• Home
  • Faculty Evaluation Plan, Department of Spanish and Portuguese

Faculty Evaluation Plan, Department of Spanish and Portuguese

Policy
Procedure
Purpose: 

To articulate the standards and procedures for the annual evaluation of faculty within the Department of Spanish and Portuguese.

Applies to: 

Faculty within the Department of Spanish and Portuguese

Campus: 
Lawrence
Contents: 
Policy Statement: 
  1. Introduction

    The Department of Spanish and Portuguese evaluates every faculty member each year. The evaluation process consists of several parts and is intended to yield multiple outcomes including but not limited to a peer report on teaching/advising, research, and service; data for merit salary decisions; statements on progress toward promotion and tenure; strategies for faculty development; data that can be used for differential allocation; and data that can be used for Departmental planning. The Department is committed to the evaluation process, to the fundamental principles of academic freedom, to the University of Kansas Faculty Code of Conduct, and to the tenure system. While tenure protects faculty members from unfair, arbitrary, or capricious dismissal, it does not shelter a faculty member from the sustained failure to meet her or his obligations. Thus, rigorous and regular Departmental review is necessary since the process expresses the Department’s concern for its faculty members, its students, its program, and the College and the University’s mission. Faculty members holding joint or split appointments with a percentage in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese are evaluated on the basis on the efforts reported and are not penalized for holding a joint or split appointment.

  2. Statement of Performance Expectations
    1. Unit Expectations

      The Department of Spanish and Portuguese expects high performance in all three areas of teaching/advising, research, and service over time in accordance with the 40% (Teaching), 40% (Research), 20% (Service) division. Faculty who are in tenure-track lines will be expected to meet all of the Department’s requirements for tenure and promotion.

      1. Teaching

        The record must demonstrate effective teaching. Faculty members are expected to meet and teach their courses, normally four per year; to prepare and follow useful and accurate syllabi; to prepare useful and pertinent discussions, lectures, quizzes, and exams; to assign written work, grade, and critique that work in a timely fashion; to teach at any level of the program; to direct and consult on dissertations; to evaluate students; to advise students; to participate in curriculum development and departmental decision making. Faculty members are expected to keep abreast of their field so as to make themselves informed and effective teachers.

      2. Scholarly/Creative Activity

        The record must demonstrate clear evidence of developing an ongoing research program that goes well beyond research completed for the Ph.D., that has already resulted in products of high quality (as demonstrated in part by publication in sources of high quality that use critical standards for review), and that exhibits promise of continuing productivity. The results of faculty research should be presented in public forums which may take many forms: publication of books, individual or collaborative on-line texts/materials (when appropriate to a faculty member’s field), articles, notes, etc.; presentation of papers at international, national, regional, or local professional meetings; presentations at colloquia, round tables, etc.

      3. Service

        The record must demonstrate a pattern of service to the Department, and should additionally include professional service at the College, University, national, and/or international levels. This can be accomplished in numerous ways: serving on committees in the Department, serving on committees at the College or University levels, professional conference organization, working with professional organizations, etc.

      Faculty at the tenured Associate level must continue to meet the Department’s standards for high performance outlined above. In addition, for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor faculty members must demonstrate an established scholarly career; show continued effectiveness and growth as a teacher; and demonstrate an ongoing pattern of service reflecting substantial contributions to the University at one or more levels, to the profession, and/or to the local, state, national, or international communities.

    2. Standards for Acceptable Performance for Faculty Members

      The level of performance that will trigger the process for failure to meet academic responsibility is as follows:

      1. Teaching/Advising

        Where the overall level of performance fails to comply with Departmental and University expectations: to meet classes, to be adequately prepared to teach the assigned material, to evaluate exams and papers and return them in a timely fashion, to provide and follow syllabi, to hold regularly scheduled office hours, to fulfill advising obligations, to serve on dissertation committees, etc. the Chair will meet with the faculty member to ascertain the cause. The Chair can ask other appropriate faculty members to visit the class, meet with the faculty member, and suggest remedies. The Chair can ask the faculty member to meet with other more successful faculty members, to visit classes taught by other faculty members, and to work with them in an attempt to raise the level of performance.

      2. Research

        Though lack of publications in and of itself is not necessarily proof of failure to meet one’s professional responsibilities, since not all research leads to immediate publication, nonetheless the Department views continued lack of publication as grounds for serious concern. A faculty member who has not published for a sustained period of time would be encouraged to meet with others in his or her field, to read their publications, to work on developing ideas and projects, to submit his or her outlines or drafts to colleagues, etc.

      3. Service

        Where there is sustained failure to engage in an acceptable level of service activity, such as refusal to serve on committees, evidence of incomplete tasks assigned on Departmental, College, University or national professional levels, the Chair will meet with the faculty member to determine the cause. The Chair will then assign or reassign the faculty member to Departmental Committees and encourage her or his participation in College, University or professional meetings.

      Acceptable levels of performance are indicated by the regular receipt of a 2 or higher as described in the Evaluation Scale (Appendix C). Although the receipt of an evaluation of 1.5 is not desirable, if it is out of the ordinary for the evaluated faculty member, a plan developed in collaboration with the chair will probably be sufficient for resolving the anomaly. However, a trend toward the receipt of 1.5 or 1 in any category over a period of time is a cause for alarm. If a faculty member fails to perform adequately in any of the areas of teaching/advising, research and service (evidenced by failure to meet the department performance expectations in teaching/advising, research and service as defined above in Unit Expectations and the receipt of a 1.0 for performance in teaching/advising, research or service by the Evaluation Committee), the department chair and the individual will develop a written plan to address the areas of difficulty. Demonstration of a pattern of sustained failure to meet expectations over a three-year period may lead to the initiation of dismissal proceedings.

      If a faculty member failed to perform adequately in any of the above mentioned areas or failed to carry out suggested changes or if reallocation of effort did not improve overall performance, then the sustained failure to meet one’s academic responsibilities would be measured against the minimum standards of performance as specified in the University of Kansas Faculty Code of Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct, as adopted by the Faculty Senate in 1971 and subsequently amended. Faculty duties are set forth in Article IV Faculty Responsibilities. Furthermore, should the faculty member demonstrate a pattern of sustained failure over a three year period, the Department Chair may recommend to the dean, who, in turn, may recommend to the Provost that a tenured faculty member be dismissed.

    3. Differential Allocation of Effort (DAE)

      The Department of Spanish & Portuguese expects faculty to devote equal attention to teaching and research. 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).

  3. Annual Evaluation System
    1. Overview

      The Department has a committee comprised of the Chair and two or three tenured faculty members. The committee reviews a portfolio describing each faculty member’s activities from January 1 through December 31 (portfolios are described below in section 2). The Chair appoints this committee each year, and for the sake of continuity, some overlap in service from year to year is desirable. The following timeline for faculty evaluation organizes the process:

      • December: The chair reminds faculty members of their obligation to submit a portfolio and provides digital copies of the form for the “Faculty Annual Performance Report.” The complete portfolios, with all supporting materials, are due no later than Friday of the first full week of classes in January.
      • January-February: The Chair and the Faculty Evaluation Committee review all the portfolios, meet to discuss their evaluations of the portfolios, and the Chair establishes a consensus evaluation based on reports from the Committee. The Chair and the Committee discuss their evaluations in terms of the Departmental Evaluation Scale that allows for five possible rankings, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3, with the understanding that 2 is the “normal” level of performance for a successful member of the Department. The criteria for this evaluation scale are characterized in Appendix B.
      • March-April: The Chair provides a report to the each faculty member, based on the consensus evaluation (See number 4 below, “Annual Evaluation Feedback Process”). This is done with sufficient time for faculty members to consider the report and, if desired, request a meeting to discuss the report before merit salary decisions are made.
      • May-July: The Chair, when informed by the College about the monies available to the Department for merit-salary increases, uses the annual evaluations to arrive at an appropriate distribution among the faculty members based on the information obtained in the evaluation process.
    2. Portfolio 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.

