2:053 Annual Faculty Evaluation Review
|Austin Peay State
|Annual Faculty Evaluation Review
||January 4, 2017
||Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
||Office of Academic Affairs
All full-time faculty including, but not limited to, tenure-track, tenured, temporary,
non-tenure-track, and clinical-track faculty shall be subject to an annual faculty
evaluation and development review.
Annual faculty evaluation reviews shall be conducted for the following reasons:
- To provide faculty with feedback about the extent to which they are meeting or exceeding
minimum performance expectations, as identified in the Faculty Evaluation Review form.
- To discuss professional development goals.
- To determine the eligibility of faculty for performance-based salary increases or
bonuses when funds are available.
Definitions of performance-based salary increases and merit salary increases are provided
The Faculty Evaluation Review review shall adhere to the following processes.
- The Faculty Evaluation Review form will be used for annual evaluation of all full-time
faculty and published on the Academic Affairs and Human Resources websites.
- Should the need arise for the Faculty Evaluation Review form to be revised or replaced,
the changes will be accomplished with input from the Faculty Senate and approved by
- The Annual Faculty Evaluation Review will officially commence in the Spring Semester
of 2018. All full-time faculty shall be required to participate. Tenure-track faculty
may provide a self-evaluation to the chair 10 business days prior to the chair’s report
date as outlined in the Calendar for Faculty Personnel Evaluations.
Process of Review
- A review of each full-time faculty member shall be conducted on an annual basis in
accordance with a timetable outlined as part of the Calendar for Faculty Personnel
- The relevant performance period for each review shall be the period of employment
during the previous calendar year.
- Each faculty member shall provide an electronic updated vita to the chair along with
a listing of accomplishments in Areas 1, 2, and 3. Other documentation and supporting
materials may need to be provided as determined by the chair via advance consultation
with the faculty member.
- Tenure-track faculty may provide the same one-page narrative summary page which constitutes
one of the required elements within the e-dossier.
- The faculty member may complete the Faculty Evaluation Review form as a self-evaluation
and bring a copy of the completed self-evaluation to the review session with the department
- The department chair shall complete a Faculty Evaluation Review form for each full-time
faculty member in their department.
- The department chair will conduct a one-on-one session with each faculty member to
discuss the Faculty Evaluation Review form completed by the Chair. The completed Faculty
Evaluation Review form will be sent to Human Resources with copies to the appropriate
College dean, department chair, and the faculty member.
- Deans shall evaluate chairs.
- Faculty who have been assigned administrative duties outside their department shall
have two review forms: (1) review completed by the individual to whom the faculty
does a direct report. (2) review completed by the department chair.
Focus of Review
- Each review will include a quantitative/numerical component and a qualitative/narrative
- The quantitative/numerical component will consist of ratings of faculty by the chair
on performance in areas pertinent to their faculty appointment. Chairs shall use
whole numbers when assigning the performance value.
- An overall composite rating (OCR) will be derived for each member using a method for
weighting the performance by distribution of effort. A faculty member’s overall composite
score will determine her/his eligibility for appropriate salary increases or bonuses
consistent with the current compensation plan.
- The qualitative/narrative component will consist of written comments that reflect
faculty performance and future aspirations on each of the relevant performance area
Process of Appeal
- A faculty member may appeal the review of the chair on the following grounds:
- Errors and misrepresentation in how the performance of the faculty member has been
characterized by the chair in the qualitative/narrative portion of the review.
- Inappropriate weighting of performance dimensions or incorrect calculation of overall
- The faculty member will prepare a written, narrative appeal addressing the applicability
of the relevant grounds for appeal and submit it to his/her dean.
- The dean will review the appeal to determine if it has merit and, if necessary, work
with the department chair to make appropriate adjustments in the review.
- If the faculty member under review wishes to contest the decanal decision, the faculty
member may appeal to the Provost. The Provost decision is final.
- Tenured faculty who fail to receive a satisfactory Faculty Evaluation Review will
be asked to participate in the creation of an improvement plan.
- A composite score less than 2 shall initiate a post tenure improvement plan.
- The plan will consist of the following elements:
- One or more performance improvement areas agreed upon with the department chair.
- Criteria and performance standards identified for each area.
- Strategies/initiatives to be undertaken in pursuit of improvement to include, but
not be limited to, participation in University-sponsored professional development
- At the next Faculty Evaluation Review session with the chair, the faculty member will
report on his/her progress outlined in the post tenure improvement plan.
- Performance-based Salary Increase or Bonus: A salary increase or one-time bonus awarded to full-time faculty who meet minimally
acceptable performance expectations.
- Performance – a collection of activities/tasks that form a coherent unit of work, e.g., academic
assignment (teaching), scholarly and creative activity (research), and professional
contributions and activities (service) pertinent to the faculty appointment.
- The Provost, in collaboration with Faculty Senate, shall annually evaluate this policy
in the context of the institution’s mission and goals, and evaluate the effectiveness
of policy implementation, in order to continuously improve related procedures.
APSU Policy 2:053 – Issued: January 4, 2017
President: signature on file