Skip Navigation | School of Education Home | UNCG Home
 
  1. About the Department
    1. History
    2. Mission
    3. Departmental Policies
  2. Admission and Financial Aid
  3. Alumni Page
  4. Courses & Programs
  5. Distance Education
  6. People
  7. Forms
  8. Frequently Asked Questions
  9. LISSA
  10. MLIS Jobs & Professional Development
  11. New Students
  12. Tech Info
  13. Site Map

Department of Library and Information Studies


POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
TITLE: PERSONNEL POLICY : Policy Number: IV Date: 3/95 /Revised 5/98 I. EVALUATION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS

1.0 Criteria

1.1 Teaching effectiveness criteria

These criteria are intended to be congruent with those of the University and School of Education guidelines. They may not cover all possible areas of teaching excellence, and inclusion of other strong or weak points may be appropriate depending upon the individual instructor, the particular subject covered, and the class session being evaluated. Moreover, all criteria listed may not apply to particular classes. The criteria are also listed as criteria for evaluating teaching effectiveness in the process of a reappointment, promotion, and tenure ( II. below)

1.1.1 Instructor activities

  1. integrates technology into classroom activities
  2. uses variety of teaching strategies (e.g.,lecture, question-and-answer, group work, exercises, etc.)
  3. encourages critical and independent thinking
  4. inspires students to think beyond requirements of course
  5. fosters active student participation in discussion and other activities
  6. is available to student for consultation
  7. demonstrates fairness in grading and in attention given to individual students;
  8. communicates well (expectations; subject content; verbal and non-verbal signals)
  9. where appropriate, demonstrates appropriate multicultural understandings

1.1.2 Organization of class

  1. relates subject matter to total course; orients students to specific subject
  2. allows appropriate time for coverage of subject
  3. organizes material; may provide outline
  4. integrates course material with any assignments, including text/reading
  5. where appropriate, enhances subject with media/technology
  6. uses and prepares visuals, where appropriate, for unfamiliar terms, citations, headings, etc.
  7. signals clearly transition from subject to subject
  8. allows sufficient time for all aspects of class plan (group work, lecture, discussion)
  9. class has clear beginning point or introduction and reaches closure

1.1.3 Content

  1. communicates enthusiasm/interest in subject to students
  2. incorporates technology where appropriate/essential
  3. demonstrates awareness of interdisciplinary aspects of subject where appropriate
  4. manifests awareness of cross-cultural examples, and sensitivity to levels of understanding among different cultures (e.g., ethnic or racial, age- defined, physically or mentally challenged, gender or sexual orientation, political or social groups)
  5. integrates anecdotal "experiences from the field" with professional theory
  6. models professional approach to problem areas of practical concern
  7. maintains objectivity in discussion of controversial material
  8. incorporates relevant and recent research findings
  9. emphasizes critical approach to subject
  10. conveys convincing mastery of subject

1.1.4 Teaching style

  1. asks questions; waits for responses
  2. maintains environment conducive to learning
  3. engages a variety of individual students in discussion
  4. calls students by name
  5. does not patronize students; treats as adults
  6. encourages and reassures students when needed
  7. provides adequate clarification and complete answers to students
  8. demonstrates willingness to provide additional information at a later time when time does not permit or when information not readily at hand
  9. maintains spirit of equity in classroom

Table of Contents

2.0 Teaching effectiveness components

All forms and procedures used for student evaluation or peer evaluation will be those which have been reviewed and approved at a LIS department faculty meeting.

2.1 Student Evaluations All teaching effectiveness evaluations will include student evaluations.

2.1.1 Formative evaluation

In the LIS Department the formative evaluation serves as a process for faculty instructional development. Formative evaluation occurs when requested by faculty members or as a part of teaching effectiveness evaluation for reappointment/promotion/tenure. The formative evaluation process is part of teaching effectiveness evaluation for adjunct faculty.

2.1.1.1 Procedures

  1. For courses of one semester duration, during the fourth class of the semester students will be asked to complete a teaching evaluation which focuses on their perceptions of the effectiveness of the instructor at that point. For courses of less than one semester in length, the instructor will decide on the best time to implement.
  2. Formative evaluation is administered, analyzed, and summarized by course instructor.
  3. Results of formative evaluation belong to the course instructor and may be included as part of documentation in faculty members' teaching effectiveness file (TEF).

2.1.2 Student Course Evaluations

All faculty participate in student course evaluations for all courses all semesters. Prompt feedback to the instructor is essential in facilitating improvement of teaching effectiveness. The use of NCR 2-copy-forms permits both computerized data analysis and prompt feedback to instructor and Department Chair.

2.1.2.1 Procedures

  1. Student course evaluations are completed by students during the last regular class session prior to final exam week, typically following the schedule adopted by the School of Education
  2. Evaluation process is scheduled by the department administrative secretary and administered by selected class members.
  3. Objective items are analyzed through the office of the Associate Dean of the School of Education.
  4. Open-ended comments are summarized and analyzed by course instructor.
  5. Summary results of both objective and openended sections are given simultaneously to the course instructor and the Department Chair within four weeks.
  6. A meeting with the Department Chair may be scheduled after the four weeks.
  7. Results from each semester and summer sessions will become a part of the documentation in faculty members' teaching effectiveness file (TEF).

Table of Contents

2.2 Peer Review

Under the Post-tenure Review Policy of UNCG (Adopted by the UNCG Faculty Senate, Fall 1998), Peer review of teaching effectiveness for tenured faculty is a required part of the review process each year. Tenured faculty members have a cumulative five year review which includes a Peer review of their work, and includes peer review of teaching, scholarly activity,service, and professional assignments. Peer review incorporates both direct observations and appropriate and timely feedback. Peer review for teaching effectiveness is conducted at least once per calendar year for all faculty members.

2.2.1 Procedures

  1. Faculty member selects course for which peer review is to be completed.
  2. Faculty member contacts a colleague in the School of Education who agrees to attend a full class session of the selected course for the purpose of peer review of teaching effectiveness. Class session to be evaluated is selected jointly by faculty member and peer reviewer.
  3. Prior to the class session selected, the faculty member and the peer reviewer meet and discuss the objectives as well as subject content and requirements. At this time the faculty member shares with the peer reviewer a copy of the course syllabus, examples of assignments,and other materials as appropriate. The peer reviewer and faculty member reach agreement on what criteria will be assessed and forms used.
  4. Peer reviewer observes entire class.
  5. Within one week after the class visit the peer reviewer submits to the faculty member a written assessment of teaching effectiveness. If clarification is needed, a meeting may be scheduled and revisions made.
  6. Once the written evaluation is completed a copy becomes part of the documentation of teaching effectiveness file (TEF).

2.2.2 Guidelines

  1. Peer review should be qualitative, and individualistic.
  2. Peer review should be constructive; the long range purpose of assessment of teaching effectiveness is to facilitate the improvement of teaching.
  3. Specific commentary should be accompanied wherever possible with suggestions of ways for improvement.
  4. Peer reviewer should exercise caution in comparing different instructors or different styles of instruction; each must be considered on individual merits.
  5. Instructor should address areas for improvement in semester teaching effectiveness review and plan for teaching improvement, in consultation with the department chair.
  6. Department chair shall be ultimately responsible for determining when the instructor's teaching is ineffective or when course content, technical problems, or other uncontrollable factors may have influenced an unfavorable review.
  7. Department chair and colleagues are available to make constructive suggestions for improving teaching effectiveness, and will work closely to address problem areas.

Table of Contents

2.3 Teaching Effectiveness File (TEF)

Documentation resulting from the teaching effectiveness review process will be kept and maintained in separate TEF by faculty in their offices. Faculty maintain ownership of their TEF. Materials from the TEF may only be used with faculty consent.

  1. TEF must include student course evaluations, peer review assessments.
  2. TEF may include: course syllabi, copies of student work, listing of courses taught, results of self evaluation, video or audio tapes of teaching, summaries of curriculum changes, and other materials.

Table of Contents

3.0 Tenured continuing faculty members

All tenured continuing faculty members participate in teaching effectiveness review process both at regular intervals and ongoing. Teaching effectiveness review serves as a process for faculty instructional development.

3.1 Formative evaluation (2.1.1) is voluntary and occurs when deemed appropriate by faculty members

3.2 Student course evaluations (2.1.2) are completed by students in all courses each semester and summer session

3.3 Peer review (2.2) is conducted at least once per calendar year. A cumulative review is conducted by a faculy panel of three tenured faculty members every five years. Course selection is made by faculty member, selection of class session to be evaluated is made jointly by faculty member and peer evaluator.

3.4 Results of student course evaluations and peer review become part of individual faculty members' teaching effectiveness file (TEF, 2.3). Results may be used for promotion or merit if desired by faculty member.

3.5 In the 1998-99 Academic Year, UNCG initiated a process of post-tenure review which is supported by the School of Education and the LIS Department. Each Fall Faculty members with tenure are asked to submit goals and objectives to the Department Chair. The Spring annual report of faculty includes an assessment of progress toward these goals and objectives. These annual reports are cumulated in a five year report which is reviewed by a peer review committee of three tenured faculty members drawn from the LIS department and other departments on campus. The cumulative faculty report, and the report of the Peer Review committee' report are submitted to the Chair of the LIS department who submits his cumulative evaluation to the Dean of the School of Education. (report form)

The policy on post-tenure review is found at Post Tenure Review Policy of UNCG (PDF File).

