BHI Faculty Annual Review Criteria for Merit Evaluation

Preamble

“IUPUI observes a mandated annual review policy for all faculty. This review is normally conducted by the principal administrative officer of the department or school in which the faculty member holds an appointment. The purpose of the annual review is to provide input on the faculty member’s progress in the areas of teaching, research, and service, leading to the tenure review year (or, for non-tenure track faculty, to reappointment on a long-term contract) and to promotion. Annual reviews also provide information for use in salary recommendations and other assessments. ^[2]”

According to Indiana University policy, all salary raises are based on merit. Each year, the IU Board of Trustees establishes a target average raise that a department or school can offer its faculty, although it is understood that some colleagues might receive a greater or lesser percentage, or a greater or lesser dollar amount, depending on the evaluation of their contributions to the academic mission of the department and school.

Review Form

Every faculty must be familiar with the annual review form. (A copy of the review form can be requested from the Chair.)

Review Process

Faculty will submit their annual review data in the Faculty Annual Report (FAR) system ^[3] for the activities accomplished during the calendar year January 1st-December 31st. The Chair will perform the annual review of every faculty in the department, and will provide each faculty member with a written copy of the review.

The Department Chair will meet individually with each faculty member to discuss the review outcome, provide constructive feedback, and discuss plans for improvement. The faculty member may respond to this review verbally and/or in writing. All documents associated with the review will be maintained together in the employee’s record. This document outlines the Chair’s expectations for the different rating values (1-10) associated with each academic area of activity (Teaching, Research and Service for tenure-track and tenured faculty; Teaching and Service for lecturers). As indicated in the Annual Review Form, the annual review process will result in an overall finding that the faculty member’s performance has either been satisfactory or unsatisfactory during the prior year.

Indicators of Annual Performance

Each area (teaching, research and service) outlines the “important items” that must be documented in the Faculty Annual Report (FAR) to achieve satisfactory performance. The criteria indicated for each score level in this document should be considered as examples, but not the only possible examples, of performance indicators. In the FAR, a faculty member should include evidence of performance appropriate to the indicators of different score levels. The chair may request, or the faculty member may submit, whatever additional materials they believe will inform the annual review and salary decision.

The Chair’s evaluation will consider overall performance based on the achievements on the important items indicated for each area and level. Although the FAR is the main vehicle to document faculty achievement, the review process is open to innovative approaches to document performance for each important item or to document achievements that demonstrate integration among areas.

To account for the complex flow of the academic activity, the merit evaluation within a calendar year (January-December) will use a 2-year moving window (when applicable) to assess more holistically the work of the individual faculty. For example, if a faculty has just secured a large external grant in the previous year, faculty can focus more on working intensely on the research project (e.g., towards peer-reviewed publications) and less on immediately applying for large external grants. The 2-year window can also account for the turn-around time of grant review and approval or journal publications (e.g., publications and grants currently under review are an indicator of effort).

Teaching and Instructional Activity (rating scale 0-10)

The essential items in this category are:

• T1. Classroom performance. Quality and rigor of classroom instructions.
• T2. Curriculum development. Participation in program, curriculum, track, course, lab redesign and improvement; proposals for teaching enhancement and environments; breadth of instructional activities.
• T3. Student advising and mentoring. When the opportunity arises, guiding students to graduation through capstone/final graduation projects; guiding students to grow as successful professionals in the discipline. Both quantity and quality of the student mentoring are valued.

Additional items that are recognized and rewarded:

• T4. Scholarship of teaching and learning. Creation and dissemination of peer-reviewed, novel ideas about the theory or practice of teaching and learning to peers; and securing external grants in support of teaching. Creative activities of lecturer-track faculty are evaluated in this category, as long as they have a documented, positive impact on the teaching and learning.
• T5. Diversity, equity, and inclusion as related to Teaching. Across teaching activities, the Department values faculty’s efforts to make the department, school and campus a more human, civil and inclusive learning environment, one that respects the individual’s dignity, needs, perspective and unique contributions to the common good of the university.

