Texas Woman's University places the special importance on a faculty member's participation in quality teaching, scholarship, and service to the University, the community, and the professions. Recognizing and valuing the diversity that exists among the different components of the University, the Faculty Evaluation Process is designed to provide the maximum amount of flexibility in considering those elements that are most important to faculty in different academic units of the University, while providing a blueprint for consistency among the different academic units in evaluation.

Review of faculty performance at the Texas Woman's University is designed to provide a planning mechanism for faculty development, to recognize excellence in role performance, to improve teaching, to enhance professional competencies, and to delineate areas for improvement.

The first purpose of this review is to provide a basis for professional growth and development. Professional growth plans serve as the framework for the evaluation and recognition of past endeavors and for focusing on future goals and objectives.

A second purpose of faculty performance review is to recognize past professional performance and to reward those endeavors with appropriate merit increases in salaries, while providing feedback to faculty demonstrating a need for improvement.

A third purpose of faculty performance review is to provide a structure for systematically measuring progress toward and to substantiate consideration for tenure and promotion.

To these ends and toward the improvement of the instructional process, all faculty members at the Texas Woman's University shall participate in an annual performance review which will include the areas of teaching, scholarly activities and service to the University, the community, and/or the professions. Consistent with a sense of integrity, honesty and responsibility, all who participate in evaluating a faculty member for the annual performance review will do so objectively, based on documented performance.

Central to the performance review process is the development of professional goals. In consultation with the appropriate academic administrator, mutually agreed upon faculty evaluation parameters and goals are formulated that are compatible with the role of the faculty member in the academic unit and reflect the needs of the individual, the component, and the University. These goals or performance criteria address the multiple aspects of the profession: teaching, scholarship, University service, and service to the profession-at-large. The framework is structured to include a cycle of goal-setting, professional development, and review. It provides the flexibility for a faculty member to place varying degrees of emphasis on teaching, scholarship, and service.

The Framework for Annual Faculty Performance Review provides a university-wide process for the annual review of faculty. Because it is held as a belief that faculty evaluation should begin primarily at the department, school or college level, this framework is intended to serve as a blueprint for academic units (school, college, department, program) so that they may develop a system of evaluation that reflects the characteristic aspects of the discipline and the way in which professionals in the discipline carry out their work in the academic setting.

The framework serves as a means for maintaining a degree of consistency across the University without sacrificing individuality and autonomy at the academic unit level. The Framework for Annual Faculty Performance Review is also predicated on the understanding that the approach to faculty evaluation should be comprehensive. Therefore, the system should:

1. Address the various roles of University faculty and their professional profiles
2. Incorporate multiple sources and kinds of information
3. Provide information for enhancing faculty performance and professional growth
4. Provide information and materials for the promotion, tenure, and merit review process

The many roles in which faculty serve in the University may be organized into the three broad categories of teaching, scholarship, and service. Based on general attributes that are common to all faculty and disciplines in the University, the framework sets forth definitions of each role and general components for evaluation.

The Framework for Annual Faculty Performance Review provides the mechanism for faculty to determine the impact that teaching, scholarship, and service should have in the overall annual evaluation. Based on the mission of Texas Woman's University as a teaching and research institution, and on the value placed on shared governance and professional involvement, which carries with it the expectation that faculty participate to some degree in University, professional and/or community service, it is expected that all faculty members will participate in each of these three domains. However, it is also recognized that, in any organization, there is a division of labor to maximize the productivity and potential of that organization and that an individual faculty member cannot, with any degree of success, contribute 100% effort to all three domains. Therefore, a faculty member must be able to emphasize the particular area in which he/she excels and can best contribute to the University and the academic unit.

To this end, individual faculty members, in conjunction with the appropriate administrator, should determine performance goals for a three-year period of time and establish annual goals in conformity with these large performance goals. In addition, individual faculty members, in conjunction with the appropriate administrator, should designate an area or areas of emphasis for the particular evaluation period.

The general definition of the roles of teaching, scholarship, and service and the components for evaluation represent over-arching concepts related to University faculty in general. Specific definitions and interpretations of the evaluation components will be the task of the individual academic unit and are beyond the scope of this document.

The teaching role of University faculty is to promote the academic and personal growth of students and to assist them in the development of skills and attitudes necessary for success in life pursuits. Teaching effectiveness is a primary criterion for merit, retention and tenure, as well as promotion to any rank. Documentation of such shall be considered of primary importance.

Teaching effectiveness refers to the competence of the instructor in classrooms, laboratories, studios, and clinics, and includes mentoring, advising, and supervision of student projects, research, and fieldwork. The assessment of teaching effectiveness should be based upon evaluation of teaching methodology, advising, course management, and content expertise.

