Faculty Evaluation: Probationary Faculty Review

Annual reviews have two interrelated purposes, which exist in some tension with each other, both of which are important to varying degrees in different years of a faculty member’s career path.  The first and generally more important purpose is developmental: to provide faculty with substantial feedback—both positive and negative—regarding their progress toward meeting departmental and collegiate expectations for reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion in the areas of teaching, research, and service with the goal of increasing the likelihood of future success.  The second is evaluative: to provide an evaluation of faculty members' status in teaching, research, and service for administrative decision making.  The evaluative component is most prominent in reappointment reviews and when important administrative decisions (e.g., a tenure-clock extension) are being considered. However, given that the need to make such decisions may arise unexpectedly at any time, it is important that all annual reviews function, at least in part, as evaluations.

This document addresses written reviews only.  It is understood that a great deal of related information also is given to faculty orally, both in more formal review feedback sessions and more informally on an ongoing basis, and that written reviews are no substitute for this important socialization process.  It also may be that the mix of developmental and evaluative purposes differs across written and oral methods of providing feedback with, for example, written reviews emphasizing the evaluative purpose and being "on the record," and oral feedback emphasizing the developmental purpose, which thrives in an open environment characterized by candor and mutual trust.  These differences notwithstanding, many similar principles apply when giving both formal written and more informal conversational feedback.

Best Practices

• Comprehensiveness - Begin with a brief description of the review process. This may be somewhat "boilerplate," but should be modified as needed for each individual review. Address all aspects of the faculty member's performance from a range of viewpoints:
  • Teaching - Include both student and peer evaluations, as well as a review or critique of course materials. Include information provided by senior faculty who actually have visited each of the faculty member's classes or observed the faculty member in clinical teaching. Discuss the "mix" of courses taught. Address graduate student research supervision if applicable.  
  • Scholarship or Creative Work - Review/critique not only numbers of publications or creative works, but also quality of journals, presses (for books), or creative outlet; order and number of authors and, optionally, quality of work as reviewed first-hand by departmental colleagues; grant-seeking activity (effort and scope, range and appropriateness of funding sources sought) and success at grant attainment. This will be somewhat discipline-specific and therefore should include information that explains as well as describes (e.g., is 3 articles in a year a lot or a few in the field?)  
  • Service - Heavy departmental service burdens should be ameliorated and, in extreme cases in which the service burden was actually an impediment to the faculty member’s progress in teaching or research, may be compensated for by a tenure-clock extension. Any request for a tenure-clock extension must be initiated by the faculty member, not the DEO or Dean. The faculty member makes a request of the DEO, who makes a recommendation to the Dean. The Dean, in turn, makes a recommendation to the Provost, who makes the decision to grant or deny the request.
• Problem-Solving Orientation - Suggest concrete and workable solutions for problems noted; cite the departmental, collegiate, or University resources that are available or will be provided to the faculty member to help address problems. For example, a faculty member with poor teaching evaluations could be encouraged to utilize the Center for Teaching or a faculty member who experienced significant delay in setting up his/her lab (especially if the department/college/University contributed in any way to the delay) might be provided with an RA for a semester to make up for the lost time.  
• Positive Recognition - Congratulate faculty on notable achievements in teaching, research, and service, including the achievement of recognizing a problem and working to improve the deficiency.  
• Convey Expectations - The faculty member should receive from the annual review a clear sense of the extent to which s/he is making progress towards meeting departmental and collegiate expectations for a positive reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion decision. Expectations can be communicated directly (e.g., "Professor G needs to be more active in writing up completed research for publication.") but also indirectly through expanded description. For example, "Professor W’s published papers and those s/he plans to write do not duplicate each other, which is an important consideration in developing a body of research that will make a significant contribution to the field." OR "Professor B has assumed responsibility for a desirable mixture of courses during the two years at the University of Iowa, both required classes and electives drawing on his/her areas of expertise."  
• Balance - The review should be a balanced appraisal, including description, critical evaluation, advice, and praise.

Common Problems:

• Inconsistent Reports of Peer Observation of Teaching- Although not formally required by University policy, ideally peer observations would occur on an annual basis, not just during reappointment years. Some colleges have a requirement for annual evaluations, so DEO should consult their collegiate guidelines on this matter. Although the candidate should be involved in the process, the DEO is responsible for ensuring that the observations take place. (Some reviews have implied that it is the candidate's responsibility to initiate these evaluations, but that is not the case.)
• Poor Timing of Comments - "Professor Y should be first author of a majority of her/his publications" is a more helpful statement if it is introduced in the first few years of the probationary period than in the last year pre-tenure when there is little time for Professor Y to effect a change. In the final year pre-tenure, reference to previous statements about a problem may be warranted: "As has been stated in several past annual reviews, it is the department's expectation that Professor Y should be first author of a majority of her/his publications. While progress has been made, we continue to have concerns about the small number of first-authored articles.
• Lack of Feedback / Input from Faculty of a Secondary Department - Both departments should provide written feedback (a) annually when a secondary (joint) appointment is greater than 0% and (b) for reappointment reviews in the case of 0% secondary appointments. Although the breadth of the review will vary depending on the faculty member’s activities and percent appointment, a signature alone is not sufficient for annual reviews of a real-time appointment. In the case of 0% re-appointments, the review does not need to be lengthy, but should include a brief description and evaluation of the faculty member’s activity in the department and, if appropriate, an explicit statement that the affiliation continues to be beneficial so that department wishes to renew the appointment. A signature alone is sufficient for "continuation" reviews of 0% joint appointees.  
• No Description of Evaluation Process - The relevant questions to be answered are on the Annual Review Form. As stated earlier, this section may be somewhat "boilerplate," but should be modified for each individual review. For example, a long statement that U, V, W, X, Y, and Z may have been part of the review process is not as informative to either the faculty member or those outside the department as a briefer statement that U, W, and Z occurred in this particular faculty member’s review.
• No Indication that the Faculty Member has Received Feedback - The University Operations Manual anticipates that the annual review be conducted "in consultation with the individual faculty member." This likely occurs in most cases, but clearly has not in some cases, and there has been no oversight of this requirement in the past. To ensure that, at least, the faculty member has received feedback about the review, a signature line for the faculty member has been added to the Annual Review form for 01-02.  
• Inadequate Reappointment Review - The University Operations Manual requires that the reappointment review (typically for 3 years at the mid-point of the probationary period) be "a full-scale departmental-collegiate review" (see OM section III-10.1a(4)(b)). Whereas a faculty committee may conduct a continuation review, the departmental faculty as a whole should be involved in reappointment reviews, with a clear decision making process for renewal of the appointment. The OM states, "…only if the faculty member’s teaching effectiveness and research productivity and potential are deemed of such a quality that an affirmative tenure decision is likely to be made three years later, should something other than a terminal appointment be tendered." This is a heavy burden, and a reappointment review should be sufficiently comprehensive to enable departmental faculty to make an informed decision about whether a positive tenure decision is likely.  
• Failure to Include CV with Reappointment Reviews - When an annual review results in a faculty member being reappointed (typically for 3 years at the mid-point of the probationary period), a current CV must accompany the review.  
• Vague Exhortations to More or Better Work - It is important to inform faculty members of deficits. However, statements that could be made to all probationary faculty are not helpful; they do not convey whether a specific deficit is being addressed or whether the review simply is stating a general and obvious principle. For example,
  • "Dr. K should endeavor to increase her/his number of peer-reviewed publications."  
  • "It will be important for Dr. W to document a record of effective teaching."  
  • "It will be important for Dr. W to document a record of effective teaching."

  Better:

  • "Dr. K has fewer peer-reviewed publications than expected at this stage; a significant increase in productivity will be needed for a positive tenure review." 
  • "I informed Dr. P that s/he is right on-track for a positive tenure review, but reminded Dr. P that that of course was dependent on his/her continuing to build his/her record at a similar rate over the next two years."  
  • "Dr. W has forgotten to collect ACE forms in some classes. Although peer observations of Dr. W's teaching were positive, it will be important for him/her to document a record of effective teaching from the student perspective as well."
• Pure Evaluation without Description or Providing the Evidentiary Basis. Providing faculty members with information about how you arrived at your evaluation helps them to monitor future progress. For example,
  • "You have done a very good job teaching in all of your courses" 
  • "Your research is right on track."

  Better:

  • "You have done a very good job teaching in all of your courses as evidenced by your excellent ACE scores and positive student comments." OR "According to the faculty who observed your classes, you have done a very good job teaching in all of your courses."  
  • "You have an appropriate number of publications in high quality journals for this stage of your career." And/Or "Congratulations on your recent invitation to present your work in a national forum. This invitation indicates your work is beginning to receive wide recognition, which is an important element in a positive promotion decision."
• Pure Descriptive without evaluative feedback. Description is important, especially for those outside the department to understand faculty members’ activities. However, both those outside the department and the faculty members themselves also need to know whether what they have done is adequate, below average, or stellar.

  Poor:

  • "Dr. J has done X, Y, and Z."
  • "Dr. M has taught A, B, and C, with ACE scores ranging from x.x to y.y."
  • "You are co-chairing two Ph.D. dissertation committees."

  Better:

  • "Dr. J has done X, Y, and Z. This is an excellent (poor) record to date."
  •  "Dr. M has taught A, B, and C, with ACE scores ranging from x.x to y.y. This is an appropriate range of classes and these are excellent (poor) ratings for these courses."
  • "You are co-chairing two Ph.D. dissertation committees, which is appropriate for this stage of your career. Within the next year or two, however, you should seek to be the sole mentor for a Ph.D. student."

[Go to the Evaluation Process page]