Table of Contents

4.0 Tenure-track continuing faculty members

All tenure-track continuing faculty members will participate in teaching effectiveness review process both at regular intervals and ongoing. In all cases the calendar of the School of Education for faculty review will be followed.

4.1 Formative evaluation (2.1.1) will occur during the fourth class of the semester in at least one class each semester.

4.2 Student course evaluations (2.1.2) will be completed by students in all courses each semester and summer session.

4.3 Peer review (2.2) is conducted each semester in one or more classes. Course selection is made by faculty member, selection of class session to be evaluated is made jointly by faculty member and peer evaluator. Tenure-track faculty members should select peer evaluators from both the LIS Department and the School of Education as a whole.

4.4 Results of student course evaluations and peer reviews are included in faculty member's teaching effectiveness file (TEF, 2.3) and are used in reappointment/promotion/tenure process.

4.5 The department chair and tenured faculty members will meet once a year to review the TEF for each tenure-track faculty member. After discussion, the department chair prepares a written summary statement on the teaching effectiveness of the faculty member. This document will become part of the faculty member's TEF for purposes of reappointment/tenure/ promotion.

Table of Contents

II. REAPPOINTMENT, PROMOTION AND TENURE: CRITERIA, EVIDENCE, PROCEDURES

The Library and information Studies Department recognizes four (4) promotion and tenure criteria areas: (1) Teaching Activities, (2) Service Activities, (3) Scholarly and Creative Activities, and (4) Directed Professional Activities. Each of these activity areas is defined below.

The department chair and each faculty member must agree on the particular criteria areas for faculty work each year. This written agreement shall specify percentages of full time assignment for each area during the year and shall be filed in the faculty member's personnel file in the LIS Department.

1.0 Teaching Activities

Activities in this areas can represent up to 3/4 of a faculty member's full time assignment each semester. In no case should teaching activities represent less than 50% of a faculty member's full time assignment each semester.

1.1 Teaching effectiveness criteria

These criteria are intended to be congruent with University and School of Education guidelines. They may not cover all possible areas of teaching excellence, and mention of other strong or weak points may be appropriate depending upon the individual instructor, the particular subject covered, and the class session being evaluated. Moreover, all criteria listed may not apply to particular classes. These criteria are also used in the LIS departmental evaluations of teaching effectiveness (see I above)

1.1.1 Instructor activities

  1. integrates technology into classroom activities
  2. uses variety of teaching strategies (e.g.,lecture, question/answer, group work, exercises, etc.)
  3. encourages critical and independent thinking
  4. inspires students to think beyond requirements of course
  5. fosters active student participation in discussion and other activities
  6. is available to student for consultation
  7. demonstrates fairness in grading; in attention given to individual students;
  8. communicates well (expectations; subject content; verbal and non-verbal signals)
  9. where appropriate, demonstrates appropriate multicultural understandings

1.1.2 Organization of class

  1. relates subject matter to total course; orients students to specific subject
  2. allows appropriate time for coverage of subject
  3. organizes material; may provide outline
  4. integrates course material with any assignments, including text/reading
  5. where appropriate, enhances subject with media/technology
  6. uses and prepares visuals, where appropriate, for unfamiliar terms, citations, headings, etc.
  7. signals clearly transition from subject to subject
  8. allows sufficient time for all aspects of class plan (group work, lecture, discussion)
  9. class has clear beginning point or introduction and reaches closure

1.1.3 Content

  1. communicates enthusiasm/interest in subject to students
  2. incorporates technology where appropriate/essential
  3. demonstrates awareness of interdisciplinary aspects of subject where appropriate
  4. manifests awareness of cross-cultural examples, and sensitivity to levels of understanding among different cultures (e.g., ethnic or racial, age- defined, physically or mentally challenged, gender or sexual orientation, political or social groups)
  5. integrates anecdotal "experiences from the field" with professional theory
  6. models professional approach to problem areas of practice
  7. maintains objectivity in discussion of controversial material
  8. incorporates relevant and recent research findings
  9. emphasizes critical approach to subject
  10. conveys convincing mastery of subject

1.1.4 Teaching style

  1. asks questions; waits for responses
  2. maintains environment conducive to learning
  3. engages a variety of individual students in discussion
  4. calls students by name
  5. does not patronize students; treats as adults
  6. encourages and reassures students when needed
  7. provides adequate clarification and complete answers to students
  8. demonstrates willingness to provide additional information at a later time when time does not permit or when information not readily at hand
  9. maintains spirit of equity in classroom

1.2 Summary of instructional responsibilities

1.2.1 Courses taught, number of times taught, evidence of revision, student load

1.2.2 Department curriculum contributions

1.2.3 Course related advisement/mentoring responsibilities

1.3 Evaluation of instructional responsibilities

1.3.1 Evidence of time and effort spent on teaching in relation to total responsibilities

1.3.2 Evidence of improvement of teaching over time as a result of feedback, from students -- including formative and end of course evaluations, from colleagues, and self evaluation.

