• Home
  • Faculty Evaluation Plan, Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science

Faculty Evaluation Plan, Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science

Policy
Procedure
Purpose: 

To articulate the standards and procedures for the annual evaluation of faculty within the Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science.

Applies to: 

Faculty within the Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science

Campus: 
Lawrence
Contents: 
Policy Statement: 
  1. Introduction

    The Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science subscribes to the University of Kansas Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct, as adopted by the Faculty Senate in 1971 and subsequently amended. The faculty of the Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science at the University of Kansas is expected to demonstrate commitment to effective teaching, advising, and mentoring both in the classroom and with individual undergraduate and graduate students; to engage in professional research; and to provide service to the Department, College, and University, to local, national, and international communities, and/or to disciplinary and interdisciplinary organizations, and to work in a collegial and professional manner with Department colleagues, staff, and students. Faculty duties are set forth in Article IV Faculty Responsibilities of the Faculty Code, and the Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science expects its faculty to live up to those responsibilities. Within the context of the Faculty Code of Conduct, the duties and expectations of the Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science faculty and the means by which they are evaluated are presented below.

    Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science strives to achieve excellence in geographic scholarship, including teaching/advising, research, and service activities that advance the profession. This document, prepared in accordance with University Procedure on Faculty Evaluation, sets forth departmental procedures and criteria for evaluation of faculty at all levels.

  2. Statement of Performance Expectations
    1. Unit Expectations

      Following the generally accepted standard workload of 40 percent teaching/advising, 40 percent research, and 20 percent service, the department views the following as expected levels of performance:

      1. Teaching

        Each faculty member is expected to teach four courses (or their equivalent) per year and receive acceptable performance evaluations. Faculty members are expected to teach courses in accordance with the needs, requirements, and expectations of the Department. These ideally include a number of introductory, advanced, and specialty courses and seminars in the faculty member's area of specialization.

        Teaching responsibilities include:

        • Responsibly meeting with classes and preparation of course materials.
        • Keeping abreast of developments related to the individual's specific specialties.
        • Communicating information and knowledge in the faculty member's specialties to students and professionals in the field.
        • Preparing relevant and fair exams.
        • Being available and prepared for advising students in curricula, scholarship, professional, and applied interests.
        • Being polite, courteous, and respectful towards students and colleagues.

        The quality of lectures and in-class performance is evaluated using the University’s “Student Survey of Teaching.” In addition, the quality may be judged by one or more of the following:

        • Peer evaluations by faculty (by invitation and consent only).
        • Video tapes of lectures.
        • Student evaluations (e.g., at mid semester) that complement the “Student Survey of Teaching.”
        • Assistance and mentoring from the Center for Teaching Excellence.
      2. Advising

        Student advising is expected from every faculty member and includes the counseling of undergraduate majors and graduate students. While the Chair of the Undergraduate Studies Committee serves as advising coordinator for undergraduate majors, individual faculty members carry out career advising for geography and atmospheric science majors and other undergraduates. Successful undergraduate advising is judged by the willingness of individuals to be available for advising on an equitable basis. Complaints or problems are noted and addressed on a case-by-case basis.

        Graduate students are advised by their thesis and dissertation mentors. Graduate advising also is judged on the basis of willingness to assist students. Naturally, the professional success of graduates is one of the best indicators of the quality of advising and instruction, and so we keep such records and use them as a part of individual faculty evaluations.

      3. Scholarly/Creative Activity

        Faculty members are expected to contribute regularly to their area of scholarly/creative activity through publications, presentations, and other forms, as detailed below. The Department encourages investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of the world’s physical and cultural variety. Such research may include critical evaluations and artistic creations, and is expected to culminate in some combination of books, refereed journal articles and book chapters, conference proceedings papers, maps, grants, and other similar works. On average productivity should be equivalent to one-to-two major publications per year in refereed journals or books. Faculty members are expected to exhibit leadership roles in their research programs as demonstrated through primary investigator status on grants and/or single-authored/first-authored publications. To be considered for promotion to Full Professor, a candidate must demonstrate recognition for his/her research at an international level. General guidelines to requirements for promotion to different ranks are provided in the Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science Promotion and Tenure Procedures formally located in the Policy Library.

