Faculty Resources

FACULTY EVALUATION CRITERIA

Department of Economics
Kansas State University

April 24, 2007

 

I.  The Weights and Merit System

For tenure-track faculty without extra responsibilities (e.g., administration, above-normal teaching loads) the normal weights assigned are:

                     Research    40 percent
                     Teaching    40 percent
                     Service      20 percent

            The following scale will be used to evaluate faculty:

                             0     no merit
                          1-3     some merit
                          4-7     high merit
                        8-10     exceptional merit

Faculty should be notified not only of their score, but also of the mean score and the range of scores (for research, teaching, service, and total) of the Department.  These numerical evaluations should be supplemented with written comments by the Department Head in order to provide useful feedback, discuss individual situations with the faculty member, and so forth. Accompanying these comments should be an overall assessment of the faculty member’s performance according to the categories: “exceeded expectations,” “met expectations,” “fallen below expectations but has met minimum-acceptable levels of productivity,” and “fallen below minimum-acceptable levels of productivity.” The “fallen below minimum-acceptable levels of productivity” category corresponds with that described in the department’s Minimum Acceptable Productivity document.

II.  Evaluation of Faculty

            As part of the evaluation process, each year every faculty member is expected to complete the Faculty Reporting and Evaluating Form, including the statement regarding one-year and longer-term goals.  The Form should be accompanied by teaching evaluations, copies of publications, copies of papers out for review, copies of referee reports rendered by faculty, copies of editors’ letters requesting revision and re-submission of articles, letters indicating acceptances of articles for publication, and other appropriate documentation.

            The goal statement is not intended to be a contractually binding statement, but rather one that will serve as the basis for a dialogue between the faculty member and the Department Head with regard to the consistency of the faculty member's goals and the evaluation criteria set forth in this document.  This is consistent with Sec. C45.1 of the Faculty Handbook that "It is expected that the previous year's statement will be considered during the annual evaluation and goal setting process."

            In evaluation of all aspects of faculty performance–teaching, research, and service–the performance in the most recent year shall have the greatest weight.  However, legislated pay increases differ from year to year.  Evidence of performance may not flow at constant rate over time.  For these reasons, the Department Head shall take into account performance over the past three to five years in making evaluations.  In effect, the evaluation score for teaching, research, and service shall be a weighted moving average of performance over the past three to five years with the largest weight on the most recent year.

A.  Evaluation of Teaching

            The department has the mission of teaching a wide variety of up-to-date economics courses, ranging from introductory courses offered in large classes constituted predominantly by non-majors to advanced courses with small enrollment constituted predominantly by students specializing in economics. These courses require a variety of faculty teaching styles, skills and approaches. Evaluation will take account of the faculty member’s contribution to the department’s teaching mission.

            The Department Head should consider the following in evaluation of teaching performance (no order of ranking implied):

            1.  Course content, including currency of material presented, syllabi, appropriateness of course structure, and amount of student work required, activities that promote active learning, level of presentation, examinations, course improvements, use of the WWW and so forth.  Particularly in upper-class courses, evidence of challenging students through use of homework, term papers, essay examinations, and other measures should be considered.

            2. The number of course preparations a faculty member is responsible for during a given semester (and over time) and new course preparations.

            3.  Interviews with both undergraduate and graduate majors at KSU including students in Senior Seminar.  Such interviews may have additional functions and benefits for the Department besides providing general feedback to the Department Head regarding the classroom experiences of students.

4.  The standardized student-evaluation results and other instruments of evaluation.

            To facilitate interpretation of teaching evaluation forms, the Department should use the same form in all multi-section courses. Currently, the department uses the TEVAL form. All evaluations should be administered by a representative of the Department Head, normally a GTA or Departmental secretary, and should normally be administered in the last month of the semester.  The proportion of enrolled students filling out the evaluation form should be taken into consideration. The teacher is not to see the results until the grades are submitted at the end of the semester. 

            Although the computerized evaluation form should normally be used in all multi-section classes, it may be appropriate, especially in small graduate-level courses, for instructors to use a different instrument involving more extensive written comments by the students.   Such instructors may develop and utilize an instrument of their own choice if they desire.  Whatever the instrument chosen, it should be administered by a representative of the Department Head.