1.3.3 Focus of teaching activities, congruence with service activities and scholarship/research.

1.3.4 overall contribution to student outcomes. The evaluation of teaching quality is a very subjective matter. While some evidence may be immediately available, long term student outcomes are more difficult to measure successfully. Evidence listed in 1.4 below will all be considered.

1.4 Sources of evidence

1.4.1 Results of peer evaluations, self evaluations

1.4.2 Candidate Narrative and Summary of Teaching Effectiveness

1.4.3 Student papers/projects

1.4.4 Video tapes of class presentations

1.4.5 Teaching observation

1.4.6 Results of student evaluations (formative and summative/end of course)

1.4.7 Summaries of other student feedback, e.g.,graduate surveys, student letters, comments, etc.

1.4.8 Copies of course outlines

1.4.9 Other...

2.0 Service Activities

Activities in this areas can represent, along with the area of scholarship/ research, and directed professional activities up to 1/2 of a faculty member's full-time assignment each semester.

2.1 Evidence and Criteria

2.1.1 Advisement

  1. Student feedback on advising, availability, mentoring
  2. Master's project advisement
  3. Independent studies
  4. Assistance with placing students in jobs

    2.1.2 References given for students

    2.1.3 Sponsorship of student organizations

    2.1.4 Support of professional organizations

    1. Membership
    2. Offices held -- elected and voluntary
    3. Committee membership
    4. Symposia, workshops, presentations given
    5. Publication in organization publications

    2.1.5 Other professional service

    1. Nonpaid consultantships
    2. Special professional projects
    3. Refereeing for external faculty for promotion/ tenure
    4. Position papers
    5. Professional reports

    2.1.6 State, community service, civic organizations

    1. Membership
    2. Offices held -- elected and voluntary
    3. Committee membership
    4. Symposia, workshops, presentations given
    5. Publication in organization publications

    2.1.7 Other public Service activities (non-library)

    1. National level service
    2. Regional level service
    3. State service
    4. Local service

    2.2 Subjective considerations in evaluation

    2.2.1 Amount of service activities, time and effort in relation to total responsibilities

    2.2.2 Scope of service activities, diversity of effort

    2.2.3 Focus of service activities, congruence with research/scholarship

    2.2.4 Overall value to professional and public leadership and service

    2.3 Sources of evidence

    2.3.1 Candidate Narrative and Summary of Service Activities

    2.3.2 Correspondence from colleagues

    2.3.3 Reports in news sources/literature

    2.3.4 Conference proceedings/programs

    2.3.5 Student feedback

    2.3.6 Service awards

    2.3.7 Other...

    3.0 Scholarship or Creative Activities

    Activities in these areas can represent, along with the area of Service, and Directed Professional Activities up to 1/2 of a faculty member's full- time assignment each semester.

    Faculty members develop a written rationale for scholarly activities by which they prioritize their research activities, grant requests, and collaborative scholarly work with colleagues, and consultative activities. This scholarship rationale is not fixed in stone, but is to be revised on a regular basis to reflect the emerging interests of the faculty member and the profession.

    The rationale (and any updates) are filed with the Faculty Assignment Form filled out each semester with the Chairperson of the LIS Department. It is expected that the faculty member's assignments will reflect an adequate amounts of time to allow the faculty member to complete their scholarly agenda.

    3.1 Evidence and criteria

    3.1.1 Presentations at conferences/papers presented
    1. Types
    a. Keynote speeches, major program presentations, panel presentations, poster sessions, proceedings if published
    2. Evaluations by participants and/or review by outside reviewers from profession

    3.1.2 Grant proposals submitted -- types and funded amounts

    3.1.3 Journal publications

    2. publications in refereed journals
    3. invited publications in theme issues
    4. guest edition publications
    5. publications in nonrefereed journals
    6. publications in professional organization newsletters
    7. book reviews
    8. letters to the editor
    9. indexes for publications
    10. electronic publications

    3.1.4 Monographic publications

    3.1.5 Consultative work with professional librarians in the field such work may include paid and non-paid work within the University Guidelines on external activities for pay.

