Department of Classical Studies

CLASSICAL STUDIES ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW PROCEDURE
adopted* at Department Meeting, Thursday, March 27, 2013

 

Annual Performance Review Procedure
  1. Each full-time member of the faculty submits to the Department Head a list of goals for the year at the beginning of each academic year.
     
  2. The Department Head then meets with the faculty member to agree on or modify those goals.
     
  3. Each full-time faculty member submits to the Department Head at the end of the academic year a Sedona report of his or her activities for the year and a self-evaluation of these activities.
     
  4. All tenured members of the faculty look at the faculty goals and reports, and submit their recommendations to the Department Head in writing. These recommendations may be used both for annual review and for merit raises.**
     
  5. The Department Head completes a written review of each full-time faculty member, including a report of the majority recommendation of the tenured faculty, and meets with each faculty member to discuss the results of the year-end review.
     
  6. In cases where the recommendations of the tenured faculty are in accord with each other but not with the Department Head, the Department Head will submit a written report on the discrepancy to the Dean.
     

Criteria for Annual Performance Review

The Department accepts the University’s traditional areas of Teaching, Research and Service as the basic areas for review. We also recognize that, over the course of a faculty member’s career, there may be times when it is appropriate and even advisable to concentrate for a period of time on one of these areas more heavily than the others. In general, the department expects excellent and committed teaching, an ongoing program of original scholarship leading to publication in venues of high quality as recognized by our discipline, and responsible service. Given these premises, we have adopted the following criteria for review of faculty in the two categories specified below:

A. Tenured and Non-Tenure Track Faculty

Annual review of faculty in this category will be based on progress towards the goals articulated by the faculty member in conjunction with the Department Head at the beginning of each academic year. Faculty goals may be concentrated more heavily in one or two areas for a given year. Since the burden of service is great for faculty in a small department, each tenured faculty member is expected to carry a share of the department’s service load, even if his or her major focus in a given year is not in this area.

B. Probationary Tenure-Track Faculty

Annual review of faculty in this category will be based on progress towards the goals articulated by the faculty member in conjunction with the Department Head at the beginning of each academic year. Since faculty in this category are working towards tenure, it is advisable for them to weigh their time more heavily towards research than towards service. The Department looks for evidence of excellent teaching, responsible service at the Department level, and some service during the probationary period at the College or University level. In the research area, the Department expects probationary faculty to show evidence of a successful and ongoing program of active scholarship that leads to the publication of original work by appropriate refereed journals and presses. This evidence should include the presentation of scholarly papers at professional conferences such as the APA, AIA and CAMWS. While book reviews and review articles also show evidence of activity in this area, they will carry less weight than the publication of original work. While work published before an appointment at UNCG is evidence of an active research program, the Department will also look for recent publications by any candidate seeking tenure.

*Faculty present: Heyn, Parker, Shelmerdine, Simmons, Soles, Wharton, Zarecki
    On leave: Murphy

**Publications will be recognized for merit recommendations in the year in which they are accepted for publication.

See also
University Faculty Workload Guidelines (4-03-02)
University Annual and Post - Tenure Review Policy for Faculty (5-21-12)
College Policy on Annual and Post-Tenure Review (10-23-12)

College Annual Review Report Form

Multiple Measures of Teaching Effectiveness

The Department of Classical Studies currently measures teaching effectiveness in a variety of ways which may include, but are not limited to:

  • student evaluations
  • annual peer visits (mandatory for faculty at the rank of associate professor and below, encouraged for full professors)
  • review of syllabi
  • review of final exams
  • curriculum development

Review of teaching portfolios is not required on an annual basis, but will be used for tenure, promotion and post-tenure reviews