CON Faculty Evaluation

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 Revised: February 2016
Related Documents: Appendix B

Policy

The purposes of faculty evaluation are the following:

<listyle="margin-bottom:15px;">Review contributions to the tripartite mission: a) teaching, b) scholarship/research and c) service/practice
• Review/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/or improvement
• Provide for an annual review of goal achievement

The designated administrators orient newly hired faculty to evaluation policies, procedures and forms at the time of employment.

All faculty are evaluated at least annually by their Division Assistant Dean.

Multiple sources of data are used for faculty evaluations. At a minimum, annual evaluations are based on faculty self evaluation, student evaluation, and Division Assistant Dean evaluation. Other data, such as peer evaluation or evaluation by outside consultants, can be sought at the discretion of the Division Assistant Dean and/or the faculty.

To prepare for an annual evaluation, faculty members submit to Division Assistant Deans the following: 1) self evaluation; 2) student/course evaluations; 3) proposed future activity goals 4) updated C.V.

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.

Graduate Assistants (GA), whether teaching or performing other College of Nursing work such as research or practice, also are evaluated annually by their Division Assistant Dean or other appropriate supervisor. If appropriate, student evaluations are submitted to the Division Assistant Dean to be considered in the evaluation.

For regular faculty (non-GA personnel), Division Assistant Deans make merit raise recommendations with rationale, including a completed performance appraisal, to the Dean.

Evaluation records are confidential. 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.

Procedures

Annual Evaluation Meeting:

1. 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.
2. The Division Assistant Deans orient newly-hired faculty to evaluation policies, procedures and forms at the time of their employment.
3. An annual evaluation meeting is held between the faculty member and the Division Assistant Dean for the purpose of discussing and completing the evaluation.
4. The faculty member contacts the Division Assistant Dean’s support staff to schedule a time for the evaluation meeting.
5. 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 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.
6. The faculty member and 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 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).
7. Division Assistant Deans provide faculty members guidance to improve in areas which have been identified as deficient or needing improvement.
8. The final written evaluation is dated and signed by the faculty member and Division Assistant Dean.
9. Faculty members have the opportunity to respond in writing to their evaluation.
10. Following the meeting, the 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.

Student Evaluation of Faculty:

The purpose of student evaluation of faculty is to:

1. 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.
2. Provide faculty with evaluative data for potential changes in teaching effectiveness
3. Provide data for administrative evaluation of faculty, including the annual evaluation.

1. 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.
2. An online, electronic evaluation process is used and provides anonymity for the student and student’s comments.
3. Student evaluations of faculty are given to the respective faculty member and the 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.
4. 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.
5. Results of the evaluations are sent to the faculty (automatically) one day after grades are due for that semester.

Peer Evaluation of Faculty

The purpose of peer review of the faculty is to:

1. Afford faculty an evaluation from a peer or peers on role performance for continuous improvement.
2. Provide data from peers for administrative evaluation of faculty, including the annual evaluation.
3. Allow for promotion and tenure or triggered post-tenure review. ¹

1. A faculty member and/or faculty 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.
2. Peer reviewer(s) may be selected by the faculty and/or faculty Division Assistant Dean. Peer reviewer(s) should be knowledgeable about the role(s) to be evaluated.
3. 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 Division Assistant Dean supply needed materials to the peer reviewer.
4. The peer reviewer forwards the written peer evaluation to the faculty’s Division Assistant Dean.
5. The Division Assistant Dean discusses the peer review evaluation with the faculty to identify areas for improvement.

---

¹ See Promotion and Tenure Policy 4.4.6