            The standardized evaluation scores are likely to be influenced by the grading standards of the instructor.  In cases where the grading standards are significantly less rigorous than the Departmental norm for comparable courses, the Head should take due consideration in interpreting the numerical scores on the standardized form.  In other words, the Department Head will make an effort to distinguish "popularity" from "quality" of the instruction.  The Department Head should seek to eliminate all incentive of faculty members to alter their grading scheme for the purpose of obtaining better teaching evaluation scores.  The Department Head should also seek to eliminate incentives of faculty members to avoid teaching large principles (and other large lecture) classes in which it is relatively difficult to achieve high evaluation scores by adjusting upward the reported TEVAL scores in large lecture classes.

            Even though University policy does not mandate that faculty members must share their student evaluations with the Department Head, this is the normal procedure.  In the event that the Department member does not wish to share these evaluations with the Head, the burden of proof is on the faculty member to provide compelling, alternative evidence of teaching performance to the Head.  For example, in lieu of using student evaluations, the instructor may ask the Head to sit in on lectures and may provide other evidence of teaching effectiveness. 

            Tenured faculty are to be held to the same standards of submitting evidence of teaching performance annually as are non-tenured faculty. 

B.  Evaluation of Research and Scholarly Activity

            Because research often requires years to complete and its impact, e.g., as measured by citations and other indicators of recognition and quality, may not be felt for years, and because legislated pay increases differ from year to year, it is especially important that evaluation of research performance be based on a weighted moving average over the past three to five years.  For this reason, faculty members should submit a professional vita each year in addition to indicating research completed and published over the most recent year. 

            In evaluating research and scholarly activity, the Department Head should use six levels of priority:

            1.  Priority 1.  (a) The highest priority should be given to refereed articles in top-level journals.  This should include general economics journals of "top ten" national quality.  Also, within the first priority but at a somewhat lower level of credit are publications in top-level economics journals in the fields of specialization--e.g., Journal of Development Economics, Journal of Regional Science, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Journal of Public Economics, Journal of Econometrics, Journal of Law and Economics, Journal of International Economics, Journal of Mathematical Economics, and so forth.

 (b) The highest priority should also be given to the most prestigious external grants and contracts.  Receipt of extramural grants and contracts is an important indicator of research activity, and may benefit the department directly through financial resources to support graduate students and so forth.  Recognition for grants should be based on the nature of the grantor, the magnitude of the grant, and the benefit to the Department.

            2.  Priority 2.  (a) Refereed articles in prestigious journals (other than top ten) and highly respected (but not number one) journals in the specialized fields.  (b) Other grants and contracts.  (c) Other scholarly activity such as specialized professional books and textbooks.   In evaluating books, the Department Head should make a judgment on the quality and value to the Department.

            3.  Priority 3.  Refereeing activity and presentations at national and international economics meetings.  Refereeing activity in good quality journals is an indicator of one's recognition and accomplishment within the field.  Presentations at national meetings help enhance the national reputation of the Department.   

            4.  Priority 4.  Publication in less-prestigious journals.

            5.  Priority 5. Presentations at regional and non-national level meetings.

            6.   Priority 6.  Unpublished manuscripts or working papers, seminar presentations in the Department or elsewhere, book reviews, and other evidence of scholarly activity.

            There are several indicators of research and scholarly output within the above framework.  For example, citations in the literature may give an indication of the standing or quality of a particular article or book.  When citation statistics are used, no rule based on order of authorship will be employed.

            Considerable discretion should be given to the Department Head in making determinations in the above framework.  A publication in a top-rated journal (AER, JPE, QJE, RESTAT, etc.) will normally count more heavily than one mid-level or numerous low-level publications.  Publication in top journals, especially those used to rank economics departments, do more to enhance the prestige and reputation of the Department than publications in lesser journals.  They also have a greater impact on the market value of the faculty member in the academic labor market.   Although journal quality is neither static nor easily measured, journal rankings—which are published periodically—can serve as a first approximation.  The Department Head should recognize, however, that some articles in mid-level journals may have more impact on the discipline via citations, and may be of higher quality than some articles in the top journals.  This is normally documented through citations and therefore may not be recognized until several years pass.  Generally, articles should be counted more heavily than notes or communications.  Co-authored work shall be counted less heavily than solely authored work.

C.  Evaluation of Service

            Service is highly important to the Department.  In evaluating service, the Department should use the following priority scheme, with particular emphasis on Priority 1(a) and 1(b) activities. 

            1.  Priority 1.  Departmental service.

            (a)  Undergraduate advising and graduate supervising.