The scholarship role of University faculty is to expand the domain of human knowledge, imagination, and forms of expression; contribute to improvements in professional practice; and enhance teaching effectiveness. Scholarly pursuits include not only the diverse attributes that comprise inquiry, but also the forms of public statement of results of inquiry, such as publication, performance, or presentation. (Excerpt from The Research Mission of the University, Approved Fall 1990).

Forms of scholarship vary widely across the University and might include the following:

PUBLICATION: Research report, theory article, book, book review, software, monograph, institutional/organizational report, media composition, preparation for publication.

PRESENTATION: Original work paper/poster, performances, exhibits, preparation for presentation.

RESEARCH: Principle or co-investigator in grant-funded or self-funded research; basic or applied clinical research; laboratory research; direction of graduate theses, professional papers, and dissertations; submission of grant proposals; and preparation for research.

SCHOLARSHIP RELATED TO TEACHING: Research to develop new courses or revise existing ones.

The service role of faculty is comprised of University service and both public and professional activities. Involvement in University service is an extension of the commitment to shared governance, and the opportunity and responsibility of faculty to participate in the decision-making processes of the University. Involvement in professional service reflects the commitment of faculty to their profession. Involvement in public or community service stems from the traditional view of the role of the University in the dissemination of new information. Community service is defined as the application of a faculty member's formally recognized area of expertise in the community, typically without pay or with token payment.

The associate dean, department chair, or program director of each academic unit will oversee the annual evaluation process. The faculty member, the peer review committee (if applicable), and the appropriate supervisor(s), however, will be jointly responsible for conducting the annual evaluation of faculty. Academic components may elect to have peer review as a component of the annual review process. It is strongly recommended that peer review be incorporated into the review process. The rationale for this is predicated on the basis that peer review in necessary for promotion and tenure, and faculty may wish to become familiar with this process prior to these major events. Therefore, academic units should make the decision, by a majority vote, whether or not peer review will be a necessary part of their particular annual review process. Ideally, this decision should occur at the fall faculty meetings. Regardless of the academic unit's decision on peer review, any faculty member who desires to be reviewed by a committee of peers may have that opportunity. The faculty member will inform the appropriate immediate administrator by letter with a copy to the dean of the school or college. In these cases, the peer review committee will be the same elected members of the peer review committee for tenure and/or promotion.

The Framework for Annual Faculty Performance Review is a blueprint for academic units to develop evaluation systems that address the characteristic aspects of teaching and professional endeavors within particular disciplines. The implementation plan provides a guide for this process as follows:

1. Determine academic unit goals for a three-year period. This should be accomplished through a consultative process involving the full faculty. Whether developed through a committee structure or by the faculty as a whole, the goals should be approved by the full faculty. These goals of the academic unit should reflect the needs and priorities of the unit and will serve as a guide for faculty as they develop their faculty role profiles and performance goals.
2. Define the roles of teaching, scholarship, and service relative to the discipline. If a separate clinical track exists within the unit, separate definitions should be developed for that track.
3. Develop definitions for the components of evaluation in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.
4. Determine the minimum expectations of performance for each level of rating (excellent, outstanding, etc.) for the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.

   (Note if #2, 3, or 4 above are defined by committee structure, they should be approved by the full faculty of the academic unit.)

5. Adapt forms for reporting information as necessary to meet the special requirements of the academic unit. The formats for the forms are attached.
6. Develop a system for peer review of annual performance review portfolios, if applicable. Some departments have already implemented peer review systems and members of these faculties are willing to serve as resource persons.

All faculty, including those submitting applications for promotion and/or tenure and tenured faculty, participate in annual performance review. The only persons exempt from a full review are those faculty members who have not completed a full academic year at the University; however they should meet with the appropriate academic administrator to discuss their progress. Each academic unit should develop a procedure for evaluation of adjunct members and it is required that the review be done annually. Depending on the extent of involvement of the adjunct faculty members in the unit, this may take the same format as full-time faculty, or it may be a modified Annual Performance Review: Profile, Goals, Accomplishments.

1. At the time of evaluation each spring, every faculty member will complete the Faculty Role Profile and Performance Goals form and this will be discussed with the appropriate administrator during the review session. Since goals will be set for the academic unit for a three-year period, faculty members, in conjunction with the appropriate administrator, also will set performance goals for a three-year period of time. Mutual agreement, through collegial negotiation, should be reached between the faculty member and the administrator. Annually, the faculty member will indicate only how he/she intends to progress toward those long-term goals and will determine an area or areas for emphasis.

   Both the faculty member and the administrator sign the Faculty Role Profile and Performance Goals, indicating that agreement has been reached. This form will be filed in the faculty member's file and the administrator's file. If any changes in circumstances indicate that goals need to be changed, after a conference with the appropriate administrator, a revised set of goals should be prepared and signed by both the faculty member and the administrator and placed in the faculty member's folder.