    3.1.6 Cooperative scholarship/publication with students and colleagues

    1. Faculty members are expected to seek out and develop collaborative scholarly opportunities with colleagues in the profession and in other related disciplines. Such efforts include collaborative curriculum development, collaborative research, collaborative presentations at professional conferences, and collaborative grant applications.
    2. Faculty members are expected to encourage students to develop the necessary skills required to produce course work worthy of publication in professional journals in the library field and related fields. Evidence of such efforts may include:
      • . publication of student papers in state, regional, and national library publications
      • student presentations at professional conferences
      • collaborative publication with students

    3.1.7 Independent Research/other publications

    Faculty member's semester and annual reports on research should demonstrate an adherence to the written scholarship rationale on file. As the scholarly interests of the faculty member change, it is expected that an updated rationale will be filed. There should be evidence of a research agenda which reflects purposeful direction.

    3.1.8 Scholarship/Research accepted and/or in progress

    3.2 Subjective considerations in evaluation

    3.2.1 Amount of scholarship/research activities, time and effort in relation to total responsibilities

    3.2.2 Scope of scholarship/research activities, diversity of effort

    3.3.3 Focus of scholarship/research activities, congruence with Service activities and teaching.

    3.3.4 Overall value to professional and public leadership and service

    3.3.4.1. Quality of scholarship is best measured in this process by outside evidence or reviews including:

    1. reviews published in journals from the field
    2. reviews requested from outside reviewers selected by faculty member
    3. reviews requested from outside reviewers selected by the personnel committee of the LIS Dept
    4. evidence gleaned from student evaluation form comments
    5. unsolicited reviews and comments from colleagues and students

    3.3.4.2. The minimum quantity of contributions is not subject to any departmental, school, or university policy. It is expected that the faculty member will show a continuing effort to share a scholarly agenda through regular publication, grant applications, and formal presentations at professional conferences. While no quantity standards are set; Nonetheless, the burden of proof is on the faculty member to show a regular pattern of contributions the professional field through publication, research, and presentations.

    3.3.4.3 The review of research/scholarship for impact on the profession is a very subjective matter. Impact of some contributions may be immediately acknowledged in the profession or the larger academic community. On the other hand, the actual impact of such contributions may not be evident for a generation. It is suggested that outside reviewers from profession be asked to make an assessment of impact when reviewing the faculty member's contribution.

    4.0 Directed Professional Activity

    While all faculty members are expected to perform in the categories of teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service, the particular assigned responsibilities may also include professional activities that merit separate classification and delineation. In such cases these activities are a significant part of the faculty member's contributions to the University and other communities. For those faculty members desiring to use this category, directed professional activities must be carefully defined between the faculty member and the department chair with the purpose and significance of the directed professional activity clearly spelled out in the written agreement between the faculty member and the department chair. Directed professional activities together with scholarly and creative activities and service activities may take up to ½ of a faculty member's full- time assignment each semester.

    4.1 Scope of directed professional activity

    Directed professional activity is defined as a university activity whose contribution is sufficiently distinctive that its significance in overall faculty effort is diminished when embedded in any of the three other categories of teaching, scholarly and creative activities, and service. The principal objective in the evaluation of directed professional activity is to assess the nature and quality of this contribution and its significance to, or impact on, the university.

    4.1.1. Examples of directed professional activity

    4.1.1.1 Preparation of significant departmental, unit, or university documents including technical or training manuals, national professional accreditation presentations,

    4.1.1.2 Development and/or direction of special program such as international affiliations, interdisciplinary programs, formal community outreach or extension activities that promote continual learning, leadership in research, service, or clinical centers or institutes of the University, special summer programs, assignments that enhance the visibility of the university

    4.1.1.3 Direction of activities that enhance the University's effectiveness including faculty development activities, statistical or methodological assistance to colleagues, recruitment and retention activities

    4.1.1.4 Academic administrative leadership including chair a department or division, directing academic clinics or special programs, and participation in special task forces, commissions, and self-studies

    4.2 Sources of Evidence

    Evidence for directed professional activity effectiveness may include, but is not limited to, the following

    4.2.1 Written descriptions of the scope of the project and levels of participation in it including analyses of the work accomplished and the contribution to the department, unit, and/or university

    4.2.2 Documented outcomes including population served, official documents and reports, technical reports, grants resulting from activities, activity logs, assessment of the visibility of the activity

    4.2.3 Judgments of directed professional activity including evaluations by peers, participants, administrators, and other constituents, and new programs or initiatives resulting from the activity

    4.2.4 Eminence measures including honors and awards, accreditation, published reviews, and other formal recognitions

    4.2.5 Other...

    4.3 Responsibilities

    4.3.1 All directed professional activity assignments must be undertaken after written agreement between the faculty member and the chair of the Library and Information Studies Department

    4.3.1.1 Directed professional activities are subject to annual review by the chair of the department and the dean of the School of Education. Any changes in responsibilities, time allocations, and other significant factors are documented and included in the faculty member's personnel file in the LIS department.