            Providing advice and direction to students is an important and a multifaceted activity often requiring significant time and skill.
            Graduate supervising includes directing Ph.D. dissertations and Master’s theses.  The Department Head shall assess the quality as well as quantity of work done by faculty members in supervising dissertations.  One indicator is potential publishability of the final product.  It is expected that the Department Head shall examine all Ph.D. dissertations completed under the purview of each faculty member within the relevant period of faculty evaluation. 

            Undergraduate advising may take the form of providing guidance and answering questions for choosing courses, providing research opportunity for undergraduate students to conduct projects, helping students applying for national or international scholarships, writing letters of recommendation for undergraduate students, helping undergraduate students get jobs upon graduation, and providing information for job search or graduate study.  Advisors of undergraduates will be evaluated annually by their advisees and these evaluations will be considered in the service evaluation.  Normally, faculty who have been in the department for at least three years are expected to provide undergraduate advising unless exempted by the department head because of heavy responsibilities elsewhere, e.g., graduate advising.

            (b)  Other departmental service. 

            This may take many forms, including but not limited to the following: writing Ph.D. preliminary and field examinations, serving as a non-supervisory member on Ph.D. dissertation and Master’s theses committees, serving as Director of Graduate Studies or Director of Undergraduate Studies, serving on the graduate committee and/or faculty recruiting committees, participating at open house and telethon, guiding independent study of students, and serving on various departmental committees. 

            A reasonable measure of departmental service is the amount of time and effort devoted to such activities, together with the benefits provided to the Department.

            2.  Priority 2.  Professional service and University service.  Professional service may take the form of serving as an officer in professional associations, serving on editorial boards, organizing sessions at professional meetings, serving as paper discussant at professional meetings, evaluating grant proposals, evaluating candidates for promotion and tenure at other universities, and so forth.  University service may take the form of serving on faculty senate, college and university-wide committees, Ph.D. committees outside the Department, and other forms of University service.  

            3.  Priority 3.  Community service.  Giving talks, writing articles for the newspaper, giving media interviews, and performing other service that helps provide recognition to the Department and University.

III. Criteria and Evaluation Procedures for the Professorial Performance Award

The Professorial Performance Award rewards strong performance at the highest rank with a base salary increase in addition to that provided for by the annual evaluation process (Faculty Handbook, Sections C.49.1 & C.49.12).  The award is not a promotion but a salary performance award.  The Professorial Performance Award is part of the annual evaluation process and is based on the Department Head’s recommendation to the Dean. 

Consistent with Sec. C49.2 of the Faculty Handbook, the department’s criteria for the award are based on the following guidelines:

1.  The candidate must be a full-time professor and have been in the highest rank at Kansas State at least six years since the last promotion or Professorial Performance Award;

2.  The candidate must show evidence of sustained productivity in at least the last six years before the performance review; and

3.  The candidate's productivity and performance must be of a quality comparable to that which would merit promotion to professor according to current approved departmental standards (see Section XI of the Department’s Procedures for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion document).

Candidates eligible for performance review must compile and submit a file that documents their professional accomplishments for at least the previous six years to the Department Head.  The Department Head will prepare a written evaluation of the candidate's materials in terms of the criteria, standards, and guidelines established, along with a recommendation for or against the award.  A copy of the Department Head's written recommendation will be forwarded to the candidate.

Each candidate for the award will have the opportunity to discuss the written evaluation and recommendation with the Department Head, and each candidate will sign a statement acknowledging the opportunity to review the evaluation.  Within seven working days after the review and discussion, each candidate will have the opportunity to submit written statements of unresolved differences regarding his or her evaluation to the Department Head and to the Dean.

 

The Department Head submits the following items to the Dean:

1. A copy of the evaluation document used to determine qualification for the award,
2. Documentation establishing that there was an opportunity for the candidate to examine the written evaluation and recommendation,
3. Any written statements of unresolved differences concerning the evaluation,
4. The candidate's supporting materials that served as the basis of adjudicating eligibility for the award.

As in annual evaluation, a candidate could appeal to the Dean for a resolution.  For details, see Sec. 49.8 through Sec. 49.11 of the Faculty handbook.

The Professorial Performance Award document must be approved by a majority vote of the faculty in the department, by the Department's Head, by the Dean, and by the Provost.  Provision must be made for a review of the document at least every five years as a part of the review of the procedures for annual merit evaluation or whenever standards for promotion to full professor change.