvement, sometimes meets established standards but lacks consistency), Level 3 (meets and occasionally exceeds established standards, or Level 4 (consistently meets and almost always exceeds expected levels of performance. See University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) College of Nursing (CON) Faculty Annual Evaluation Form for expected outcomes for each mission’s metrics by level.
===Procedures===
    <ul style="margin-bottom:15px;max-width:67em !important;">
====Annual Evaluation Meeting:====
        <li>Teaching mission metrics are included for peer feedback in the appropriate timeframe (see 4.2.9 Peer Feedback for Teaching Mission), education specific continuing education, and student evaluation of faculty in courses (see 5.1.8 Student Ratings of Instruction).</li>
<ol style="margin-bottom:15px;">
        <li>Scholarly activity mission metrics are included for grants and publications (see Appendix B1 Guidelines for Doctoral Prepared Faculty Role Differentiation).</li>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The period of evaluation typically is from March of the previous year to March of the current year in line with an approximately 12-month period.</li>
        <li>Practice mission metrics are included for practice hours, contracted agency satisfaction with faculty, continuing clinical education attendance, and dissemination of practice scholarship.</li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The Chair/Division Assistant Deans orient newly-hired faculty to evaluation policies, procedures and forms at the time of their employment.</li>
        <li>Service mission metrics are included for organizational committee participation and professional organization participation.</li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">An annual evaluation meeting is held between the faculty member and the Chair/Division Assistant Dean for the purpose of discussing and completing the evaluation. </li>
        <li>Administrative job description duties would be used to evaluate faculty holding administrative positions. </li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The faculty member contacts the Chair/Division Assistant Dean’s support staff to schedule a time for the evaluation meeting.</li>
    </ul>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">In advance of the meeting, the faculty member completes the Annual Faculty Activity Review form (and attaches copies of all course/student evaluations and an updated CV); collects and supplies any other documents the faculty desires to be included in the evaluation (e.g., peer evaluations, other documentation); and emails the packet to his/her Chair/Division Assistant Dean, who will consider the material and provide numeric ratings of the faculty member’s performance relative to each role function and a brief narrative evaluation summary. </li>
    </li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The faculty member and Chair/Division Assistant Dean meet and discuss the evaluative materials presented in the Annual Faculty Activity Review form and set goals for the next academic year as well as plans for achieving the goals. In collaboration with their Chair/Division Assistant Dean, faculty members develop annual goals that are congruent with the CON strategic plan, and, as appropriate, consistent with plans for promotion and tenure (See Appendix A, Standards for Promotion and Tenure).</li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">To prepare for an annual evaluation, faculty members submit to designated supervisor the following:
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">Chair/Division Assistant Deans provide faculty members guidance to improve in areas which have been identified as deficient or needing improvement.</li>
     <ul style="margin-bottom:15px;max-width:67em !important;">
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The final written evaluation is dated and signed by the faculty member and Chair/Division Assistant Dean.</li>
        <li>annual faculty activity review form which includes assessment of previous year’s goals and plans for current year’s goals.</li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">Faculty members have the opportunity to respond in writing to their evaluation. </li>
        <li>supporting documentation (e.g., UNMC Interprofessional Academy of Educators (IAE) Peer Feedback on Teaching for Health Professions Lectures Form and actionable ideas to implement, student evaluations).</li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">Following the meeting, the Chair/Division Assistant Dean provides a copy of the signed evaluation materials to the faculty member, and places the original documents in the faculty member's permanent file in the Dean’s Office.</li>
        <li>updated curriculum vita (CV) using the UNMC approved format, including continuing education listings and credits. Activities for the year under review shall be highlighted.</li>
    </ul>