    4.3.2 The faculty member desiring evaluation on the basis of directed professional activity is responsible for collecting and maintaining documentation on the activity.

    5.0 Overall potential in the field/contribution to the department/profession

    In addition to the documentation of specific activities in each of the selected areas, candidates should prepare a summary statement which would include

    5.1 Honors, awards, recognition, recognition for teaching

    5.2 Participation in personal professional development

    5.3 Demonstrated initiative and leadership

    5.4 Focus of all activities, congruence of research/scholarship teaching and services

    5.5 Congruity of efforts with department activities/goals

    5.6 Commitment to profession/department/school/university

    5.7 Overall contributions to professional and public leadership and service

    6.0 Procedures/timberline

    6.1 Faculty seeking promotion and/or tenure should begin the preparation of their summary statements and sources of evidence during the academic year prior to LIS Departmental consideration of the candidate

    6.2 Departmental review of candidate's materials should occur no later than four weeks prior to the announced School of Education Deadline each semester.

    6.2.1 Selected LIS tenured faculty member of superior rank to the candidate will provide written summary evaluations of submitted evidence for each of the candidate's chosen categories.

    6.2.2 These written summaries will be shared with all LIS tenured faculty members of superior rank to the candidate and each of these faculty members will provide a written statement in which they concur, do not concur with the evaluation and provide additional comments as desired.

    6.2.3 All LIS tenured faculty members of superior rank to the candidate will meet to discuss the documentation and their recommendation to the department chair

    6.2.4. The documentation will be delivered the LIS department chair and the tenured faculty of superior rank to the candidate will meet with the department chair to discuss the documentation

    6.2.5 The department chair will review the documentation, add his/her own recommendation and summary statement and submit the total package to the School of Education Promotion and Tenure Committee no less than three weeks prior to the School of Education Deadline.

    6.3 Negative recommendations by the tenured faculty and the department chair terminates the review process. All other recommendations must be forwarded to the School of Education Tenure and Promotion Committee and the dean of the School of Education, the provost, and the Chancellor

    6.3.1 In the event of a negative recommendation by the tenured faculty or the department chair, or both, the candidate shall be informed of this decision as soon as possible.

    6.3.2 the candidate has the right of appeal as defined by the Code of the University of North Carolina and the Faculty Handbook.

    Table of Contents

    7. Application for Reappointment

    7.1 Procedures

    1. The process of applying for reappointment is a voluntary one. Faculty members seeking reappointment have access to their personnel files and maintain their TEF in their own offices.
    2. In the spring prior to the fall application for reappointment, faculty member seeking reappointment evaluates current status of their teaching effectiveness file (TEF) and develops overall strategy for documentation. TEF at this point should minimally include: results of formative evaluation from one or more courses if elected to be included by faculty member; summaries of student course evaluations from all courses taught; and two peer reviewer assessments for each year. Consultation with the department chair is expected. (Note: at the date of implementation of this policy some faculty members may not have all the above listed items in their TEF).
    3. In the spring/summer prior to the fall application for reappointment, the faculty member writes a teaching effectiveness statement which is a summary and analysis of their teaching experiences, improvement, and perceived effectiveness.
    4. In the fall of the application for reappointment, TEF and other documents for applying for reappointment are delivered to the department administrative secretary.
    5. No additional information may be added to the documentation once they have been officially submitted to the tenured faculty.
    6. In the fall of the application for reappointment, faculty member in consultation with department chair selects one LIS Department tenured faculty member to write an evaluative statement concerning overall teaching effectiveness to accompany documentation. (See Part II, 1.0 Teaching Activities).
    7. The right of appeal of recommendations and/or decisions on promotion shall not be violated by any process or statement in these policies. The faculty member retains the right to access to all documentation and to respond to any statements and add comments if desired (See 10.0).

    Table of Contents

    8. Application for Promotion and Tenure

    8.1 The process of applying for promotion and tenure is a voluntary one. Faculty members seeking promotion/ tenure have access to their personnel files and maintain their TEF in their own offices.

    8.2 In the spring prior to the fall application for promotion/tenure, faculty member evaluates current status of their teaching effectiveness file (TEF) and develops overall strategy for documentation. TEF at this point should minimally include: results of formative evaluation from one or more courses if elected to be included by faculty member; summaries of student course evaluations from all courses taught since the reappointment review; and two peer reviewer assessments for each year. Consultation with the department chair is expected. (Note: at the date of implementation of this policy some faculty members may not have all the above listed items in their TEF).