      4. Service

        A mix of professional services to the department, College, University, and profession, as well as to the community, state, and nation are expected from each faculty member through committee work, editorship, consulting, and more, as detailed below.

    2. Standards for Acceptable Performance for Faculty Members

      It is the intention of the department, collectively, to identify situations and propose solutions to faculty performance problems before the classification of "unsatisfactory performance" would be used. Unsatisfactory performance by a faculty member occurs when he/she, given ordinary circumstances, fails over a sustained period of typically three years to: (1) meet teaching expectations (typically four courses per year) with acceptable performance evaluations, (2) to meet expected advising responsibilities, (3) contribute to scholarly/creative activity, or (4) contribute to professional service. Specifically, the trigger for unsatisfactory performance (equivalent to Marginal or Poor classifications in the P&T rating system) would be a score of less than 60% in teaching/advising, research, or service; for example assuming a 40 percent teaching/advising, 40 percent research, and 20 percent service load, scores below 24 (out of 40), 24 (out of 40), or 12 (out of 20) would constitute unsatisfactory performance. A designation of "unsatisfactory performance" would be given to a faculty member only after a recommendation based on the consultation of the Department Chair and the Geography and Atmospheric Science Faculty Affairs Committee. This recommendation would typically be based on evidence of poor performance covered in annual reviews, or because the faculty member has not met specific duties as specified in the bylaws. After an unsatisfactory rating, the individual will be notified (in person and in writing) and offered support. Failure to improve his/her performance, over a sustained period, typically three years, will result in potential actions including dismissal. This and other levels for performance apply to both tenured and untenured faculty.

      Evidence of unsatisfactory performance will result in initiation of a recommendation for dismissal by the Chair and the Committee following consultation.

    3. Differential Allocation of Effort

      The Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science expects faculty to devote equal attention to teaching and research. The Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science also encourages creative combinations of individualized teaching, research, and service. When evaluating faculty performance, the department applies the weights of 40 percent for teaching, 40 percent for research, and 20 percent for service to the university, community, and profession. These weights are the same for tenured and non-tenured faculty, although the department recognizes that the specific contributions of faculty members to the department’s mission will differ depending on career stage.

      Changes in the standards 40/40/20 allocation of effort for a set period of time can be initiated by the tenured faculty member or department chair. These changes can be short- or long-term and must correspond to changes in work-load not just evaluation criteria. Reasons for alterations can include short-term items such as funded research or longer term career-stage issues. Faculty members are not allowed to reduce their teaching or research to less than 10 percent on permanent DAE agreements. Departmental needs take precedent over individual needs when making decisions to alter a faculty member’s allocation of effort; such redistribution must be consistent with the best interests of the unit. The most likely occasion for consideration of such changes is in discussion between the chair and the individual faculty member following annual performance evaluations, or sooner so that appropriate arrangements may be made at the unit level for the coverage of course offerings. Any individualized changes in faculty allocation of effort will be negotiated with the Chair and documented in the faculty member's personnel file.

      For temporary DAE agreements (one academic year or less), the DAE is ultimately approved by the chair of the unit. For permanent DAE agreements (lasting one year or beyond), approval must also be sought from the appropriate contact dean in the College. All Differential Allocation of Efforts are reported annually to the College Dean's Office. For permanent DAEs, the supporting documentation is also provided to the College and the Provost's Offices. Agreements for long-term DAEs must be reviewed every three years.

      For additional information, please see the University Policy on Differential Allocation of Effort (DAE).

      We believe that this flexibility enhances the differential efforts and abilities of individuals and contributes to the betterment of both the program and the University. Upon acceptance, the individualized format will be used to judge the faculty member's performance on an annual basis until it is changed by mutual consent; each individualized performance package will be reviewed yearly, at the time of the annual faculty evaluation, as described below.

  3. Annual Evaluation System
    1. Overview - Description of Structure/Timeliness for Annual Evaluations

      Each faculty member's performance will be evaluated annually by the Faculty Affairs Committee.

