[Pols-l] FW: Re: 2018 Annual Evaluation Requirements and Instructions

Wed Feb 6 15:11:09 CST 2019

A gentle reminder

From: Haider-Markel, Donald Patrick
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:42 AM
To: Pols List (pols-l at lists.ku.edu) <pols-l at lists.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: 2018 Annual Evaluation Requirements and Instructions

Colleagues, if you have any down-time over the holidays you can get a head start on this.
Have a safe and enjoyable holiday break.
DHM

Department of Political Science
Annual Evaluation Requirements and Instructions

            We'll soon begin the process of evaluating faculty as part of the annual evaluation for the year just concluding.  You should use departmental Faculty Annual Report form (attached).  The instructions are below.  The deadline is February 11, 2019 by 5 p.m. The Advisory Committee will review your file during the spring semester and will make collective assessments of your performance.  Please refer to the departmental bylaws for the specifics of this process.

            University and Departmental policy requires all faculty members to submit an annual report for use by the Advisory Committee for the annual evaluation process.  These evaluations are also used in making merit recommendations to the Dean when merit raises are available.  The report includes the attached form and any supplemental materials you wish to submit. You are reminded that the penalty for not submitting this report is an automatic rating of poor.

General
(1)   You must submit a completed Faculty Annual Report.
(2)   Also submit a PDF version of up-to-date electronic copy of your vita.

(3)   Submit your materials on the G drive, folder "Annual Review Files" and within that "2018 Annual Review Files" (if a folder with your name has not been created please add one). This is where you should upload your files. Let me know if you have any problems; otherwise you can email your files to me directly.

Teaching

            We employ portfolio evaluation on teaching, so you are welcome to submit syllabi, examinations, and other relevant course materials for the spring and fall semesters (and summer if relevant) of the past calendar year. You are reminded that we employ the following guideline. "In general, there has been too much emphasis on 'overall teaching effectiveness' scores from student feedback. Developing new courses, teaching larger numbers of students, mentoring and advising students - in short, the overall teaching contribution - should be our primary concern." The quantitative scores of teaching effectiveness will be available to the Advisory Committee electronically and you do not need to submit these scores.

Research

            To facilitate assessment of your research you can submit abstracts, letters of acceptance along with a full set of referee comments, and published reviews of your publications.  It is helpful if you include in your dossier the complete manuscripts of work completed, accepted, or published this past calendar year.

            You can add a section on "Intellectual Development" at the end of the research section of the annual report. Here you may describe major undertakings to acquire new skills (e.g., computer technologies, research methods, foreign language, or interdisciplinary understandings) or begin a new research endeavor that has yet to bear papers or publications (e.g., field work).

Service

            Please submit any documents you believe are relevant to supporting the service portion of your annual review form.  This might include letters of thanks, letters of appointment, and the like.

            If you have the understanding that your contribution will be evaluated on some other basis than the normal 40-40-20 weighting of research, teaching, and service, please confirm such understandings with the chair when you submit your annual review materials.

            On a final note, the Advisory Committee uses a rating of 0 to 10 to rate each faculty member on research, teaching, and service; a weighted average (40-40-20) is used to provide the overall rating. The committee is working under instructions to reserve ratings of 9 or 10 only for truly exceptional performance and that ratings of "good" (4-6) should often be the norm and should not be viewed as a negative rating. Any scores of 3 or below are considered marginal or unsatisfactory and would require the chair to take corrective action.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/pols-l/attachments/20190206/d57d1815/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: annual report.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16243 bytes
Desc: annual report.docx
URL: <https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/pols-l/attachments/20190206/d57d1815/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Annual Report Instructions for faculty.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 25361 bytes
Desc: Annual Report Instructions for faculty.docx
URL: <https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/pols-l/attachments/20190206/d57d1815/attachment-0003.docx>