    8.3 In the spring/summer prior to the fall application for promotion/tenure, the faculty member writes a teaching effectiveness statement which is a summary and analysis of their teaching experiences, improvement, and perceived effectiveness.

    8.4 In the fall of the application for promotion/tenure, TEF and other documents are delivered to the department administrative secretary.

    8.5 No additional information may be added to the documentation once they have been officially submitted to the tenured faculty.

    8.6 In the fall of the application for promotion/tenure, faculty member in consultation with department chair selects one LIS Department tenured faculty member to write an evaluative statement concerning overall teaching effectiveness to accompany documentation. (See Part II, 1.0 Teaching Activities).

    8.7 The right of appeal of recommendations and/or decisions on promotion shall not be violated by any process or statement in these policies. The faculty member retains the right to access to all documentation and to respond to any statements and add comments if desired. (See 10.0)

    Faculty members seeking reappointment or promotion/tenure have access to their personnel and teaching effectiveness files including the records of student evaluations, peer evaluations, agreements on teaching improvement with the department chair, and faculty statements on teaching effectiveness.

    Table of Contents

    9.0 Tenured Faculty - Application for Promotion

    The process of applying for promotion is a voluntary one. Faculty members seeking promotion have access to their personnel files and maintain their TEF in their own offices. In all cases the calendar of the School of Education for faculty review will be followed.

    9.1 Procedures

    1. In the spring prior to the fall application for promotion, faculty member evaluates current status of their teaching effectiveness file (TEF) and develops overall strategy for documentation. TEF at this point should minimally include: results of formative evaluation from one or more courses if elected to be included by faculty member; summaries of student course evaluations from at least the last three years; and two peer review assessments. Consultation with the department chair is expected. (Note: at the date of implementation of this policy some faculty members may not have all the above listed items in their TEF).
    2. In the spring/summer prior to the fall application for promotion, the faculty member writes a teaching effectiveness statement which is a summary and analysis of their teaching experiences, improvement, and perceived effectiveness.
    3. In the fall of the application for promotion, TEF and other documents are delivered to the department administrative secretary.
    4. No additional information may be added to the documentation once they have been officially submitted to the tenured faculty.
    5. In the fall of the application for promotion, faculty member in consultation with department chair selects one LIS Department tenured faculty member of equal or higher rank to write an evaluative statement concerning overall teaching effectiveness to accompany documentation. (See Part II, 1.0 Teaching Activities).

    9.2 The right of appeal of recommendations and/or decisions on promotion shall not be violated by any process or statement in these policies. The faculty member retains the right to access to all documentation and to respond to any statements and add comments if desired. (See 10.0).

    9.3 Faculty members seeking promotion have access to their personnel and teaching effectiveness files including the records of student evaluations, peer evaluations, agreements on teaching improvement with the department chair, and faculty statements on teaching effectiveness.

    Table of Contents

    10. Merit awards for teaching effectiveness

    Merit awards for teaching effectiveness are a part of administrative personnel evaluation conducted by the department chair and the administration of the School of Education. This policy concerns teaching effectiveness evaluations for use by faculty members in developing increased teaching effectiveness. It is not intended to serve the additional function of personnel evaluation in the area of teaching effectiveness for merit salary awards.

    10.1 TEF and Confidentiality Nothing in this policy is to be construed as requiring that the materials in the TEF must be submitted for merit awards for teaching effectiveness. All materials in a faculty member's TEF remains privileged information. It is not to be released for any purposes without the specific written consent of the faculty member.

    10.2 Evidence The documentation contained in the faculty member's TEF file may be submitted by the faculty member as evidence for a merit award for teaching effectiveness.

    10.3 Administrative Policy The department chair and/or the administration of the School of Education may develop such instruments as they deem appropriate for the evaluation of teaching for merit salary awards as a part of an administrative policy for faculty review.

    10.5 Role of Faculty Faculty members shall not be involved in the administration of any instruments developed for the purposes of the evaluation of teaching for merit salary awards.

    10.6 Teaching Effectiveness Criteria The criteria adopted by the department for teaching effectiveness evaluation are located in 1.0 of this document.

    Table of Contents

    11. Teaching performance awards (TPA)

    11.1 Policy
    Because of the high value placed on teaching as a part of the three-part role of faculty members (teaching/research/ service), the LIS Department Teaching Performance Award appropriately recognizes outstanding contributions in the area of teaching effectiveness, teaching innovation, and research on effective teaching.