      In accordance with the Faculty Evaluation Plan of the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, each year all faculty members of the Department of Spanish and Portuguese submit a portfolio that documents the quantity and quality of their teaching/advising, scholarly or creative activity, and service. Each portfolio, when annually completed, must include the following items:

      • A “Faculty Annual Performance Report” (Appendix B)
      • “Student Evaluations” of teaching for all courses along with a syllabus for each class (Appendix A)
      • A current curriculum vitae

      The portfolio may include other materials that provide additional evidence of the quantity and quality of an individual’s efforts, such as:

      • Copies of publications
      • Copies of manuscripts currently submitted for publication or still in progress
      • “Peer Evaluations” of teaching
      • Other materials that document faculty efforts in teaching, research, or service
    3. Portfolio Review/Evaluation

      Faculty member must provide information about teaching/advising, research, and service accomplishments according to departmental guidelines (see above and also Appendices A and B). The Department normally assigns the following weights to Teaching/Advising (40%), Research (40%), and Service (20%) unless the individual faculty member has made arrangement in writing for an alternative differential allocation of faculty effort (see 3 above in Statement of Performance Expectations).

      In addition to the “Faculty Annual Performance Report” and current curriculum vitae, the Evaluation Committee reviews (1) all student evaluations required of every faculty member. Particular attention is paid to those questions that address the quality of instruction and the course goals and objectives. Course syllabi and grade sheets are read and evaluated. The Committee reviews (2) all research activity and assesses the quality and quantity of publication, the presses, journals, or other venues in which the material appeared, the participation in professional meetings, the quality and number of meetings, copies of publications and or papers, book reviews and other items are likewise evaluated. The Committee reviews (3) all statements of service.

    4. Annual Evaluation Feedback Process

      The Chair provides a written report to each faculty member, based on the consensus evaluation. The report is provided in the format of a one-page letter that summarizes the general findings of the Committee, reports the consensus rating based on the Department Evaluation Scale, and offers information on progress toward tenure and/or promotion. A copy of the report is kept by the Department in the faculty member’s permanent file. The opportunity is provided for each faculty member to discuss his or her annual evaluation with the Chair. All members of the Department, tenure-track or tenured, may respond in writing to the evaluation and copies of this response will be included in their permanent file. Failure to meet departmental standards is explained above in part 2 of the Statement of Performance Expectations. Faculty members who receive low evaluations will be requested to meet with the Chair (or with the Chair and the Evaluation Committee if the faculty member prefers) to discuss the evaluation, to explain expectations for future performance, and to identify strategies for future improvement. Whenever such a meeting takes place, the Chair will write a summary of the meeting and goals for improvement for the faculty member under evaluation; this summary is provided to the faculty member and a copy is placed in the personnel file.

    5. Outcomes of Annual Performance Evaluation

      The annual evaluations are part of the ongoing strategies for faculty development. They provide the Chair and the faculty member the bases for discussing any changes in teaching, research, or service, for career and Departmental planning, for faculty development, for any possible redistribution of effort, for discussions of future performance expectations, for progress toward tenure and promotion, and other related matters. For an untenured faculty member, the annual evaluation serves as an indicator of progress toward the Promotion and Tenure process, as does the Department’s exhaustive third year review. For tenured professors at the Associate level, the annual evaluation serves to indicate progress toward the next academic grade. At a time when the Chair knows what new salary monies will be coming to the Department, she or he then uses the merit evaluations to arrive at an appropriate distribution.

      1. Procedures for developing performance improvement plans

        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.

      2. Procedures for addressing failure to meet academic responsibilities

        As stated above, a faculty member who disagrees with any part of her or his evaluation may make her or his views known verbally or in writing to the Chair. A faculty member may provide additional information by submitting explanations of performance that address the evaluation. The Chair or the faculty member under evaluation may ask other members of the Evaluation Committee to sit in on the discussion with the faculty member to attempt a mutual resolution of the conflict. The results of this meeting are then put in writing for the Committee, for the faculty member, and for the faculty member’s file.

        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.

      3. 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

      The Department of Spanish and Portuguese provides a variety of development opportunities.

    1. Close faculty mentoring of new faculty. Each new faculty member is assigned a senior faculty mentor who meets with the new faculty member regularly to discuss her/his teaching, research, and service program
    2. Review of external funding proposals as well as GRF proposals
    3. Teaching load reduction (differential allocation of effort) for tenured faculty with heavy service duties
    4. The opportunity for foreign residence through our Summer Language Institutes
    5. Department colloquia to discuss research projects
    6. Some support for visiting lecturers
    7. Support for larger meetings such as the Mid-America Conference on Hispanic Literature as well as Latin American Theater Symposia
    8. Journal support
    9. Support for interdisciplinary teaching/co-teaching
    10. Computer support within our capabilities
    11. Informal lunch gatherings open to all faculty and graduate students in which research interests, teaching, service, and the profession in general are welcome topics of conversation
    12. Availability on the part of all faculty members to read, critique, and edit articles, papers, books, etc. being prepared by any other Departmental faculty member
    13. 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

    The Department of Spanish and Portuguese uses the official data summary report from the “Student Survey of Teaching: The University of Kansas” form (2008). In addition, we collect written comments on the following form:

    Spanish & Portuguese Department Teaching Evaluation
    Page 2: Written Comments

    Please answer the following questions:

    What elements of this course were effective for your learning?

     

    What changes do you suggest?

     

    If you have any useful comments about any of the items on the numerical survey, please write them below.

  2. Form for the “Faculty Annual Performance Report”

    Department of Spanish and Portuguese Faculty Annual Performance Report

    University of Kansas
    Form revised spring 2013

    Name:______________
    Calendar year of evaluation:_______

    Associate Professors

    Please indicate the semester and year you began your current position (e.g., if you were promoted in spring 2005, fall 2006 would be the first semester in your current rank).

    Semester _____________ Year______________

    Would you like the Promotion Committee to review your file in the fall to evaluate your progress toward promotion (required in fifth year)? ___________

    Checklist of items included in the portfolio

    Required

    ____ Faculty Annual Performance Report
    ____ Current curriculum vitae
    ____ Student Evaluations of teaching for each class with course syllabus

    Optional

    _____ Publications or manuscripts accepted
    _____ Manuscripts submitted or draft of research in progress
    ____ Peer Evaluations of teaching
    ____ Other materials that document faculty efforts in teaching, research, or service.

    Please assist the Faculty Evaluation Committee in quantifying your efforts by filling in the following tables.

    Teaching/Advising

Teaching
Semester Course Number
   
   
   
Advising
Type of Advising Number of Students Advised
M.A. advisees  
Ph.D. committees  
Dissertations directed  
Dissertation committees  

Research

Research
Item Quantity
Book published  
Article published  
Review published  
Book submitted  
Article submitted  
Review submitted  
Papers delivered  

Service

Service
Role Quantity
Department Committees Chaired  
Department Committee Membership  
College or University Committees  
Editor  
Non-KU Service
Role Quantity
Program Review  
Tenure/promotion evaluations  
National Committees Chaired  
National Committees Member  
Articles refereed  

Summary of Self-Evaluation Scores (list of possible ratings with explanations under Evaluation Scale below)

Teaching Research Service
     

Evaluation Scale

Note: Fulfilling one criterion or more for a category does not guarantee a specific score.

Teaching
3 (High Performance) Willingness to assume individual teaching assignments (individual study, honors projects, dissertation direction); numerous student advisees; student evaluation scores that are consistently near the top of the departmental range; recognition for achievements in teaching with major college, university or national award.
2.5 (Medium-high performance) Willingness to teach large sections, to teach courses at all levels of the program, to prepare new courses and course material; aids department in organizing or overseeing consistency in heavy grading courses such as SPAN 324 or SPAN 424; consistently receives high student evaluation scores.
2 (Medium performance) Normal level of expectation for Department; teaches two courses each semester; handles all assigned student advisees; involved in teaching mission, to the extent assigned, in both graduate and undergraduate program; student evaluation scores are consistently good.
1.5 (Medium-low performance) Some positive students evaluations with a perceptible pattern of complaints, may suggest a need to reconsider teaching strategies or course organization.
1 (Low performance) Consistently high attrition rates among students; student evaluation scores that are unusually low.
Research
3 (High Performance) A published book (or 5-7 major articles) and a significant ongoing project or 2-4 smaller projects.
2.5 (Medium-high performance) 2 or more major articles in print (or 1 short critical edition) and a significant ongoing project or 2 smaller projects.
2 (Medium performance) Normal level of expectation for Department; something in print every year (1 article) and something in progress (1 major article or 2-3 smaller ones), or demonstrable progress on a large ongoing project.
1.5 (Medium-low performance) Something (an article) either in print or in progress; any ongoing project is minor.
1 (Low performance) Nothing in print and little in the way of an ongoing project (i.e., will produce an article at some time but not a major article in the next year or a book in the next 3 years).
Service
3 (High Performance) Consistently in demand for departmental, university and professional service, including some with a high level of responsibility (the latter indicates extra-departmental “achievement”).
2.5 (Medium-high performance) 1 or 2 extra-departmental responsibilities in addition to regular departmental ones; significant effort organizing and directing a Summer Language Institute abroad or directing an academic year program abroad (Santiago); prominent editorial responsibilities with national visibility.
2 (Medium performance) Normal level of expectation for Department; satisfactory fulfillment of departmental assignments—all around “good citizen”; reasonable amount of professional service commensurate with stage of career and number of years in the profession.
1.5 (Medium-low performance) Weak fulfillment of departmental service assignments (e.g., failure to follow through with specific requirements such as class visitations, written observation reports, repeated absences from committee meetings, unwillingness to participate in or cooperate with committee activities, and so forth).
1 (Low performance) Unsatisfactory fulfillment of service activities and/or unwillingness to serve on departmental committees.

Annual Faculty Performance Report

  1. Enumerative Description of Calendar Year Activities
    1. Teaching
      1. Classes

        List the classes you taught each semester. Include course number, title, and number of students enrolled.

      2. Honors projects

        List the Honors projects you directed. Indicate the semester, student name, and project topic or title.

      3. Dissertations directed

        List the dissertations you have directed. Indicate the name of the student, the dissertation title, and indicate the status (defended, in progress, inactive).

      4. Dissertation committees

        List the dissertation committees on which you serve as a second or third reader. Include student and indicate the status of the dissertation.

      5. Dissertations (fourth or fifth reader)

        List the dissertations, in the Department or in other departments, for which you have served as the fourth or fifth reader at a defense. Indicate the department in which the defense took place and the date or semester of the activity.

      6. Dissertation proposals

        List the dissertation proposals in which you have been involved. Indicate the student; your role as chair, 2nd/3rd reader, or 4th/5th reader; and the semester in which the exam took place.

      7. Ph.D. Advisory Committees

        List the Ph.D Advisory Committees on which you serve and indicate the role you play (chair or member).

      8. M.A. Advising

        List the names of your M.A. Advisees.

      9. Undergraduate advising
        1. Number of majors assigned to you?
        2. Number you regularly see for advising?
        3. Other advising activities?
    2. Research
      1. Items appearing in print this calendar year

        You may include items that have been reprinted.

        1. Books
        2. Articles
        3. Reviews
      2. Items accepted for publication during this calendar year

        Please include the forthcoming place and anticipated date of publication and if these have appeared on previous annual reports.

        1. Books
        2. Articles
        3. Reviews
      3. Items completed and submitted for publication this year, but not yet accepted
        1. Books
        2. Articles
      4. Papers read this calendar year

        Please indicate the date and kind of presentation: 20 minute refereed conference paper; invited presentation; 45 minute plenary presentation; etc, and if it was a national, regional or international meeting.

    3. Service

      Professional service takes many different forms. The following categories seek to identify the most common venues in which we provide service. If a unique category is missing, please add one to make certain that all of your efforts are described.

    4. Departmental committees

      Include your role (chair or member), and load (“light, moderate, or heavy”). If there are other departmental responsibilities that are not exactly committees but take up your time, please include them. Please include here the directorship of summer language institutes or study abroad programs.

    5. University committees

      Include your role (chair, member), the level of the committee (College or University) and load (light, moderate, heavy).

    6. Professional Organizations

      Include offices held or roles played, scope of the professional organization (international, national, regional, etc.), and load (light, moderate, heavy).

