IU East’s Annual Review Policy should be read in conjunction with Indiana University’s ACA-21 Faculty and Librarian Annual Reviews. (added 2/20/24)
Expectations of faculty vary from individual to individual and from School to School. The Faculty Senate delegates to faculty in Schools the authority to develop relevant criteria for evaluation in the areas of teaching, service, and research/creative activity, consistent with applicable policies for appointment, reappointment, promotion, and tenure. Expectations and relative significance of the three evaluation areas may vary among Schools but must be consistent with Indiana University East’s primary mission as a teaching institution.
The Chief Academic Officer will review these policies for consistency with the mission of the campus but keep in mind that the essence of Indiana University East’s mission is met differently from School to School. (amended 2/20/24)
The Faculty Senate further delegates to faculty in the Schools the authority to create procedures for annual review of faculty, subject to the following constraints: The procedure for annual review must be explicit. The Deans, department chairs, directors or other unit heads (hereafter to be referred to as “unit heads”) should complete reviews of faculty members annually. Exceptions for compelling reasons should be approved by the Chief Academic Officer. Unit heads will base their reviews on the School’s criteria, the information included in the faculty’s annual reports and other relevant written documentation. (amended 2/20/24)
Every annual report submitted for annual review should include a self-reflection of teaching and learning. The self-reflection should include analysis of student feedback that emphasizes students’ comments on their learning, and qualitative feedback on how the faculty member’s teaching and guidance have impacted their learning. Procedures used for collecting the student feedback, enrollment in each section, and number of students responding should be included. The self-reflection may also include other sources of information such as peer reviews, assessments of student learning, etc. (added 2/20/24)
ACA-21 Faculty and Librarian Annual Reviews states, “Because numerical summaries in student course evaluations may reflect cultural biases, and low participation rates may skew results, numerical ratings should not be used as the primary source of data for evaluating teaching. Each campus and unit faculty governance organization shall have a policy for evaluating teaching that provides for qualitative student feedback and other sources of information.” (added 2/20/24)
Faculty members may choose to include quantitative measures of student feedback. Quantitative feedback may be given equal consideration with qualitative feedback. However, quantitative feedback should not be the primary consideration for evaluating the quality of teaching and learning. Qualitative feedback may also reflect biases based on culture, gender, etc. However, biases in students’ qualitative comments are more readily apparent due to context than biases in quantitative feedback. Biases in comments may be explained as biases with contextual evidence, and countered with explanation. Faculty members may choose to counter such biases with explanation, but are not required to do so. (added 2/20/24)
Unit heads and other reviewers of faculty should be informed of bias based on gender, culture, etc. in student evaluations of teaching. A statement about such bias should be included in the annual review form used by the School. (added 2/20/24)
The nature of the “student feedback” that must be included in annual reports, and in Promotion and Tenure, Clinical, and Lecturer dossiers, is delegated to Schools, which should develop School policies consistent with the campus and IU policies. For example, the student feedback might consist of existing or revised course evaluations, students’ narrative responses to questions about their learning (as suggested by the U10-2022 UFC/ALC Task Force Report of April 2020), midterm student feedback, and/or other. When determining the nature of the “student feedback,” Schools should consider including a judiciously worded statement for students that addresses bias connected with faculty’s gender, culture, etc. For example, information about bias that influences student evaluations of teaching can be placed with instructions for completing the evaluation, or elsewhere on the form. (added 2/20/24)
Student feedback for all courses in all semesters, excepting courses for which anonymous student feedback was not feasible, should be included in the annual reports, or made available to faculty members and unit heads as part of the annual review process. (added 2/20/24)
Compliance with SEA 202: SEA 202, Ch. 2, Sec. 2 requires that faculty undergo a review at least every five (5) years to determine whether they are complying with SEA 202, Ch. 2, Sec. 2, (1)-(5). However, rather than creating a separate process, this requirement shall be part of the faculty annual review process. Every annual report submitted for annual review will include the faculty member’s acknowledgement of SEA 202 compliance in fostering a culture of free inquiry, free expression and intellectual diversity (as defined by SEA 202, Article 39.5, Ch. 1, Sec. 5) within the institution and in introducing students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks that may exist within the curricula established by the IU Board of Trustees or faculty of Indiana University East.
The faculty member may indicate compliance by including in their annual review:
(1) A written statement affirming that they have not received any valid SEA 202-related complaints through the platform designated by IU to collect complaints during that calendar year; or
(2) Choosing from a menu in the annual report platform to indicate that a teaching and learning activity is an example/evidence of SEA 202 compliance.
The faculty member may also choose to augment the checked box or their written statement with further elaboration on their activities by attaching an appendix to their annual report, but this is not required. If a faculty member is in compliance with SEA 202, the written evaluation by the faculty member’s unit head will include a statement confirming compliance.
SEA 202-related Complaints. If the faculty member is aware of a valid SEA 202-related complaint through the platform designated by IU to collect complaints during that calendar year, the faculty member will attach a brief description of the issue and any action they have taken to address the issue to their annual report for consideration by their academic unit head.
The faculty member’s academic unit head will include a statement in the written evaluation describing the faculty member’s current status/situation with respect to SEA 202 compliance, based on available evidence. An ongoing investigation (as set out in “Procedures for SEA 202 Complaints”) does not of itself signify that the faculty member is in non-compliance.
Faculty members will be provided with a written narrative in each category of evaluation (teaching, service, research/creative activity, as applicable) and for the overall evaluation, including a statement regarding compliance with SEA 202. This narrative shall identify the strengths of the faculty member in each of the areas of evaluation, and shall also propose areas in which improvement may be needed. Non-tenured faculty shall also be given a frank assessment of progress toward tenure, long-term contract, reappointment, and/or promotion, as applicable. Because reviews for tenure, promotion, or long-term contract consider the cumulative contributions a faculty member has made, successive positive annual evaluations do not necessarily preclude a negative decision for tenure, promotion or long-term contract.
Every faculty member is entitled to a face-to-face meeting with an appropriate unit head in which a detailed explanation of the evaluation and the possible ramifications with respect to tenure, long-term contract, reappointment, and/or promotion will be discussed. Each School shall follow its own specific procedures.
Annual reports should be due no later than February 1 of each year, and any face-to-face meetings shall be completed no later than March 1 of each year.
Appeals of Annual Evaluations
Every effort should be made to resolve disagreements within the school. To this end, Schools’ policies will include a process for appeal at the School level, including for disagreements regarding compliance with SEA 202. At the end of the appeals process within the school, the Dean will provide his/her final written evaluation of the faculty member.
The faculty member may then write a dissent and appeal the Dean’s evaluation to the Chief Academic Officer, who may sustain the Dean’s evaluation, or provide a new evaluation. The Chief Academic Officer’s decision (or review) may be appealed to the Faculty Board of Review. (amended 2/20/24)
Files:
