Visual and Performing Arts
Page tree


College of Visual and Performing Arts

Office of Academic Affairs



F T Full-time Faculty Performance Review Downloadable Document


Guidelines for Annual Performance Reviews for Full-Time Faculty

 

This instruction module produced by the VPA Office of Academic Affairs is intended for use by the department chairs/directors and administrative staff.

Enclosed is a checklist that addresses each of the three types of annual performance reviews: 1.) tenured faculty; 2.) tenure-track faculty; and 3.) full-time non-tenure-track faculty (Professors of Practice and Teaching Professors).

Performance reviews are an essential aspect of the University’s merit-based salary adjustment process, and are also an important means of providing feedback to faculty members. It is the responsibility of chairs/directors to provide annual performance reviews of all full-time faculty members in their unit. In the case of tenure-track faculty members, the annual review process follows very specific guidelines, and each annual review becomes part of the overall tenure and promotion process.

These guidelines are updated periodically to reflect any changes being implemented to the process. Please make sure that you are following the most current guidelines.  If you have suggestions for improving these instructions, please feel free to share them with our staf

Tenure-Track (TT) and Non-Tenure-Track (NTT) Faculty:

For tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty, the college utilizes the University’s Annual Report and Recommendations (ARR) form and process. A checklist for this process (pages 5-6) is included in this module for your reference; the “Annual Report and Recommendations on Non-Tenured Faculty” form is housed on the Provost’s website at http://provost.syr.edu/faculty-affairs/resources-and-forms/.

Tenured Faculty:

Each tenured faculty member should also be provided with a post-tenure performance review written by the department chair/director, based on the faculty member’s annual CV Update.  The review letter represents the basis upon which the chair/director recommends annual salary increments for tenured faculty.

Criteria for Evaluating Performance

In the absence of specific departmental bylaws or written procedures that have been vetted by Faculty Council, these guidelines are provided:


  1. The criteria for evaluating performance varies with the type of appointment a faculty member has, for instance:
    1. Tenured faculty – reviewed by the chair/director as part of annual merit raise decision. Criteria: teaching/advising, research/creative work, and service;
    2. Tenure-track faculty – reviewed by chair/director and department tenure committee. Criteria: teaching/advising, research/creative work, and service;
    3. Teaching Professors (non tenure-track faculty) – reviewed by chair/director and department tenure committee. Criteria: teaching/advising and service, but not research/creative work unless specifically negotiated as per SU Faculty Manual;
    4. Professors of Practice (non tenure-track faculty) – reviewed for teaching by chair/director and department tenure committee. Criteria: teaching/advising and service, but not research/creative work unless specifically negotiated as per SU Faculty Manual;
  2. 2)  Discussion of performance should be limited to the criteria relevant to the type of appointment (see above).
  3. 3)  Performance should be evaluated on the basis of available documentation in support of each of the relevant criteria during the period of the annual review (in most cases, the previous calendar year). Such documentation includes but is not limited to student course feedback, peer evaluations of teaching, syllabi and course assignments, publications, exhibition record, service record, etc. (see guidelines in the college’s Policies and Procedures on Tenure, Promotion and Annual Contractual Renewal). Each academic unit is responsible for its own written “evidences” or criteria for promotion and tenure.
  4. 4)  Any discussion outside the purview of these guidelines should be identified as not relevant or germane to the specific criteria under review.
  5. 5)  Written feedback to the faculty member regarding their performance should be as detailed and as constructive as possible, including both strengths and weaknesses of the work presented. If deficiencies are identified, feedback should direct the faculty member in terms of what can or should be done to address those deficiencies.
  6. 6)  For further details, especially with regard to review of tenure-track faculty, refer to the appropriate sections of the Policies and Procedures document.

7)  While the chair/director bears a primary responsibility for adherence to these guidelines, all faculty members are responsible for identifying and correcting any breaches of protocol.


Annual Report and Recommendations (ARRs) for

Full-Time Tenure-Track and Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

 

 

Department Chair/Director Checklist

The ARR is an annual performance review of faculty that determines merit increases in salary

allocations. The ARR review also becomes part of the permanent record for future tenure and/or promotion decisions. Therefore, this review should address overall performance, including any concerns or issues in teaching, research/creative work, and service.  All tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty ARRs must be submitted to CVPA Office of Academic Affairs by the February published due date. Post-tenure faculty reviews are due to our office at a published date later in the spring semester.


         Department chair/director or support staff collects relevant review data (e.g., student course feedback, syllabi, CV Update, etc.).  This information is made available to members of the department tenure & promotion committee.

         Department chair/director or staff completes information on the first page of the ARR. This includes faculty name, rank, and date of first appointment at SU. Section III (which addresses the status of the faculty’s appointment in the current academic year) must also be completed. If you do not have a record of the information needed to complete Section III, please contact our office for assistance.