    </li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">Faculty members shall make an appointment with their supervisor for the review after their fully completed materials listed above are submitted to the supervisor.</li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The supervisor shall review the documents and provide performance ratings of the faculty member’s performance relative to each tripartite mission role function. The supervisor also provides a brief narrative evaluation summary.</li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The faculty member, designated supervisor, and/or the Associate Dean for Research and/or the Associate Dean for Transformational Practice and Partnerships as appropriate shall meet to discuss the evaluative materials and set goals for the next academic year as well as plans for achieving the goals. In collaboration with their designated administrator, faculty members develop annual goals that are congruent with the CON standards for Promotion and Tenure (4.4.6(1), 4.4.6(2), Appendix A1, Appendix A2), the tripartite mission, and, as appropriate, with the strategic plan.</li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">Designated supervisors shall provide faculty members guidance on how to improve in areas which have been identified for growth.</li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The final written evaluation shall be dated and signed by the faculty member and designated supervisor.</li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">A faculty member has the opportunity to respond in writing to the evaluation. </li>
     <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">After the meeting, the designated supervisor shall provide a copy of the signed evaluation materials to the faculty member and place the original documents in the faculty member's permanent file in the dean’s office.</li>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">Evaluation records are confidential. Designated supervisors have access to files of faculty whom they supervise. The dean has access to all faculty files. Faculty evaluations are kept in the official personnel file. Faculty also have access to their personnel files at any time. </li>
</ol>
</ol>
====Student Evaluation of Faculty:====
<p style="margin-bottom:15px;">The purpose of student evaluation of faculty is to:</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
    <li style="margin-left:3em; margin-bottom:15px;">Allow students to give anonymous feedback on what they considered to be the positive and negative aspects of the classroom and clinical faculty’s teaching effectiveness.</li>
    <li style="margin-left:3em; margin-bottom:15px;">Provide faculty with evaluative data for potential changes in teaching effectiveness</li>
    <li style="margin-left:3em; margin-bottom:15px;">Provide data for administrative evaluation of faculty, including the annual evaluation.</li>
</ol>
<ol style="margin-bottom:15px;">
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">All students, regardless of course delivery method, are given an opportunity to evaluate each course they are taking and the faculty teaching in that course.</li>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">An online, electronic evaluation process is used and provides anonymity for the student and student’s comments.</li>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">Student evaluations of faculty are given to the respective faculty member and the Chair/Division Assistant Dean.  Results of student course evaluations are given to those identified above as well as the appropriate program director, appropriate curriculum committee, and Director of Evaluation.</li>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">Students are sent an email with instructions on how and when to complete the evaluation.  Generally, evaluations will be open for student input for two weeks, opening the Wednesday before finals week and closing the Wednesday after finals week.  Classes that do not start and stop on the usual semester schedule may have slightly different availability dates, but availability will in no case be less than two weeks and will always extend beyond the date of the final exam.</li>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">Results of the evaluations are sent to the faculty (automatically) one day after grades are due for that semester.</li>
</ol>
====Peer Evaluation of Faculty====
<p style="margin-bottom:15px;">The purpose of peer review of the faculty is to:</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
    <li style="margin-left:3em; margin-bottom:15px;">Afford faculty an evaluation from a peer or peers on role performance for continuous improvement.</li>
    <li style="margin-left:3em; margin-bottom:15px;">Provide data from peers for administrative evaluation of faculty, including the annual evaluation.</li>
    <li style="margin-left:3em; margin-bottom:15px;">Allow for promotion and tenure or triggered post-tenure review.  <sup>1</sup></li>
</ol>
<ol style="margin-bottom:15px;">
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">A faculty member and/or faculty Chair/Division Assistant Dean may request that a peer or peers evaluate the faculty’s role performance as part of an annual evaluation process, a requested review to improve role performance and/or as part of a special administrative review. </li>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">Peer reviewer(s) may be selected by the faculty and/or faculty Chair/Division Assistant Dean.  Peer reviewer(s) should be knowledgeable about the role(s) to be evaluated. </li>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The faculty and/or administrative evaluator make arrangements with the peer reviewer(s) on where, when and what is to be evaluated within a specified time frame. Faculty and/or the Chair/Division Assistant Dean supply needed materials to the peer reviewer.</li>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The peer reviewer forwards the written peer evaluation to the faculty’s Chair/Division Assistant Dean.</li>
    <li style="margin-bottom:15px;">The Chair/Division Assistant Dean discusses the peer review evaluation with the faculty to identify areas for improvement. </li>
</ol>
<br />
<hr />
<small><sup>1</sup> See [[CON_Promotion_and_Tenure_for_Academic_Rank|Promotion and Tenure Policy 4.4.6]]</small>