2. A faculty member will submit his/her Annual Performance Review Portfolio to the first level of review (either the peer review committee, department chair, etc.) by February 20 (or the next working day, if February 20 is on weekend or holiday). The Portfolio should be in notebook format and will include the following:

   a. The Faculty Role Profile and Performance Goals form that was signed, as well as any revisions.
   b. The Annual Performance Review: Profile, Goals and Accomplishments form that presents accomplishments during the evaluation period and/or reasons that goals could not be achieved.
   c. Updated Curriculum Vitae in the University format.
   d. Self-evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service.
   e. Supporting documentation in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.

3. The academic unit administrator will evaluate the portfolio, prepare the Annual Performance Review: Evaluation and Recommendations form, assign a rating for each area of teaching, scholarship, and service in accordance with the academic unit's established criteria, as well as an overall performance rating of outstanding, excellent, meets minimal standards, or does not meet minimal standards. The administrator will meet with the faculty member to discuss the recommendation and provide an opportunity for faculty member to respond to and sign the recommendation. Comments will be included on the Annual Performance Review: Summary of Recommendations.

   The faculty in the individual academic units are responsible for developing criteria for outstanding, excellent, and meets minimal standards and suggesting supporting documentation. In some way, these should mirror criteria for promotion and tenure in the academic unit. For those academic units that have defined clinical tracts, separate criteria should be developed for annual evaluation. Between February 20 and May 7, the schedule for the evaluation process is the responsibility of the academic component to meet the needs of the college/school and the budget preparation schedule.

4. The unit academic administrator will forward his/her recommendations and the portfolio to the appropriate dean. The dean will review the portfolio and the recommendations from the peer review committee (if applicable) and the unit academic administrator and make a recommendation for a performance rating and merit raise. The dean's written comments will be returned to the faculty member for signature and optional written response. The reviews of the unit administrator and the dean should be concluded by May 7 (or the next working day, if May 7 is on a weekend or holiday) so that the faculty member knows the status of his/her review prior to leaving for the summer.

5. The dean will forward his/her recommendations and the annual performance review documents to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs by May 7. The following documents will be forwarded to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

   a. Annual Performance Review: Profile, Goals, Accomplishments forms.
   b. Annual Performance Review: Evaluation and Recommendations form from the peer review committee (if applicable).
   c. Annual Performance Review: Evaluation and Recommendations form from the academic unit administrator.
   d. Annual Performance Review: Summary of Recommendations form.
   e. Optional faculty written response(s).

The annual performance review portfolio is retained in the Office of the Dean until the beginning of the next academic year, at which time it is returned to the faculty member. Contents from previous annual performance review portfolios will be incorporated into applications for tenure and promotion. Thus, the first step in a faculty member's application for tenure and/or promotion begins with his/her first annual performance review. Therefore, it is incumbent on the faculty member and the unit administrator to guide and track progress toward these goals. Unit administrators should take seriously the responsibility to direct faculty in making choices to meet the goals for promotion and tenure.

Faculty members must be given an opportunity to respond to the recommendations from the peer review committee (if applicable), the academic administrator, and the dean in writing, and the response(s) must be attached to the annual performance review materials that are forwarded to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs (Annual Performance Review: Summary of Recommendations form).

Faculty grievances associated with annual performance review will follow the approved University grievance policies and procedures.

• Faculty prepare the Annual Performance Review: Profile, Goals, Accomplishments form and the annual performance review portfolio.
• Faculty also prepare the Faculty Role Profile and short-term goals for the coming year. These indicate how the faculty member will progress to meet the long-term goals. When appropriate, the three-year long-term goals should also be set.
• Faculty submit portfolios to peer review committee (if applicable).
• Peer review committee submits recommendations to the faculty member and administrator (if applicable).
• Academic administrator meets with faculty member to go over the recommendations. A copy of the recommendation is given to the faculty member. All documents are then submitted to the dean.
• The dean completes his/her review by May 7 (or the next working day, if May 7 is on a weekend or holiday) and sends a copy of the recommendations to the appropriate faculty member at that time.
• Dean forwards designated annual performance review materials, as well as the optional faculty responses and all recommendations, to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Beginning of Next Academic Year

• Dean returns portfolios to faculty

It will be the responsibility of the University Faculty Evaluation and Development Committee to review and recommend revisions to the Framework for Annual Faculty Performance Review. All recommendations for policy revisions and additions to the Framework must be forwarded to the Faculty Senate for consideration. Recommendations governing annual faculty performance review from the University Faculty Evaluation and Development Committee will be subject to the Faculty Senate procedures for recommending academic policy.

The University Faculty Evaluation and Development Committee will conduct a comprehensive review of the Framework for Annual Faculty Performance Review after academic unit evaluation systems have been in effect for three years. This review must include input from individual faculty, administrators, and academic unit faculty evaluation committees.