         The faculty ARR and accompanying CV Update forms the basis for the department chair/director and the department tenure & promotion committee’s evaluative comments.

        Department tenure & promotion committee meets to discuss faculty member’s performance. Chair/Director writes a formal letter to be attached to ARR form. (See attached template for details on writing evaluations.) All members of the Tenure & Promotion Committee should review the letter before the final version is submitted. Chair/Director must sign Section VIII.

         The department chair/director invites each faculty member to discuss their evaluation.  Faculty member must sign Section IXA file copy of the review letter is sent to the VPA Office of Academic Affairs for review by the Dean, and will then be forwarded to the Provost’s Office.

 

College of Visual and Performing Arts

Office of Academic Affairs

Template for Writing Performance Reviews for Tenure-Track and Non-Tenure-Track Faculty (Supplement to the University’s “Annual Report and Recommendations on Non-Tenured Faculty”)

 

NOTE: The below is the template to follow for performance reviews.
The document to complete can be found at: Full-time Faculty Performance Review Downloadable Document

 

TO:                      Michael Tick, Dean, College of Visual and Performing Arts

FROM:                [Department Chair or Tenure Committee Chair]

DATE:                 [Date]

RE:                      Annual Performance Evaluation: [Faculty Member’s Name]

[NOTE:  Work from the faculty member’s CV Update and/or other materials collected or provided for the purpose of this review: syllabi, student course evaluations, samples of work produced, etc.]

 

INTRODUCTION

[Faculty Member’s Name] is a [tenure-track/non-tenure-track] [assistant professor/associate professor/professor] in the Department of [name of department-list academic program].  This review is conducted for the purpose of evaluating the teaching/advising, research/creative work, and service of [faculty member’s name] during calendar year [list year].

 

TEACHING and ADVISING

[Comment here on the following, including relevant strengths and weaknesses for each aspect of teaching and advising as well as suggesting constructive ways the faculty member can improve performance in this area]: 

  • teaching load and preparation for specific teaching assignments;
  • effectiveness of teaching (including reference to student evaluations, quality of syllabi and teaching materials or assignments, observations from peer reviews, self-assessments provided by the faculty member, ability to incorporate scholarship or creative work into teaching, etc.);
  • quality of advising (including number of assigned advisees, availability to students, record-keeping, advising of senior or graduate student theses, advising of student groups/organizations, feedback from student advisees, etc.);
  • specific suggestions for improvement;
  • state your overall assessment of this particular category of performance—for instance, consistently surpasses expectations, achieves expectations, does not meet all expectations, or below expectations. Base assessment on the evidence you have reviewed.

 

RESEARCH/CREATIVE WORK (Tenure-track faculty only, unless specially negotiated for NTT faculty member as per SU Faculty Manual)

[Comment here on the following, including relevant strengths and weaknesses of the work as well as suggesting constructive ways the faculty member can improve performance in this area]: 

  • overall quality and progress this year on scholarship/creative work, especially in relation to feedback from prior year’s review;
  • quality of specific work completed—quality of venue (international, national, regional), nature of selection process (juried or refereed, blind review, solo or group show, solo or co-authored publication, invited show or book chapter, etc.);
  • linkage of work completed to larger goals (e.g., programmatic research agenda; department, college or University mission, scholarship in action; impact on discipline; impact on culture or social problems, etc.);
  • specific suggestions for improvement;
  • state your overall assessment of this particular category of performance—for instance, consistently surpasses expectations, achieves expectations, does not meet all expectations, or below expectations. Base assessment on the evidence you have reviewed.

 

SERVICE TO PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT, COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY, DISCIPLINE, or COMMUNITY

[Comment here on the following, including relevant strengths and weaknesses of service work as well as suggesting constructive ways the faculty member can improve performance in this area]: 

  • amount and quality of service to program or department;
  • amount and quality of service to college or University;
  • amount and quality of service to discipline and/or community;
  • state your overall assessment of this particular category of performance—for instance, consistently surpasses expectations, achieves expectations, does not meet all expectations, or below expectations. Base assessment on the evidence you have reviewed.

 

CONCLUSIONS

[Briefly state your overall conclusions about this year’s performance and update the chart below.  To access the chart fields, double click on the chart.]


Categories of Evaluation (1 – 4)

 

Rating

Performance

Performance Description

4

Consistently Surpasses Expectations

Performance substantially and consistently surpasses expectations.  Individual makes significant contributions well beyond normal job responsibilities; outstanding performance; a "Superstar."

3

Achieves Expectations

Performance meets the expectations of our organization. Faculty member is fully qualified and competent; job assignments are performed in a manner consistent with performance expectations; good performance.

2

Does Not Meet All Expectations

Performance is not consistently meeting all expectations.  Performance improvement/development is needed; fair performance. This rating should include a follow-up date.

1

Below Expectations

Performance is unacceptable and well below expectations; immediate and continued improvement is required. This rating should include a follow-up date.