Initial Review Evaluation

To be completed by Department Chair/Unit Director or Dean (in schools without departments) and signed by both candidate and chair/unit director/dean early in the mandatory review process. 

NOTE: If a candidate holds a joint appointment, each unit should complete a position description.

A. Percentage Appointment in Department/Unit

B. Percentage Effort by Category

Should total to the percentage appointment in the unit specified in point A, above. For example, a candidate with a 50% faculty appointment in a department may have effort allocations of 20% teaching, 20% research, and 10% service in that department. Record 0% for any category that does not apply to the candidate’s position. NOTE: Professional Performance refers to duties of faculty librarians and unclassified academic staff that are not included in the other three categories.

Teaching %, Research %, Service %, Prefessional Performance %c

C. Provide a brief description of the candidate’s position/duties in teaching, research, service, and/or professional performance

(e.g., normal semester teaching load/level of courses, expectations for graduate and undergraduate advising, research program development, type/level of service, nature of professional performance area, curatorial duties, etc.)

D. List any unique expectations for the candidate’s position in the areas of teaching, research, service, and/or professional performance

(e.g., supervision of a multi-section course, training of graduate teaching assistants, maintenance of a core research facility, etc.). If the candidate was hired with special stipulations or exceptions with regard to the criteria for promotion and/or tenure, such expectations should be explicitly stated here. Type “none” if there are no unique expectations.

E. Department/Unit or School Criteria

Submit a separate pdf file for the department/unit or school criteria for promotion in rank and/or tenure. The file should be named: UnitName PTTR Criteria.pdf

The candidate then needs to agree or disagree with the description of their position. If disagree, discuss your reasoning in a letter and attach it.

Evaluations should be completed by department chair/unit director or dean (in schools without departments) or initial review committee as per unit procedures. 

• Include evaluations for only those areas that comprise the candidate’s areas of responsibility. 
• The FTE percentages requested for each area should be the same as those recorded on the candidate’s job description.

Note: If a candidate holds a joint appointment, each unit should complete a set of evaluations in the categories appropriate to the candidate’s position description.

Describe the department/unit or school procedures that were followed in evaluating the candidate’s record of teaching/advising, professional performance (only applies to librarians and some academic staff), research/scholarship/creative program, and service. Include this information for only those areas that comprise the candidate’s areas of responsibility.

The description of evaluation procedures for teaching/advising should address (1) the form and rating scale used for student evaluations and how student evaluations were utilized in evaluating teaching; (2) the method used to secure peer evaluations; (3) the method used to evaluate undergraduate and graduate advising, and (4) any other methods employed in evaluating teaching (e.g., external evaluations, learner outcomes, review of teaching portfolio, etc.). 

The description of evaluation procedures for professional performance (only applies to librarians and some academic staff) should address procedures for securing evaluations from the immediate supervisor, peers, and clients/recipients of services, as appropriate. 

The description of procedures for evaluating research/scholarship/creative work should specify the definitions of major and minor scholarship/creative works within the unit (or refer reviewers to the definitions provided in the unit’s standards for promotion and/or tenure) and the criteria that were used to assess the quality of the contributions (e.g., impact statistics, acceptance rates, or other disciplinary metrics used to evaluate quality).

The description of procedures for evaluating service should address the criteria applied to judge the quantity and quality of the service. 

If the candidate holds a joint appointment, describe the consultation process between the units in completing evaluations.

Provide a detailed evaluation of the candidate’s effectiveness in classroom teaching, undergraduate advising, and graduate advising. 

Subheadings may be used to separate each of these areas of evaluation. 

The evaluation of classroom teaching should consider evidence of the candidate’s command of the subject matter at undergraduate and graduate levels, effective communication, commitment to student learning, development of teaching practices over time, student teaching evaluations, etc. 

Evaluation of undergraduate advising may provide information on the candidate’s advising load in comparison to departmental expectations, feedback from students, etc. 

Evaluation of graduate advising may provide information on the number of graduate advisees and graduate committee service of the candidate in comparison to department expectations for faculty of the candidate’s rank, ability to help graduate students plan and complete degrees in a timely fashion, student feedback, etc. If applicable, also provide an evaluation of the candidate’s record of postgraduate advising and mentoring,

Evaluations should be made with reference to (a) the candidate’s record of teaching as listed in the CV, statement of teaching philosophy, and supporting materials, (b) percentage effort in this area, (c) department/unit/school criteria and university standards, (d) student evaluations, (e) peer evaluations, etc

NOTE: Peer evaluations of teaching should be placed in a separate pdf file and included in the supporting materials with the name:  Lastname FirstInitial Peer Eval Teach PTTR.pdf.

Applies only to Librarians and some Academic Staff

Provide a detailed evaluation of the candidate’s professional performance with reference to (a) the candidate’s record of professional performance as documented in the CV and supporting materials, (b) percentage effort in this area, (c) position expectations, (d) department/unit/school/libraries criteria for promotion and/or tenure, and (as applicable) supervisor, peer, and recipient/client evaluations, etc. 

NOTE:  Supervisor, peer, and/or recipient/client evaluations of professional performance should be placed in a separate pdf file and included in the supporting materials with the name: Lastname, FirstInitial Peer Eval Prof Perform PTTR.pdf.

Provide a detailed evaluation of the candidate’s work that addresses evidence of:

• The significance of the candidate’s contributions to date (e.g., considering such factors as the quality and quantity of the work, the candidate’s national and/or international professional reputation, etc.)
• A sustainable, ongoing program of research/scholarship/creative or artistic work with the potential for continued productivity (e.g., considering such factors as scholarly work beyond that completed for the terminal degree or previous promotion, development of the scholarly agenda over time, clarity and significance of future goals, etc.). 

Evaluations should be made with reference to:

• The candidate’s record of research, scholarship, or creative/artistic work in the CV and statement of research/scholarship/creative program, supporting materials
• Percentage effort in this area
• Department/unit/school criteria and university standards
• External evaluations. 

 Provide a detailed evaluation of the candidate’s professionally-related service at all levels with reference to:

• The candidate’s record of department, school, university, regional, national, and international service as documented in the CV and supporting materials
• Percentage effort in this area
• Department/unit/school criteria and university standards for promotion and/or tenure

Committees are encouraged to consider quality and time or effort associated with the service and to identify any activities representing significant service. 

Provide a summary of assessment of the faculty member’s progress toward tenure, including recommendations for future performance as appropriate. The recommendations can include department/unit plans to assist the faculty member in addressing aspects of the performance.

Teaching and Advising

• Demonstrates progress toward tenure
• Improvement required for continued progress toward tenure
• Record not sufficient for progress toward tenure

Professional Performance

• Demonstrates progress toward tenure
• Improvement required for continued progress toward tenure
• Record not sufficient for progress toward tenure

Research, Scholarship, Creative or Artistic Performance

• Demonstrates progress toward tenure
• Improvement required for continued progress toward tenure
• Record not sufficient for progress toward tenure

Service

• Demonstrates progress toward tenure
• Improvement required for continued progress toward tenure
• Record not sufficient for progress toward tenure

           Summary of Initial Review

OVERALL EVALUATION: This evaluation should reflect the composite assessment of the individual’s record of teaching or professional performance, research, and service in relation to progress toward meeting the University’s criteria for promotion and/or tenure. 

• Evidence sufficient for continuing tenure track appointment at this time
• Evidence requires a subsequent formal probationary review within one academic year
• Evidence supports a recommendation for non-reappointment*

* Department Chairs and research center directors should also attach a letter to the dean or vice chancellor supporting a recommendation for non-reappointment.