Substantive DEI activities documented. Examples include:

• Include languages in course syllabi and policies that promote diversity.
• Application and evaluation of pedagogical strategies which support underrepresented students; Incorporation of DEI topics into courses through specific lectures or reading assignments.
• Creation of a welcoming classroom environment where students feel comfortable contributing, providing equal opportunities to all students.
• Attendance at trainings or workshops about strategies for fostering more diverse classrooms; Ongoing review of course materials, practices and policies to ensure they are updated.
• Scholarship of diversity, equity, and inclusion as related to teaching; documented through presentations, publications or other forms of dissemination to peers in appropriate venues.

Faculty annual performance is evaluated as follows:

• [0,2] Unsatisfactory: Serious problems in classroom teaching performance. Pattern of absenteeism.
• [3,4] Weak: Pattern of negative feedback on classroom teaching performance from students^[4] and peers; sub-par rigor in the classes; signs of absenteeism; little or no involvement in course/curriculum design/improvement.
• [5,6] Satisfactory: There is evidence that the faculty member teaches adequately, and provides appropriate supporting material and processes. Course syllabi and material are complete and well-organized. There are positive scores and feedback from students (and, where appropriate, peers outside the department) about the instructional activity; there is involvement in curriculum development; evidence of student mentoring.
• [7,8] Very good: examples include: The faculty gets a pattern of very good comments from students and peers about the instructional activity; enhances the rigor of the courses; helps connect students to careers and further develop their skillset beyond classroom activity; contributes with novel ideas to curriculum development; proactively advises and mentors students; engagement in substantive DEI activities related to teaching which do not necessarily raise to the level of scholarship.
• [9,10] Excellent: besides performing at very good levels in activities T1-T3, the faculty shows clear evidence of scholarship of teaching: publications and presentations on teaching and educational activity; documented dissemination of teaching-related creative activities and teaching knowledge through peer-reviewed publications; documented evidence that his/her teaching methods are adopted by others; documented invitation to make presentations on teaching scholarship; external grants in support of teaching related activities; DEI activities related to teaching that result in scholarship of teaching or publications.

Research and Creative Activity (rating scale 0-10)

Note: This category applies only to tenure-track faculty (Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Full Professors).

The essential items in this category are:

• R1. Peer-reviewed publications. Preparing and presenting research findings and scholarship to peer-reviewed venues, including articles in refereed research journals and academic conference proceedings; acceptance and publication of this scholarship.
• R2. External research grant activities. Applying for and securing peer-reviewed research grants, contracts and other types of external support to the research agenda; performing research activities that either result from funded projects or that will lead to external support.
• R3. Research advising. Advising students in research activities (connected to R1 or R2); graduating students in final project/thesis/dissertations.

Additional items that are recognized and rewarded:

• R4. Diversity, equity, and inclusion as related to Research. Across research and creative activities, the Department values faculty’s efforts to make the department, school, the campus and the broader community a more human, civil and inclusive environment, one that respects the individual’s dignity, needs, perspective and unique contributions to the common good. Examples include:
  • Inclusion of diverse students, collaborators, or community organizations in research/creative activity.
  • Dissemination of research work on DEI through presentations or making publications open access.
  • Conduct research/creative activity focused on addressing health disparities.
  • Scholarship about DEI-related research activities.