      The annual evaluation timeline is as follows:

      • January 30 (Deadline): Annual reports for all faculty members must be submitted.
      • February: Faculty Affairs Committee evaluates the annual reports.
      • March 1: Individual evaluations are submitted to the Chair of the Department by the Faculty Affairs Committee.
      • Second week of March: Associate Chair sends evaluation letters to individuals.
      • Third and Fourth weeks of March: The Associate Chair and Departmental Chair meet with individual faculty members to discuss his or her evaluation. Individuals then have ten days to appeal results of the evaluation to the Chair of the Department.
      • April 1-15: The Faculty Affairs Committee and the Departmental Chair consider and respond to all appeals.

      Specifically, in December, the Committee shall call for each faculty member's annual report, which will use the Geography and Atmospheric Science Department's "Standard Faculty Evaluation Form" (see Appendix B), and cover the last three calendar years. The report shall be received by January 30, and a written review prepared by the Faculty Affairs Committee will be submitted to each faculty member and the Chair in March. Faculty members are provided the opportunity to discuss their evaluation with the Committee and the Chair. The final report of the Committee will be completed in April and this report is filed in the faculty member’s personnel file.

      Subsequent discussions will address not only individual concerns but also the departmental perspective of the evaluations, including individual and departmental expectations and plans for the future and merit salary awards. The Committee will forward recommendations to the Chair concerning both the performance of each faculty member and merit salary recommendations. This secondary review is conducted after all performance evaluation plans are conducted.

      The evaluation of each faculty member’s performance will be carried out by the Faculty Affairs Committee, following the guidelines included in this document and the documentation submitted. The Faculty Affairs Committee is the Department body assigned the task of evaluating the overall performance of each faculty member. These evaluations follow the above guidelines and are also reviewed separately by the Chair. The Committee is appointed by the chair and associate chair (the latter serves as Chair of the FAC) and, ideally, consists of one member from each of the three professorial ranks. Members serve for up to three years.

    2. Portfolio or Annual Report Preparation

      NOTE: Faculty are responsible for annually maintaining their PRO record, which is also accessed by administration for reports such as the College snapshot of departmental productivity. PRO provides an annual activity report and faculty are advised to view and update their PRO reports before submission of the faculty member’s portfolio to the unit. In classifying your work as major and minor, please bear in mind the definitions in the unit’s Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. Each faculty member will prepare and maintain a portfolio of his or her work, including data concerning teaching/advising, research, and service. This is the responsibility of the individual faculty member and not that of the department, the Faculty Affairs Committee, or the Chair. The required categories and multiple sources of data provided to document teaching, research, and service can be found in Appendix B. Individual portfolios must include the following:

      • A current vita
      • Report of professional activities using the Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science Faculty Evaluation Form (Appendix B), covering the past three calendar years. This document will include:
        • Student teaching evaluation summaries for all classes taught over the three year period
        • Copies of peer teaching evaluations
        • Copies of publications from the three-year time period
        • Additional supporting materials may be requested by the committee, if necessary

      The portfolio will be on file in the Department Office.

    3. Portfolio or Annual Report Review and Evaluation

      The procedures for annual review of faculty performance have been described above. The Department's standard Faculty Evaluation Form (Appendix B) is used to assess the quality, quantity, significance, and impact of a faculty member's performance. Given the professional diversity of faculty contributions in the eclectic discipline of geography and atmospheric science, it is difficult to assign any one set of numerical values or a standard point system for each type of teaching, research, and service activity. The Faculty Affairs Committee consciously considers this diversity as it reviews an individual’s materials for completeness and has developed internal consistent procedures for undertaking the evaluation, based on the quality, quantity, significance, and impact of each faculty member's work. Ultimately each committee member and the department Chair evaluates the performance of the faculty member using the criteria in the three categories (teaching/advising, research, service), and assigns a numerical score to each category (for example, using maximum values of 40 points for research, 40 points for teaching, and 20 points for service). A summary score for each faculty member is then based on the median score in each category. For instance, a faculty member receiving scores of 15, 17, 18, and 19 for service would receive the median score of 17.5 for service.

      The Faculty Affairs Committee, with participation and input from the Chair, does the final evaluation of progress towards tenure review and the promotion and/or tenure processes, of meeting expected and defined Department and individualized goals, as well as recommendations for merit salary rewards. Assistant Professors who are members of the Faculty Affairs Committee may not participate in any promotion and/or tenure decisions regarding another faculty member.

