Evaluations | Provost's Office

Annual performance evaluations of both tenured and non-tenured faculty is conducted as either an annual review or a pre-promotion ("third-year") review. The reviews are conducted each spring and cover teaching, scholarship, advising, service, and contributions to diversity and inclusion during the preceding calendar year. They comprise the following steps:

The faculty member submits a self-assessment report to the departmental chairperson. The report consists of a list of academic activities from the previous year and a narrative section which includes a statement of professional goals for the following year. The report is used by the chairs and deans in evaluating performance of individual faculty members.
The departmental chairperson schedules a conference with each faculty member to discuss the self-assessment and goals.
The departmental chairperson completes an initial written evaluation of faculty members in the department. In the event that the faculty member and departmental chairperson have differences, the faculty member may submit a response to the chairperson鈥檚 comments and both statements are forwarded to the divisional dean.
For provisional faculty members, the departmental chairperson and divisional dean arrive at a mutually acceptable statement for transmission, and this is forwarded together with the faculty dossier to the Provost.
Chairpersons also submit to the dean in writing recommendations for faculty members who should be considered for special merit. The dean submits his or her recommendations for special merit to the Provost. Any appeals will be reviewed by the Status Committee.

Goal

The goal of the Annual Review is to provide an annual opportunity for the faculty member and department chair to review and reflect upon the faculty member鈥檚 work, in an effort to support and engender growth. Together, the faculty member and chair will discuss:

How chairs can best support faculty members in their ongoing work
How faculty members can best align their talents and efforts with the strategic objectives of 91自拍论坛

Details

The academic calendar review cycle includes summer, fall and spring terms. The cycle begins the day after graduation and goes through the next graduation date.
- For example, May 4, 2019鈥揗ay 3, 2020
- Faculty are encouraged to enter forthcoming activities that are scheduled to occur late in the spring semester, even if they have not yet taken place (for example: presenting at a conference or a publication going to print).
All full-time faculty will complete an annual review or third-year review each year.
This process will utilize FAR (Faculty Activity Reporting) data and all known data should be in FAR by mid-March.
The review document should be brief and not exhaustive; writing it should not be onerous for faculty and chairs to complete.
Goals should be ambitious; in other words, setting realistic but challenging goals is encouraged.

Review Deadlines

The annual Faculty Activity Report will include information entered from the Monday after graduation (previous year) to the Sunday of graduation (current year).
Faculty member submits their Annual Review form by March 15
Chair meets with faculty member to discuss review before April 15
Faculty member confirms they've met with the chair by selecting from the drop-down box in the workflow by April 16
Chair also confirms meeting and submits the workflow to the dean by April 17
Dean reviews each annual review and submits to the provost office by May 3

The listed criteria for merit were developed in consultation with the Deans鈥� Council and the Professional Interests Committee (PIC). A fourth criterion was added in 2007 that addresses contributions to the overall mission of the college. Some examples are provided below to assist you if you choose to use this area in a merit recommendation. Although still broad, the criteria demonstrate that merit can and often should be awarded for activities other than scholarly works. If you have questions about an individual鈥檚 qualifications for merit, please consult with your dean.

We hope to continue to follow the PIC鈥檚 past recommendations for the merit process: merit awards given to approximately one-third of the faculty, allocated proportionally to the divisions based on their total full-time continuing faculty.

Within the Workflow process, department chairpersons will provide their dean with a paragraph which clearly documents the accomplishments of each person being recommended for merit pay. Please be brief and please identify the specific criteria on which your recommendation is being made. Merit implies that the person鈥檚 contributions have exceeded the normal expectations for a faculty member in that department/division.

Merit pay can be recommended for:

Exceptional scholarly contributions (as defined by that department or division) in the last one or two years or because of a long-term consistent contribution to scholarship that has never risen to the highest level in any one year but is still exemplary
Exceptional contributions to teaching excellence that go beyond the typical classroom excellence, e.g., providing leadership to pedagogical reform, creating courses that impact a broad segment of students (General Education/IDS), receiving national recognition for teaching or similar type activities
Making an exceptional service contribution, such as reorganization or revision of curricula, either in the major or the core, or similar college service
Making an exceptional contribution to the mission of the college; examples might include:
- Success in moving the college toward greater engagement with its global learning goals
- Active use of pedagogy that integrates faith and learning
- Publishing papers and making public presentations that focus on the Christian dimension of academic excellence
- Organizing speakers and/or programs that give particular emphasis to the college鈥檚 mission and goals
- Bringing regional and national recognition to Hope鈥檚 mission to be exceptional in academics and faith

Department chairs will prioritize their recommendations for merit (if more than one) and each dean in turn will prioritize the divisional recommendations when they are sent to the Status Committee. The nomination of people across the spectrum of categories is strongly encouraged. Deans are asked to submit to the Status Committee a 鈥渂alanced鈥� slate of merit nominees that represent each merit category in roughly equal numbers. The Status Committee will make the final determination of merit awards and send recommendations to the president. Note that the Status Committee members will have access to the annual review forms and can ask for review of candidates who either did not make the deans鈥� lists or did not rank high enough to fall in the 1/3 category. Hopefully, this will prevent someone who is meritorious from being missed in the overall process.

Recommendations on merit will be made by the dean to the Status Committee; the Status Committee will then send a list of recommendations to the president. If the president disagrees with any of the Status Committee鈥檚 recommendations, he will meet with the committee and discuss his concerns. Ultimately, the final decision rests with the president.

Merit Deadlines

The annual Faculty Activity Report will include information entered from the Monday after graduation (previous year) to the Sunday of graduation (current year).
Faculty member submits their merit form or opts out of consideration in Workflow by April 12
Chair ranks and submits recommendations to the dean by April 17
Merit decisions are made by the deans in early May
Merit decisions are reflected on the contracts mailed out on in May
Faculty may appeal the merit decision before August 1