Faculty annual performance is evaluated as follows:

• [0, 2] Unsatisfactory: no or minimal activity documented for R1, R2 or R3.
• [3, 4] Weak: some activity in R1, R2 and R3, but with no substantial effort or results.
• [5, 6] Satisfactory: the faculty member is making an effort in meeting the expectations of an average research and scholarly output. There is effort in publishing peer- reviewed articles and applying for external funding to sustain the research program.
• [7, 8] Very good: faculty publishes peer-reviewed publications in high-impact venues by demonstrating a leading role (e.g., as first author, corresponding author, or with mentored students as first authors); at least one external grant active; very good involvement in research advising and mentoring students toward graduation; additional activities that may elevate performance to very good include: production of intellectual property (e.g., filed patents or disclosures when applicable); incorporation of DEI into research activities through one or more activities from R4.
• [9, 10] Excellent: research output is exceptional; examples include: published multiple high-impact peer-reviewed publications; recipient of at least one respectable external grant; several students supported on grants; recipient of major paper award, or prestigious research-related award; DEI activities related to research that result in publications or awards or grants.

Service Activities (rating scale 0-10)

The essential items in this category are:

• S1. Service to the Institution: participating, contributing, leading or chairing committees or task forces for the Department, School, Campus, and University.
• S2. Service to the Discipline or Profession: examples may include (but are not limited to) contributing time and expertise to further the work of a professional society or organization connected to the discipline; participating, contributing, leading peer- review and editorial activities for publication venues in the discipline; organizing professional or academic conferences in the discipline.

Additional items that are recognized and rewarded:

• S3. Diversity, equity, and inclusion as related to Service. Across service, the Department values faculty’s efforts to make the department, school, the campus and the broader community a more human, civil and inclusive environment, one that respects the individual’s dignity, needs, perspective and unique contributions to the common good of the university. Examples include:
  • Involvement in efforts to realize a more diverse and equitable campus climate and culture.
  • Advancement of equitable access to higher education for underrepresented groups.
  • Engagement in DEI-related committees and working groups.
  • Efforts to include underrepresented students (e.g., iDew)
  • DEI strategic plans; DEI committees on campus
  • Improving DEI within research community
• S4. Service to Students. Examples may include (but are not limited to) providing students with letters of referral or recommendation, advising student chapter or organization, providing seminars to students on ways to improve study habits, contributing to career events for students, escorting students on a visit to a professional venue outside the formal instructional activity.
• S5. Service to the Community. Examples may include (but are not limited to): consulting with private and public, profit and not-for-profit organizations by applying expertise to enhance the efficiency or effectiveness of the organizations served; assisting the public through the activities of a laboratory or center; participating in governmental meetings or on federal review panels; participating in collaborative endeavors and outreach activities with schools, industry/civic agencies; testing concepts/ processes in real-world situations that benefit community members; communicating in popular/ non-academic media and press.

Faculty performance is evaluated as follows:

• [0,2] Unsatisfactory: no service effort; no demonstrated academic citizenship in service activities in any of the S1-S2 items.
• [3,4] Weak: some activity in any area (S1-S5), but with no substantial effort or documented contribution.
• [5,6] Satisfactory: the faculty member is taking the service component seriously. For example:
  • Volunteers for departmental, school, and university-wide needs.
  • Participates in department committees.
  • Assists the department/School in various outreach events.
  • Represents program/department on campus committees or events; provides department visibility to the general university community.
  • For tenured and tenure track faculty: some level of activity in peer-reviewing papers for conference and journals.
• [7,8] Very good: the faculty is involved in service activity spanning S1-S5 beyond the minimum (satisfactory level). For example: advising/tutoring students club or group as faculty advisor; active in journal review board / editorial boards, program committees, grant proposal reviewing for state or federal agencies; serving on several department, school, campus committee with documented important contribution; assuming leading roles (as committee chair) in several internal and external committees; integrating service into teaching and/or research (e.g., service courses); advancing efforts to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion on the IUPUI campus and the larger Indianapolis community.
• [9,10] Excellent: the faculty develops a body of scholarship of service (e.g., peer-reviewed publications generating novel ideas on service activities disseminated to peers), secured grants related to service activities; dissemination of DEI service efforts through scholarship.

This policy was ratified by a vote of the BHI full-time faculty. For questions on this policy, contact the BHI Department Chair.

Footnotes