    4. Annual Evaluation Feedback Process

      Faculty members are required to submit a Report of Professional Activities using the standard Faculty Evaluation Form provided by the Department. The items contained in the report, covering the three categories of teaching/advising, research, and service, are evaluated by the Faculty Affairs Committee as outlined above. These evaluations are forwarded to the Chair who is required to use them for annual performance evaluations and later in the awarding of merit salary increases. Each faculty member is given the written assessment of his/her performance by the Faculty Affairs Committee. The written summary of evaluation provided to the faculty member will include a description of the performance of the faculty member in each area of teaching/advising, research, and service. Additionally, any information on the progress toward tenure and promotion and/or tenure reviews, as well as suggested strategies for improvement, renewal, etc., would also be communicated in writing. This letter also informs the faculty member of the opportunity to discuss the evaluation with the Chair and Associate Chair. A copy of this evaluation summary is retained in the faculty member’s personnel file.

    5. Outcomes of the Annual Performance Evaluation
      1. Description of integration of annual evaluation process

        The annual performance review results in multiple outcomes: to identify problems with both individual faculty members, as well as issues and/or problems with the Geography and Atmospheric Science curriculum and program in general; achievement of department and individual professional goals; differential allocation of effort; personnel decisions (including promotion and tenure, non-reappointment, etc.); and merit salary decisions.

      2. Department Strategies to Link Outcomes to Individual/Departmental Goals and Ambitions
        1. Department and individual professional goals

          Using the goals for the geography and atmospheic science department defined by the faculty as a whole and the individual statements of goals (as described above, unless modified), the department will be able to evaluate whether individual and departmental goals are compatible. Departmental goals are outlined by the long-range plan that is periodically updated by faculty consensus to reflect the changing directions of the faculty. Individual goals are identified and evaluated annually with the yearly Annual Faculty Evaluation Form (see Appendix B). As the program changes to meet the demands of the profession, both the faculty and departmental goals should be re-evaluated and re-focused.

        2. Differential allocation of effort

          Reallocation of effort has operated de facto within the department for several years; note the formal process for dealing with this above. In a discipline like geography and atmospheric science, with extensive possibilities for both pure research and wide-ranging applications of analytical procedures and conceptual frameworks, such flexibility is critical if we are to take advantage of our professional potential.

        3. Personnel decisions remain the final responsibility of the Chair

          The Chair, in careful consultation with the Faculty Affairs Committee and each individual faculty member, seeks to provide an appropriate balance between the needs and objectives of the Department and those of the individual. For example, new faculty should be given opportunities and encouragement to meet the requirements for promotion and tenure. Full Professors are encouraged to provide the crucial teaching and mentoring needed to enhance the Department on a national and international level, as well as support younger faculty in their professional growth.

        4. Merit salary

          Merit salary decisions and faculty performance evaluations ultimately are the responsibility of the Chair. However, to avoid any undue bias, the Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science requires that the Chair participate in all evaluations and then follow the Faculty Affairs Committee's recommendations. Individual faculty member disagreements with the outcome of the evaluation process are referred back to this Committee for re-evaluation.

      3. Procedures for developing performance improvement plans

        The Department's objective is not merely to maintain an acceptable level of performance by a faculty member, but to encourage and reward his or her efforts at creating excellence. Faculty members who are evaluated as below desirable performance levels are encouraged to improve their performance in targeted area(s). Those faculty members identified as having unsatisfactory performance in any given year will be encouraged and sometimes required to select and work with a mentor in order to make use of departmental, College, and University support for remediation.

        If the chair ascertains that a faculty member's performance seems to be failing to meet academic responsibilities, the administrator and the faculty member shall develop a written plan of methods to improve the faculty member's performance. The plan may include appropriate provisions for faculty development, such as campus opportunities for faculty continued renewal and development, or for other appropriate interventions. The chairperson may call upon the University administration for assistance in constructing such a plan, including provision for additional resources, where needed. A faculty member may reject any plan recommended to aid performance levels, but the faculty member must understand that a sustained overall failure to meet academic responsibilities is a basis for dismissal.

