Faculty Governance

II.C Merit Evaluation Procedures

1.0 Rationale for Revising Liberal Arts Merit Evaluation Procedures

This report represents the efforts of the Liberal Arts Merit Evaluation Committee to develop an improved procedure of evaluation whereby each full-time faculty member will be rewarded fairly in terms of his contribution to Liberal Arts and to the Institute as a whole.

2.0 Eligibility for Evaluation

Only full-time faculty will come fully under the jurisdiction of the proposed procedure. Persons who serve in an administrative capacity, such as the Assistant and Associate Deans, the Department Chairs, the Program Directors, and other such appointed/elected personnel, Shall be evaluated by the Dean both in terms of their administrative performance and, when applicable, in terms of those criteria by which full-time faculty members are judged.

3.0 Definition of Merit

In accordance with the policy of the Institute, annual salary increments are to be granted on the basis of merit. Merit shall be defined as the extent and quality of service rendered in any given academic year, calibrated in terms of a faculty member's performance relative to her/her peers within the College of Liberal Arts and the Institute as a whole.

4.0 Purposes of this Merit Evaluation System

4.1 Primarily summative, i.e., the system should provide a fair basis for administrative decisions determining yearly Salary increments for Liberal Arts faculty.

4.2 Secondarily formative, i.e., evaluation for improvements. Its purpose is to encourage the ongoing development of the individual faculty member's teaching compeetence, scholarly achievements, and unique contributions to the overall goals of RIT and the College of Liberal Arts.

5.0 Definition of Professional Responsibility for the Unique Context of the Philosophy and goals of RIT and of the College of Liberal Arts: Institute and College Values

5.1 Teaching. RIT views itself first and foremost as a “Teaching Institution.” It is clear that an RIT faculty member's prime professional responsibility is to maintain a high level of effectiveness in the classroom as well as constantly striving to improve his/her teaching competences through continuing study and new instructional techniques.

5.2 Scholarly Achievement. At RIT, research and creativity are seen not as separate ends in themselves, divorced from the classroom, but rather as undergirding good teaching by insuring continuing involvement and learning in one's chosen field.

5.3 Contributions to the Institute. Though a faculty member's primary responsibility pertains to good teaching and the educational process in general, he or she is also expected to contribute to the ongoing life of the Institute and the College through active service on committees and other faculty, student, and administrative organizations. Such service is contractually designated as part of a faculty member's professional responsibilities while employed at RIT. However, it is recognized that such contributions may take place on an intermittent rather than on a continuous basis, depending upon circumstances in a given year.

6.0 Merit Criteria and Evaluation

6.1 Criteria for teaching Effectiveness
As indicated in section 5.1, teaching effectiveness shall be considered the most important criterion in any individual merit evaluation. However, just precisely what is “teaching effectiveness” is most difficult to judge. Within the College of Liberal Arts, effective teaching must be judged within a wide variety of teaching philosophies and techniques and across a broad and diverse selection of coudrses, many of which stress very different educational goals. Moreover, the literature on teaching evaluation has long recognized that it is virtually impossible to isolate any one set of factors from among all the variables which are interacting in the individual teacher's contribution to changes in the learner. Many of these changes are complex and subtle and often are not observable until much later in the student's life. Nevertheless, it is important to identify some qualities which are generally understood by faculty and students to be characteristic of good teaching as general guidelines for a fair judgment of faculty performance. In this spirit, the following qualities are listed, but not in rank order, nor should any specific numerical weighting be assigned to each.

  1. Knowledge of subject matter
  2. General knowledge and range of interests
  3. Interest and enthusiasm in subject
  4. Ability to generate interest in the student
  5. Ability to provide clear and understandable explanations
  6. Active and personal interest in the progress of the class
  7. Active and personal interest in the student as evidenced by availability for student counseling
  8. Quality of teaching materials: course outlines, texts, syllabi, reading lists, statement of objectives, etc.
  9. Quality of instruction, i.e., what is demanded of the student and what did they learn; types of tests, quality of papers and projects
  10. Initiation and development of educationally meaningful courses
  11. Broadening knowledge through the development of new courses in areas beyond a teacher's given area of expertise
  12. Broadening knowledge through research in connection with existing courses
  13. Creative innovations in teaching
  14. Willingness and ability to guide independent study
  15. Length of successful teaching experience at RIT and elsewhere
  16. Willingness to assume different teaching assignments (large class, classes requiring many papers, etc.)

6.2 Evaluating Criteria for Teaching Effectiveness

A fair evaluation of a faculty member's teaching effectiveness can include the following sources of data: A) Peer evaluation based on classroom visitation; B) peer evaluations without classroom visitation; C) faculty self-evaluation; and D) student evaluation. Research has found that all these procedures have positive value in the evaluating process, depending on the purposes of the evaluation, i.e., some are more useful in the summative context, others only in the formative. A summary of this research follows. This susmmary includes some suggestions, but no definite recommendations for application in the College of Liberal Arts. Rather it is intended as a set of informative general guidelines which each unit in the college might consider in designing its specific and appropriate procedures for evaluating.

  1. Peer evaluation: classroom visitation

    Classroom visitation of peers has been tried in a number of different forms. The general finding is that it does not provide a sound method of evaluating a teacher's in-class activities in the summative context. A few classroom visits by one colleague cannot be expected to produce a reliable (repeatable) judgment. Another colleague's judgment might be quite different. Even when teams of evaluators have been used, research shows the reliability of the resulting ratings to be very low. Moreover, the anonymity of the raters cannot be preserved, a problem which becomes critical particularly if the ratings are low, and the rater would typically have to interact with his evaluators on a daily basis. Not surprisingly, colleague ratings tend to be very high. This positive bias clearly prevents a valid measurement of merit which depends wholly on discovered differences in performance among individuals.

    On the other hand, colleague classroom visitation can be very valuable in the formative context. A system of visitation, free from the responsibility to record a formal evaluation, can stimulate discussion and concern among faculty about their teaching.
  2. Peer evaluation without classroom visitation

    One absolute essential of good teaching is the instructor's knowledge of the subject being taught. Most students are not in a good position to make judgments in this area. In fact, judgment about the accuracy, currentness or sophistication of a teacher's knowledge can only be made by faculty peers conversant with the same field. These judgments can be made in several ways: (1) formally, in terms of collegial reviews of such data as course outlines, texts, syllabi, reading lists, statements of objectives, etc. Herein may be found a source of useful such relevant questions as whether the materials are current, whether they are appropriate to the course goals etc. Colleagues can examine tests, papers and other evidence of student performance, asking the question what did the students learn? Were the “hard” topics sacrificed for “easy” ones? Was the coverage of the material even and comprehensive? The data thus accumulated might be employed both for summative and/or formative purposes. (2) judgments derived from informal contacts with one's colleagues. The active ongoing life of any intellectual community is filled with discussions of recent developments in a field, consultation with others on problems and ideas, meetings, etc. In Liberal Arts, such judgments already arrive at the Division Chairperson's desk by relatively informal routes, but nonetheless are useful in accumulating data on an individual's knowledge of his field.
  3. Student evaluations

    The characteristics of good teaching that colleagues can judge are essential ones, but not sufficient in that they offer little reliable data on what transpired in the day-to-day classroom situation or on the nature of formal and informal contacts with students outside of class. Research indicates that student judgments can provide a good source of firsthand data, but how much faith can be placed-on these judgments depends on the quality and the procedures employed to administer, of the instrument-collect, and interpret them. Instruments can be devised both for formative ends, i.e., designed to provide information to help an instructor improve in a specific class situation, as well as summative purposes, I.e., to provide administration with a source of valid and reliable data on the quality of a teacher's performance in the classroom relative to that of his peers. Each type of evaluation demands its own type of questions and method of administration; and the two should not be confused. In the case of questionnaires used for summative ends, there must be an equitable process mutually agreed upon by faculty and administration by which ratings are communicated to the Division Chairperson. Such a process must recognize the possibility of unforeseen variables such as an especially heavy work load in a given quarter, family difficulties, eetc., which might adversely affect a teacher's performance. Requiring that a sufficient sample of evaluation from all courses taught be submitted, but permitting each instructor some choice as to which ones are presented, can prevent unfairness in these matters. The important consideration is to obtain reliable data over a range of teaching assignments and over a period of time.
  4. Self-evaluation

    Evidence does not support the use of self-evaluation as a basis for summative decisions about teaching quality. Studies have found that self-ratings showed very low correlations with ratings made by each of the other sources of judgment. However, self-analysis can provide positive information in formative evaluations. By comparison of perceptions from other sources with their own self-descriptions, faculty members can be altered to examine further whatever discrepencies occur.