    11.2 Timing
    The award will be given once every three years, beginning in 1995-96. Only tenure-track or tenured faculty of the LIS Department are eligible.

    11.3 Criteria for nomination
    Criteria for nomination include:

    • Nomination by students, statements that address the faculty member's performance in the areas of:
      1. demonstrated effectiveness in classroom management
      2. demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter
      3. demonstrated ethical behavior
      4. demonstrated effectiveness as advisor and mentor
    • Nomination by alumni, statements that address the faculty member's performance in the areas of:
      1. effectiveness in the preparation for job performance
      2. effectiveness in mentoring/as a role model
      3. demonstrated knowledge of the field
    11.4 Criteria to be used to award the TPA

    1. Nomination and/or award for outstanding teacher
    2. Recognition by peers of excellence in teaching performance, evidenced by written peer evaluations of courses
    3. Conduct of special assignments (guest lecturers, etc.), evidenced by written comments and evaluations by course instructor
    4. Student evaluation of courses, evidenced by high average responses to evaluation forms relative to the averaged evaluations for all faculty
    5. Nomination statements by students
    6. Nomination statements by alumni

    11.5 Nomination Process.

    1. Announcement of nominations is made at the beginning of the fall semester with the publication of deadline, criteria, nomination forms, and explanation of the procedures to be followed. Forms can be obtained from and should be submitted to the Department Administrative Secretary.
    2. The nomination forms will include: a) faculty member name, rank, etc.; b) list of criteria for nomination and space for faculty member to sign to agree to be nominated. Permission from the faculty member to review appropriate TEF materials must be obtained.
    3. After the deadline for nominations, the department chair may add her/his teaching effective evaluation, and submit relevant documents to a committee comprised of:
      a. One tenured LIS faculty member who is not a nominee
      b. One alumni appointed by the LIS Alumni Association
      c. Dean of the School of Education
      d. One LIS student nominated by LISSA
      e. One LIS student selected by the Department Chair
    4. The Committee is appointed by the Department Chair and selects its own Chair at the first meeting.
    5. The Committee considers all nominations and makes a written recommendation to the Department Chair.

    11.6 Award Recommendation

    Recommendation for one award or no award may be made by the Committee. The award consists of a certificate of recognition, announcement to appropriate media (press release, etc.), and an award to be determined by the Committee.

    Table of Contents

    12. Adjunct Faculty and Teaching Assistants

    Adjunct faculty and teaching assistants participate in teaching effectiveness review process during each course taught.

    12.1 Adjunct Faculty - Procedures

    1. Formative evaluation (2.1.1) occurs during the fourth class of the semester in each class taught.
    2. Student course evaluations (2.1.2) are completed by students in all courses taught.
    3. Peer review (2.2) is conducted in each three semester hour course taught or at least once in each calendar year. Courses of less than three semester hours will be reviewed as agreed jointly by department chair and adjunct faculty. Selection of class session to be evaluated is made jointly by adjunct faculty member and peer reviewer. Peer reviewers should be selected from the LIS Department tenured faculty.
    4. Results of student course evaluations and peer reviews are included in adjunct faculty member's teaching effectiveness file (TEF, 2.3) and are used in future hiring decisions.
    5. The department chair and adjunct faculty member meet each semester a course is taught to review the teaching effectiveness file information. Meetings include areas in need of improvement and agreement on strategies to bring about the improvement. The department chair prepares a written summary statement on the teaching effectiveness of the adjunct faculty member which becomes part of the TEF.

    12.2 Teaching Assistants - Procedures:

    1. Each teaching assistant is assigned a mentor from eligible LIS Department faculty.
    2. Formative evaluation (2.1.1) occurs during the fourth class of the semester in each class taught.
    3. Student course evaluations (2.1.2) are completed by students in all courses taught.
    4. Peer review (2.2) is conducted in each course taught or at least once a semester. Selection of class session to be evaluated is made jointly by teaching assistant and peer reviewer. Peer reviewers are selected from the LIS Department tenured or tenure-track faculty.
    5. Results of student course evaluations and peer reviews are included in the teaching assistant's teaching effectiveness file (TEF, 2.3).
    6. The assigned faculty mentor and teaching assistant meet each semester a course is taught to review the teaching effectiveness file information.

    12.3 Adjunct faculty members and teaching assistants retain the right to access to all documentation and to respond to any statements and add comments if desired. (See 10.0)
    Return to Policies and Procedures Manual

Page updated: 22 - October - 2007
Webmaster: Katherine Sun

Page Issues? LIS Web Master

Department of Library and Information Studies, UNCG
349 Curry Building, PO Box 26170
Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
Tel: (336)334-3477
FAX (336)334-5060
EMAIL cpfelts@uncg.edu