      4. Procedures for addressing failure to meet academic responsibilities

        In the second week of March the Associate Chair sends evaluation letters to individuals. During the third and fourth weeks of March, the Associate Chair and Departmental Chair will be available to meet with individual faculty members to discuss his or her evaluation. Individuals then have ten days to appeal results of the evaluation to the Chair of the Department in a written statement; the faculty member may also provide additional information, as appropriate. No response in this time will be considered acceptance of the evaluation.

        If the faculty member and the Committee cannot reach agreement on an assessment of the individual's performance, the Committee's report and the faculty member's rebuttal(s) are forwarded to the Chair. The Chair will then work with the individual and the Committee to agree on the statement of assessment of the individual’s performance.

        If a faculty member has been informed that his/her performance fails to meet academic responsibilities, the faculty member may request a review by a faculty committee designated to hear such matters in the College. The review committee will issue a non-binding recommendation on the appropriateness of this conclusion to the unit administrator. The administrator may change the evaluation after receiving the committee's decision, or may choose not to do so. In any event, the report of the committee will become a permanent part of the faculty member's personnel file within the academic unit and shall be available to the faculty member.

        Department chairs shall consult annually with the dean, and the dean shall consult annually with the Provost on the progress of any faculty member who fails within this category of failure to meet academic responsibilities.

      5. Sustained failure to meet performance expectations.

        Based upon the judgment that there has been a sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, the Dean may recommend to the Provost that a tenured faculty member be dismissed. In making this determination, the Dean shall consider the nature of the failure to meet academic responsibilities, the reason or reasons for this failure, the number of years that the faculty member has failed to meet academic responsibilities, the level of discernible improvement in the faculty member's performance after being notified of any failure in performance, and the extent to which the faculty member has complied with the terms of any plan developed to improve the faculty member's performance. The Provost will review the case and, if the Provost agrees with the Dean's recommendation, the Provost will recommend to the Chancellor that the faculty member be dismissed. If the Chancellor agrees and recommends dismissal, this recommendation will go to the Faculty Rights Board.

        Should any recommendation to dismiss be brought against a tenured faculty member based exclusively or in part on grounds of sustained failure to meet academic responsibilities, both the report(s) of the review committee(s), the annual written evaluation(s) of the unit administrator concerning the faculty member, any outside evaluations, and any germane written response by the faculty member to the charges shall be made available to the Faculty Rights Board.

    6. Faculty Development Initiatives
      1. New Faculty Mentoring Program

        All new faculty members initially are mentored by the Chair. This includes an introduction to the expectations of the Department, College and University in the categories of teaching, research and service. These guidelines are focused on what it takes for successful promotion and tenure. Depending upon the new faculty member’s areas of expertise, they are urged to choose alternate or additional mentors from their related fields and emphases. For example, if they have a geographic regional specialty such as Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, they are referred to individuals in the area programs for additional guidance and mentoring. If they have specialties in physical or human geography, and atmospheric science they are likewise encouraged to find an individual in those areas who can guide them in the professional development and achieving academic prominence.

        Typically at the end of their third year, new faculty members are reviewed in a Progress Toward Tenure Review to measure their progress towards formal review for promotion and/or tenure. This review will take place at the Department and College levels. The results of this review are discussed with the individual, any weaknesses are considered, and suggestions are made for improvement, in accordance with College and University procedures.

      2. The following faculty development opportunities are promoted by the Department and University:

        Early Career Stage

        • New Faculty Mentoring Programs
        • New Faculty Seminar Series
        • New Faculty General Research Fund Awards
        • Progress Toward Tenure Review
        • Research Intensive Semester
        • Teaching Support through the Center for Teaching Excellence

        Post Tenure (pre-promotion):

        • General Research Fund
        • Research Development Fund
        • Faculty Travel and International Travel Funds
        • Sabbatical Leave
        • National Fulbright Scholar Program
        • Institute for Policy & Social Research
        • Hall Center for Humanities
        • Humanities Research and Creative Work Fellowships

        Mid Career (Post Tenure Redirection):

        • Differential Allocation of Effort, reduced appointments, etc.
        • Faculty Travel and International Travel Funds
        • Sabbatical Leave
        • Leave without Pay
        • Consulting
        • Research Development Fund
        • Intra-University Professorships
        • General Research Fund
        • International Faculty Exchanges (IREX)
        • Hall Center for the Humanities
      3. Research Intensive Semesters (RIS). CLAS offers all junior faculty members in good standing a reduced teaching responsibility at some point during the faculty member’s pretenure employment. Faculty members will be released from classroom teaching duties for up to one semester, depending upon the relevant departmental teaching expectations, and will be expected to concentrate on research intensive activities. Faculty members are eligible for a research intensive semester assignment up to and including the spring semester before their publication dossiers are sent out to external reviewers in June, with the latest possible Research Intensive Semester (RIS) assignment typically being the second semester of the fifth year. Faculty members in good standing who have stopped their tenure clock remain eligible for a RIS assignment. The actual decision of which year/semester the individual is assigned a research intensive semester will be made in consultation with the department chair. Note that paid leaves and fellowships do not take the place of a RIS. Once the chair approves the RIS for the junior faculty member, the details concerning the RIS should be confirmed to the faculty member in writing and documented in their personnel file. The chair also provides a copy of this authorization to the College Dean’s Office so that RIS data can be tracked. Faculty members who are granted a RIS are expected to continue to meet their usual duties regarding departmental advising and other service activities.

      See Faculty Development Programs for information about additional faculty development opportunities.

  4. Appendices
  1. Student Evaluation of Teaching

    Instrument(s) used for the student evaluation of teaching: The Department of Geography utilizes the University’s “Student Survey of Teaching”.

  2. Faculty Evaluation

Annual Faculty Evaluation Form

Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science

Year of evaluation:____
Name: ___________________________________
Percent appointment in Geography _________
Other Unit(s) with appointments _____________; ________________
Approved Differential Allocation of Effort or Work load distribution: _____% Teaching _____% Research _____% Service

Criteria for assessment based on the information provided in this form is given in the Department of Geography  and Atmospheric Science Faculty Evaluation Plan.

  1. Record of Teaching
    1. Statement about your teaching record

      Provide a summary statement to assist the committee in its evaluation of your teaching record as evident from your student and peer evaluations (i.e. list any issues, explanations or unusual circumstances associated with the record)

    2. Summary of Courses Taught and Student Evaluations

      In chronological order, the Course Number & Title, the Semester/Year taught (e.g., Fall __), and the number of students enrolled and for courses with 5 or more students your mean scores for Criteria 1 through 9 on the student evaluation forms. Also include copies of all the evaluation forms and any peer teaching evaluations. Explanations for missing course evaluation data should be provided in your statement.

      Course # Semester Enrolled Responses  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9
                               
                               
                               

      Explanation for Missing Course Evaluation Data: Insert the reason for any missing course evaluation means for courses of 5 or more students.

    3. Undergraduate Advising Record
      1. Undergraduate Advisees: List the undergraduate students for whom you served as the primary advisor or mentor.

        Insert names of Undergraduate Advisees here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

      2. Committee Chair: Undergraduate Honors Thesis: List the undergraduate honors students whose committee you have chaired (give date of degree completion) or are currently chairing.

        Insert names of Honors Thesis Advisees here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

      3. Other undergraduate committee service: List the names of other undergraduate honors students on whose committees you have served (give date of degree completion) or are currently serving.

        Insert names of other Undergraduate Honors Students here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

    4. Graduate and Postgraduate Advising Record
      1. Committee Chair: Doctoral. List the doctoral students whose committee you have chaired (give date of degree completion) or are currently chairing. List names of co-chairs if applicable.

        Insert names of Doctoral Advisees here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

      2. Committee Chair: Masters. List the masters students whose committee you have chaired (give date of degree completion) or are currently chairing. List names of co-chairs if applicable.

        Insert names of Masters Advisees here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

      3. Other graduate committee service: Doctoral. List the names of other doctoral students on whose committees you have served (give date of degree completion) or are currently serving.

        Insert names of other doctoral students here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

      4. Other graduate committee service: Masters. List the names of other masters students on whose committees you have served (give date of degree completion) or are currently serving.

        Insert names of other masters students here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

      5. Postdoctoral Fellows. List the names and graduate institutions of postdoctoral fellows and visiting scholars whom you have mentored (give dates) or are currently mentoring.