6.3 Criteria for Scholarly Achievement and Professional Development

Again the following listings are to be considered suggestive rather than exhaustive. Again they are not listed in rank order, nor are they intended to be assigned numerical weights.

  1. Acquisition of an advanced degree
  2. Contributions to one's field through research and publication or creative work
  3. Presentation of scholarly papers
  4. General rate of professional growth
  5. Recognition by others in his or her profession
  6. Contribution to community or state (advisor to community groups, speaking engagements, etc)
  7. Attendance at professional meetings
  8. Individual self-improvement endeavors including additional graduate study, attendance at seminars, etc.
  9. Service on scholarly bodies, state and national commissions, etc.

6.4 Evaluating Criteria for Scholarly Achievements and Professional Development

  1. Peer judgment

    Peer judgments are clearly valuable in making judgments relative to an instructor's professional development in his field. Especially important in any collegial evaluation in the area of scholarly achievement is the distinction between quantity and quality. Such distinction can only be made by colleagues thoroughly conversant in the field, not by colleagues and/or an administrator whose area of expertise lies elsewhere.
    It should be recognized, however, that though good teaching requires scholarship--the kind that keeps the instructor in immediate and thoughtful contact with developments in his or her field and with the ideas of other scholars--this may or may not be the kind of scholarship which results in publication. Therefore publication and/or creative work Should be viewed as most important in the development of the “professor as scholar,” but not always as a necessary condition for the development of the “professor as teacher.”
  2. Administrative Evaluation

    Administrative evaluation would seem to be most useful in the context of an observer noting and recording a faculty member's more tangible accomplishments, such as work toward or the acquisition of an advanced degree, or attendance at professional meetings, office holding in professional societies, advising community groups, etc. These observations, combined with collegial input on the quality of the work in these and other areas, can give the administrator some indication of a faculty member's general rate of professional growth.
  3. Self-evaluation

    Again self-evaluation would seem to be most useful in a formative context. In the summative context, self-evaluation of scholarly achievement should be viewed only in relation to other sources of judgment.

6.5 Opportunities for Contribution to the College and the Institute

The following are typical examples. No rank order should be assigned to this list.

A. Contributions to the College

  1. Serving as chairperson of a Liberal Arts academic department
  2. Serving as chairperson or member of a Liberal Arts standing committee
  3. Serving on a Liberal Arts ad hoc committee as a chairperson or a member

B. Contributions to the Institute

  1. Serving as a member of Academic Senate and/or associated committees
  2. Serving on the Institute Council and/or associated committees
  3. Serving on other Institute Committees
  4. Participating in special projects for the benefit of the Institute

C. Faculty-student Liaison

  1. Serving as a faculty advisor to student organizations
  2. Serving as a participant or advisor for special student functions
  3. Serving as a student advisor in the context of the Liberal Arts career programs

6.6 Evaluating Contributions to the College and the Institute

Contributions to the College and the Institute through the assumption of committee responsibilities in an intra/extra college context, student advising, and the like are vitally important to the ongoing life of the College and the Institute, and therefore should be evaluated and rewarded. Peer evaluations are most useful in these contexts, but when they are employed, it is critical that (a) the judges have been able to observe what they are evaluating and (b) they should have adequate background against which they can compare what they observe. In the case of faculty serving as advisors to students or student organizations, student input could be relevant. Whatever the source of data, it is most important that the administrator summarizing and evaluting individual activity in these areas should make every effort to obtain information on the quality as well as the quantity of performance.

6.7. Summary

The above section outlines those merit criteria applicable to faculty, relative to the expectations of the College of Liberal Arts and the Institute as a whole, and analyzes appropriate procedures for evaluating individual merit on the basis of those criteria. It should be clearly stated however, that an individual faculty member should not be expected to excel in all areas of teaching, scholarship, and service to the Institute in a single year. The Institute philosophy emphasizes excellence in teaching, but beyond that responsibility, a faculty member should be encouraged to pursue his individual aptitudes, skills and preferences, both for his own satisfaction and development and as his efforts benefit the college. It must be recognized that the College of Liberal Arts is a diverse group of persons, each with individual interests and skills, and each able to contribute to the college in different ways. Any evaluation procedure adopted by the college should thus emphasize-flexibility and the pursuit of individual interests--which may change from year to year--rather than to route all its faculty along a single track. Predetermined and not recognizing the uniqueness-of the individual.