    7. Editor

      Include your work as an editor, member of an editorial board, or a referee for publications during the past calendar year (include approximate number of the manuscripts reviewed).

    8. Research dossiers evaluated, tenure or promotion reviews for other universities
    9. Programs reviews
    10. Other public lectures or professionally related services

      Include any relevant information not covered in other categories in this report.

  2. Narrative Self Evaluation

    For each category of effort—teaching, research, and service—please provide a brief narrative (a paragraph or two) summarizing your perception of what you have achieved in each category. Please give yourself a numerical rating using the departmental evaluation scale. You may attach additional pages as needed.

  1. Evaluation Scale

Department of Spanish and Portuguese Evaluation Scale

Teaching
3 (High Performance) Willingness to assume individual teaching assignments (individual study, honors projects, dissertation direction); numerous student advisees; student evaluation scores that are consistently near the top of the departmental range; recognition for achievements in teaching with major college, university or national award.
2.5 (Medium-high performance) Willingness to teach large sections, to teach courses at all levels of the program, to prepare new courses and course material; aids department in organizing or overseeing consistency in heavy grading courses such as SPAN 324 or SPAN 424; consistently receives high student evaluation scores.
2 (Medium performance) Normal level of expectation for Department; teaches two courses each semester; handles all assigned student advisees; involved in teaching mission, to the extent assigned, in both graduate and undergraduate program; student evaluation scores are consistently good.
1.5 (Medium-low performance) Some positive students evaluations with a perceptible pattern of complaints, may suggest a need to reconsider teaching strategies or course organization.
1 (Low performance) Consistently high attrition rates among students; student evaluation scores that are unusually low.
Research
3 (High Performance) A published book (or 5-7 major articles) and a significant ongoing project or 2-4 smaller projects.
2.5 (Medium-high performance) 2 or more major articles in print (or 1 short critical edition) and a significant ongoing project or 2 smaller projects.
2 (Medium performance) Normal level of expectation for Department; something in print every year (1 article) and something in progress (1 major article or 2-3 smaller ones), or demonstrable progress on a large ongoing project.
1.5 (Medium-low performance) Something (an article) either in print or in progress; any ongoing project is minor.
1 (Low performance) Nothing in print and little in the way of an ongoing project (i.e., will produce an article at some time but not a major article in the next year or a book in the next 3 years).
Service
3 (High Performance) Consistently in demand for departmental, university and professional service, including some with a high level of responsibility (the latter indicates extra-departmental “achievement”).
2.5 (Medium-high performance) 1 or 2 extra-departmental responsibilities in addition to regular departmental ones; significant effort organizing and directing a Summer Language Institute abroad or directing an academic year program abroad (Santiago); prominent editorial responsibilities with national visibility.
2 (Medium performance) Normal level of expectation for Department; satisfactory fulfillment of departmental assignments—all around “good citizen”; reasonable amount of professional service commensurate with stage of career and number of years in the profession.
1.5 (Medium-low performance) Weak fulfillment of departmental service assignments (e.g., failure to follow through with specific requirements such as class visitations, written observation reports, repeated absences from committee meetings, unwillingness to participate in or cooperate with committee activities, and so forth).
1 (Low performance) Unsatisfactory fulfillment of service activities and/or unwillingness to serve on departmental committees.
Contact: 

Department of Spanish and Portuguese
University of Kansas
2650 Wescoe Hall
1445 Jayhawk Blvd.
Lawrence, KS 66045
spanport@ku.edu

Department Chairperson
785-864-3851

Approved by: 
Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
Approved on: 
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Effective on: 
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Review Cycle: 
Annual (As Needed)
Keywords: 
Faculty Evaluation, Annual Evaluation, Faculty Review, FEP, SPAN, S&P, Spanish, Portuguese
Review, Approval & Change History: 

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

07/09/2014: Technical edits - added outline formatting, updated links, standardized method of notation for dates in Review, Approval & Change History.

05/20/2014: Approved by the Provost

04/22/2014: Approved by the Dean of the College

04/10/2014: Approved by the faculty of the Department of Spanish and Portuguese

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

Can't Find What You're Looking For?
Policy Library Search
New Policies in the last 30 days
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