Latest revision as of 11:46, August 21, 2024

Home   Faculty Policies                    


UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER
COLLEGE OF NURSING
Faculty Evaluation Subsection: 4.2.7
Section 4.0 - Faculty Policies/Guidelines Originating Date: October 1975
Responsible Reviewing/Approving Agency:
Executive Council
Revised: October 1997
Revised: May 2003
Revised: November 2007
Revised: January 2015 (changes)
Revised: February 2016 (changes)
Revised: September 2018 (changes)
Revised: January 2022 (changes)
Revised: June 2024 (changes)
Related Documents:


Purpose

The purposes of faculty evaluation are the following:

  • Review contributions to the tripartite mission of teaching, scholarship/research and service/practice
  • Review and assist faculty development, including career advancement such as promotion and recognition
  • Identify goals and strengths of individual faculty to better match the University mission
  • Identify plans for growth, mentoring, and improvement
  • Provide for an annual review of goal achievement

Scope

This policy applies to all faculty.

Policy

  1. In accordance with the Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska Procedures 4.5 & 4.6, all faculty are evaluated at least annually by their division assistant dean or appropriate supervisor. The supervisor makes merit recommendations with rationale, including a completed performance appraisal, to the dean.
  2. The Associate Dean for Research collaborates with the supervisor and is included in the evaluation meeting for those faculty who have >30% scholarship effort.
  3. The Associate Dean for Transformational Practice & Partnerships collaborates with the supervisor and is included in the evaluation meeting for those faculty who have >40% practice effort.
  4. The designated supervisor shall orient newly hired faculty to evaluation policies, procedures and forms at the time of employment.
  5. The period of evaluation is from January 1 to December 31 of the previous year. For a faculty member employed for a partial year, the supervisor shall consider the time period employed during the review of the faculty’s contributions related to the metric benchmarks.
  6. Multiple sources of data are used for faculty evaluations from each mission area where faculty are assigned Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) allocation.
  7. Metrics for each mission area are delineated in categories and by level of achievement. Levels of achievement are listed for each rating level using UNMC performance ratings. Level 1 (unsatisfactory performance seldom meets established standards), Level 2 (needs improvement, sometimes meets established standards but lacks consistency), Level 3 (meets and occasionally exceeds established standards, or Level 4 (consistently meets and almost always exceeds expected levels of performance. See University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) College of Nursing (CON) Faculty Annual Evaluation Form for expected outcomes for each mission’s metrics by level.
    • Teaching mission metrics are included for peer feedback in the appropriate timeframe (see 4.2.9 Peer Feedback for Teaching Mission), education specific continuing education, and student evaluation of faculty in courses (see 5.1.8 Student Ratings of Instruction).
    • Scholarly activity mission metrics are included for grants and publications (see Appendix B1 Guidelines for Doctoral Prepared Faculty Role Differentiation).
    • Practice mission metrics are included for practice hours, contracted agency satisfaction with faculty, continuing clinical education attendance, and dissemination of practice scholarship.
    • Service mission metrics are included for organizational committee participation and professional organization participation.
    • Administrative job description duties would be used to evaluate faculty holding administrative positions.
  8. To prepare for an annual evaluation, faculty members submit to designated supervisor the following:
    • annual faculty activity review form which includes assessment of previous year’s goals and plans for current year’s goals.
    • supporting documentation (e.g., UNMC Interprofessional Academy of Educators (IAE) Peer Feedback on Teaching for Health Professions Lectures Form and actionable ideas to implement, student evaluations).
    • updated curriculum vita (CV) using the UNMC approved format, including continuing education listings and credits. Activities for the year under review shall be highlighted.
  9. Faculty members shall make an appointment with their supervisor for the review after their fully completed materials listed above are submitted to the supervisor.
  10. The supervisor shall review the documents and provide performance ratings of the faculty member’s performance relative to each tripartite mission role function. The supervisor also provides a brief narrative evaluation summary.
  11. The faculty member, designated supervisor, and/or the Associate Dean for Research and/or the Associate Dean for Transformational Practice and Partnerships as appropriate shall meet to discuss the evaluative materials and set goals for the next academic year as well as plans for achieving the goals. In collaboration with their designated administrator, faculty members develop annual goals that are congruent with the CON standards for Promotion and Tenure (4.4.6(1), 4.4.6(2), Appendix A1, Appendix A2), the tripartite mission, and, as appropriate, with the strategic plan.
  12. Designated supervisors shall provide faculty members guidance on how to improve in areas which have been identified for growth.
  13. The final written evaluation shall be dated and signed by the faculty member and designated supervisor.
  14. A faculty member has the opportunity to respond in writing to the evaluation.
  15. After the meeting, the designated supervisor shall provide a copy of the signed evaluation materials to the faculty member and place the original documents in the faculty member's permanent file in the dean’s office.
  16. Evaluation records are confidential. Designated supervisors have access to files of faculty whom they supervise. The dean has access to all faculty files. Faculty evaluations are kept in the official personnel file. Faculty also have access to their personnel files at any time.