        Insert names of postdoctoral fellows/visiting scholars here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

    5. Honors and Awards for Teaching.

      Provide a chronological list below of honors, prizes, awards, etc., received for teaching and advising (candidates for promotion to full professor should list only those received since promotion to associate professor). Examples include the Kemper Fellowship for Teaching Excellence, Hope Award, Center for Teaching Excellence Teacher Appreciation Recognition, Graduate Mentor Awards, departmental teaching awards, etc., internal grants (e.g., from the Center for Teaching Excellence, the Hall Center, etc.) supporting training or teaching effectiveness/innovation would be included in this section.

      Insert list of teaching honors and awards here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

  2. Record of Research/Scholarship/Creative or Artistic Work
    1. Statement of explanation and any unusual circumstances associated with your record of scholarship.

      Insert Statement here

    2. Research Publications and/or Creative Works.
      1. Major Publications or Creative Works.
        • List in chronological order your major (according to department/unit/school criteria) published and “in press” work or comparable creative work in artistic fields. “In press” refers to work that is completed and accepted for publication with no substantial revisions pending.
        • Give complete citations for all publications, including all authors/editors in the order in which they were listed, titles, year of publication, journal names and volume, page numbers for articles and book chapters, publishers for books and monographs, etc. Provide comparable information for creative performances and exhibits (e.g., title of the performance, single or group performance or exhibit, sponsoring agency, location, dates, etc.).
        • Number the entries on the list.
        • Identify which works were peer-reviewed or juried and which were invited.
        • For each multiple-authored work, indicate the principal author and the nature of your contributions to the work.
        • Only provide works published in the last three years (i.e. ____-____ for your ____ evaluation).

        Insert Chronological List of Major Research/Scholarship/Creative Works here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

      2. Minor Publications or Creative Works.
        • List in chronological order your minor (according to department/unit/school criteria) published and “in press” work or comparable creative work in artistic fields.
        • Follow the guidelines above on citations, numbering, multiple-authored work, review process, and identification of work relevant to this promotion.

        Insert Chronological List of Minor Research/Scholarship/Creative Works here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

      3. Works Submitted or Ready for Submission.
        • List work that has either been submitted for publication or has been completed and is ready for submission or comparable creative work in artistic fields.
        • Follow the guidelines above on citations, numbering, and multiple-authored work. Specify the status of the work (i.e., under review, ready for submission, accepted pending major revisions, book contract prospectus accepted, etc.).

        Insert List of Works Submitted or Ready for Submission here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

    3. Scholarly Presentations
      1. Major Presentations
        • List in chronological order your major (according to department/unit/school criteria) scholarly presentations or comparable creative work in artistic fields.
        • Give complete citations for all presentations, including all authors in the order in which they were listed; the date and location of the presentation, the sponsoring organization (e.g., name of the professional organization or university), and venue (e.g., annual conference, visiting scholar seminar). Provide comparable information for creative presentations.
        • Number all entries.
        • For each multiple-authored presentation, indicate the principal author and the nature of your participation in the writing/research/presentation.
        • List only those major presentations completed in the last 3 years

        Insert Chronological List of Major Scholarly Presentations here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

      2. Minor Presentations
        • List in chronological order your minor (according to department/unit/school criteria) scholarly presentations or comparable creative work in artistic fields following the directions for major presentations above.
        • List only those minor presentations completed in the last three years

        Insert Chronological List of Minor Scholarly Presentations here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

    4. Grants and/or other Funded Projects
      1. External Funding
        1. Funded Proposals
          • List in chronological order all funded proposals for research or creative activities for the last 3 years.
          • For each, indicate the name of the project, your role (e.g., PI, Co-investigator, etc.) and the names of all co-investigators, the name of the funding agency/organization, the amount of funding requested/received, and dates of the project.
          • Number all entries.
          • Indicate whether the awards were the result of a refereed/competitive process or an invited sole source contract.

          Insert Chronological List of Funded Proposals here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

        2. Proposals Under Review
          • List in chronological order all funding proposals that are currently under review.
          • Follow the guidelines for funded proposals regarding the information on your role, awarding group, co-investigators, dates of proposed project, numbering, nature of review process, etc.

