Articles 18 (Performance Evaluations and Evaluation File) and 19 (Evaluations for Library Faculty) of the CBA describe the general content of the annual evaluation, who must complete an evaluation, evaluation rating categories, use of the evaluation file/material, and general processes.
Faculty are responsible for completing an accurate evaluation portfolio. We recommend faculty submit a detailed annual report that documents one’s activities and accomplishments throughout the past academic year.
Department Guidelines
Faculty in departments with ratified guidelines should utilize evaluation guidelines for more specific, guided instruction when performing job-related duties and completing annual evaluations. Guidelines help clarify the University Criteria set forth in Article 18.4.
If your department does not have approved guidelines, please see Article 9 of the CBA alongside this PowerPoint presentation for more information on developing department guidelines.
Sources of Evaluation
In general, annual evaluations for non-library faculty will comprise the following pieces of evidence:
- Teaching activities
- Research/scholarship/creative activities
- Service activities
- University duties for the previous year
Annual evaluations for library faculty report:
- Primary activities
- Research/scholarship/creative activities
Evaluation Ratings
Ratings for all evaluations are as follows:
- Meets Expectations
- Exceeds Expectations
- Far Exceeds Expectations
- Below Expectations
- Unsatisfactory
Peer Assessment
We encourage faculty to participate in peer/colleague observations during the faculty’s instructional time to support both annual evaluations and promotion & tenure dossiers. Peer assessment encourages collegiality and fosters constructive spaces for faculty to collectively improve pedagogical methods.
Service Activities
What counts as service may vary by college, department, and title. Generally, service comprises activities related to:
- UFF-UNF committees, leadership, and governance
- University-wide committees and governance
- College-wide committees and governance
- Faculty Association committees and leadership
- Department committees and leadership
- Professional organizations, including local, regional, national, and/or global communities
- Student-related work, such as mentoring, writing letters of recommendation, and serving as a faculty advisor to student clubs
Contesting an Annual Evaluation
If a faculty member disagrees with any aspect of their chair/director’s assessment, the former has the right to discuss their concerns about the evaluation with the chair and to include a written response to be included in the personnel file with the evaluation. According to the CBA, faculty and the chair must sign the annual evaluation. We recommend you do not sign your annual evaluation until you have had ample time to review it completely and have addressed any and all concerns therein with your supervisor. If you have evidence to suggest that you have not been fairly evaluated (knowing that evaluations are judgments and are thus subjective) and your concerns have not been addressed by your supervisor, contact the union’s grievance officer.
Progress Toward Tenure Report
Department chairs are required to submit a Progress Toward Tenure report for Assistant Professors (without tenure). This report is meant to serve as notice to the faculty member and to administration whether or not the faculty member is making adequate progress toward the department’s and the university’s tenure criteria. It is a non-binding document; adequate yearly progress toward tenure does not guarantee tenure upon application. When/if a faculty member receives an unfavorable Progress Toward Tenure report, they should address concerns with their department chair, seek guidance from peers and the Office of Faculty Enhancement, and use feedback to develop an improvement plan. Assistant Professors receive and sign a copy of this report on a yearly basis (generally at the same time as the annual review process).