Approved: April 14, 1977
Revised: February 11, 1986

7.0 Chronology for Evaluation and the determination of Increments

7.1 Before the end of Fall Quarter, the Statement of Merit Principles Used by the College of Liberal Arts will be distributed to each member of the faculty. (see appendix A)

7.2 In Winter Quarter, all members of the Departments will meet with their Department Chairs for a performance review of the previous year's work.

At the same time, the faculty will submit a written self-evaluation statement based on the various evidence of their accomplishments for that year. This statement should be based on the criteria as outlined in the Statement of Merit Principles Used by the College of Liberal Arts. The Faculty members may also wish to supply supporting data (student evaluations, copies of articles, etc.) to accompany their evaluation statements. The amount and type of evidence submitted to the Chair is entirely up to the faculty member's personal discretion; though the Chair may request additional evidence if he or she feels such evidence would be helpful to a fair evaluation.

7.3 When the budgeting information becomes available, the Dean informs them Chair of monies available for increments within the Department. The Chair completes the evaluation of all faculty members and tries to arrive at an equitable salary distribution based on the review. The Chairperson then forwards the decisions to the Dean, providing the Dean with written evaluative reports in support of the salary recommendations.

7.4 The Chairperson and Dean meet to discuss the evaluations and set a final dollar figure for the merit increments.

7.5 The Dean sends the final recommendations to the Provost.

7.6 In the Spring Quarter, the Chairs meet with all faculty members in the division. Faculty members are given their contracts for the next year together with a copy of the Chair's written annual merit evaluation of the faculty member.

In the case of persons whose work is deemed deficient, the Chair should provide such individuals with specific written suggestions for facilitating self-improvement. In turn, the faculty member will have the opportunity to give the Chair a written response.

APPENDIX A

Statement on Merit Principles Used by the
College of Liberal Arts (Revised)

The merit criteria to be used in the College of Liberal Arts are listed below in terms of A) general categories and B) specific qualities relating to each of those categories. These lists of specific qualities are to be considered suggestive rather than exhaustive. In addition, they are presented in no rank order and without any assigned numerical weight.

  1. Knowledge of subject matter
  2. General knowledge and range of interests
  3. Interest and enthusiasm in subject
  4. Ability to generate interest in the student
  5. Ability to provide clear and understandable explanations
  6. Active and personal interest in the progress of the class
  7. Active and personal interest in the student as evidenced by availability for student counseling
  8. Quality of teaching materials: course outlines, texts, syllabi, reading lists, statement of objectives, etc.
  9. Quality of instruction, i.e., what is demanded of the student and what did they learn; types of tests, quality of papers and projects
  10. Initiation and development of educationally meaningful courses
  11. Broadening knowledge through the development of new courses in areas beyond a teacher's given area of expertise
  12. Broadening knowledge through research in connection with existing courses
  13. Creative innovations in teaching
  14. Willingness and ability to guide independent study
  15. Length of successful teaching experience at RIT and elsewhere
  16. Willingness to assume different teaching assignments (large class, classes requiring many papers, etc.)

II. Scholarly Achievement and Professional Development

  1. Acquisition of an advanced degree
  2. Contributions to one's field through research and publication or creative work
  3. Presentation of scholarly papers
  4. General rate of professional growth
  5. Recognition by others in his or her profession
  6. Contribution to community or state (advisor to community groups, speaking engagements, etc)
  7. Attendance at professional meetings
  8. Individual self-improvement endeavors including additional graduate study, attendance at seminars, etc.
  9. Service on scholarly bodies, state and national commissions, etc.

III. Contributions to the College and the Institute

  1. Contributions to the College
    1. Serving as chairperson of a Liberal Arts academic department
    2. Serving as chairperson or member of a Liberal Arts standing committee
    3. Serving on a Liberal Arts ad hoc committee as a chairperson or a member
  2. Contributions to the Institute
    1. Serving as a member of Academic Senate and/or associated committees
    2. Serving on the Institute Council and/or associated committees
    3. Serving on other Institute Committees
    4. Participating in special projects for the benefit of the Institute
  3. Faculty-student Liaison
    1. Serving as a faculty advisor to student organizations
    2. Serving as a participant or advisor for special student functions
    3. Serving as a student advisor in the context of the Liberal Arts career programs

Approved: April 14, 1977

Click to Enlarge

I. Academic Policies and Procedures

II. Policies and Procedures on Faculty Evaluation, Tenure and Promotion

III. Policies and Procedures on Governance