          Insert Chronological List of Proposals Under Review here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

        3. Other Proposals Submitted, Not Funded
          • List in chronological order all unfunded proposals that were submitted
          • Follow the guidelines for funded proposals regarding the information on your role, awarding group, co-investigators, dates of proposed project, numbering, nature of review process, etc.

          Insert Chronological List of Unfunded Proposals here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary. List only those submitted since appointment at KU or since last promotion as applicable).

      2. Internal Funding
        • List in chronological order all internal proposals for funding of research or creative activities in the last 3 years
        • Follow the guidelines for external proposals regarding the information on your role, awarding group, co-investigators, disposition of the proposal, dates of award, numbering, nature of review process, etc.

        Insert Chronological List of Internal Funding here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

    5. Honors and Awards

      Provide a chronological list below of honors, prizes, awards, etc., received for research or creative work since appointment at the University of Kansas or since the previous promotion as appropriate.

      Insert Chronological List of Honors and Award for Research or Creative Work here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

  3. Record of Service

    The service record will be evaluation on the amount of service performed, the quality of the service and the relative workload associated with each activity.

    For the annual evaluation an assessment will be made on the record over the last 3 years. However, assistant professors and associate professors wishing to be considered for promotion to full professors within a three year time frame should list all service performed since your last promotion/hire to allow the committee to make some assessment of the record for future promotion. Full professors only need to provide information for the last three years.

    1. University of Kansas Service

      List service under the categories: department/unit (if applicable), school (or CLAS, Libraries, Office of Research, or Office of Graduate Studies, as appropriate), and university. Indicate membership (with dates) and leadership roles on task forces, councils, committees at each level.

      Insert chronological list of university service here under the categories above (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

    2. Professional Service outside the University

      List your professional service under the categories: Local and State, Regional, National, International. Include service as a journal editor or editorial board member, offices held in professional organizations, membership on grant review panels, etc. Do not include volunteer activities at any level that are unrelated to your professional expertise.

      Insert chronological list of professional service here under the categories above (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

    3. Chronological list of honors, prizes, and awards received for service.

      Insert chronological list of honors, prizes, and awards for service here (text may continue onto the next page as necessary).

Contact: 

Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science
University of Kansas
213 Lindley Hall
1475 Jayhawk Blvd
Lawrence, KS 66045-7316
kugeog@ku.edu
(785) 864-5143

Approved by: 
Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
Approved on: 
Friday, May 30, 2014
Effective on: 
Friday, May 30, 2014
Review Cycle: 
Annual (As Needed)
Keywords: 
FEP, Faculty Evaluation Plan, Annual Evaluation, Faculty review, Performance, GEOG, ATMO, Atmospheric Science
Review, Approval & Change History: 

10/20/2015: Name changed throughout document from Geography to Geography and Atmospheric Science per Board of Regents approval of name change on October 10, 2015.

09/28/2015: Fixed Promotion and Tenure Guidelines link to open in new window.

09/25/2015: Added PRO statement to Section III.B. Portfolio or Annual Report Preparation

06/25/2015: Removed “Under the University’s post-tenure review policy” language as unit has separate PtR policy.

04/02/2015: Fixed broken link to Board of Regents Policy Manual.

12/17/2014: Fixed broken BoR link.

11/20/2014: Technical edit to BoR link

07/01/2014: Updated 'Approved by' to include correct title of approving official, revised 'Review, Approval & Change' field to standardize method of notation for dates.

06/04/2014: Technical edits - added outline formatting and updated links.

05/30/2014: Approved by the Provost

05/28/2014: Approved by the Dean of the College

11/01/2013: Approved by the faculty of the Department of Geography

Personnel: Faculty/Academic Staff Categories: 
Performance
School/College Policy Categories: 
Additional Policies

Can't Find What You're Looking For?
Policy Library Search
KU Today
One of 34 U.S. public institutions in the prestigious Association of American Universities
Nearly $290 million in financial aid annually
44 nationally ranked graduate programs.
—U.S. News & World Report
Top 50 nationwide for size of library collection.
—ALA
23rd nationwide for service to veterans —"Best for Vets," Military Times