Faculty Evaluation Plan, Department of Film and Media Studies
To articulate the standards and procedures for the annual evaluation of faculty within the Department of Film and Media Studies.
Faculty within the Department of Film and Media Studies.
The faculty of the Department of Film and Media Studies at the University of Kansas is committed to excellence in teaching/advising, scholarly and/or creative activity, and service. The concept of regular, rigorous faculty review is a critical part of the department’s commitment to maintaining a vital and productive program.
The foundation of faculty evaluation is the annual performance review. Its purpose is to assess the effectiveness of performance, to support continued effectiveness, and to assure that personnel decisions are sound and justifiable. We view systematic and rigorous evaluation as a continuing responsibility of the Chair and faculty colleagues (those closest to the day-to-day performance of duties). The annual evaluation process provides an opportunity for the Chair to review progress toward performance of responsibilities in the context of professional and institutional goals, and to identify performance issues and strategies for development, renewal, or change.
The consideration and evaluation of a faculty member's record are a confidential personnel matter, and all steps will be taken to ensure full confidentiality in all stages of evaluation, promotion, and tenure.
The process of a faculty member's annual review and evaluation for tenure and promotion shall be conducted impartially and fairly. The faculty member being evaluated may also petition for the recusal of any member of the process who the candidate feels may jeopardize the impartiality of the evaluation.
The Department of Film and Media Studies affirms the principle of academic freedom, the right to express oneself according to the truth as one sees it. Faculty members have the obligation, however, to exercise academic freedom responsibly.
Faculty members are expected to be actively engaged in all three areas of teaching/advising, scholarship and/or creative activity, and service. The Department of Film and Media Studies subscribes to 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, and the Department of Film and Media Studies expects its faculty to live up to those responsibilities. Within the context of
the Faculty Code of Conduct, the duties and expectations of Film and Media Studies faculty and the means by which they are evaluated are presented below. Faculty undergo four kinds of evaluations: (1) an Annual Performance Evaluation review performed by faculty peers (an outcome of this evaluation is data for the annual merit salary process), (2) a Progress Toward Tenure Review (PTTR) carried out by an appointed faculty review committee typically during the faculty member’s third year, (3) a review for Promotion and/or Tenure (P&T), and (4) a Post-tenure Review carried out by the Unit’s Post-tenure Review Committee.
Whereas evaluation criteria are generally the same across the different reviews, administration responsibilities and procedures vary.
Statement of Performance Expectations
The Department of Film and Media Studies expects faculty to devote equal attention to teaching and scholarly and/or creative activity. When evaluating faculty performance, the department applies the weights of 40 percent for teaching, 40 percent for scholarly and/or creative activity, 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.
Teaching and Related Activities
The normal teaching duties of a faculty member include, but are not limited to, teaching four courses per academic year; advising students; supervision of independent studies, theses, and dissertations; and membership on masters and doctoral committees.
Factors considered in developing an overall evaluation of teaching performance may include, but are not limited to:  Standardized Teaching Evaluation Form (e.g., the University approved “Student Survey of Teaching” form);  peer reviews;  teaching awards;  enrollment figures;  advising;  development of new courses;  updating courses;  new and innovative approaches; and,  course coordination (multiple sections).
All faculty members in residence are expected to advise undergraduate students during the advising period and throughout the year. Faculty generally are expected to be familiar with the appropriate catalogs, timetable, and program requirements; keep scheduled office hours; assist students in making academic and career choices; and refer students to campus support offices when appropriate. To further a community of scholars and students, faculty members are responsible for mentoring students. Mentoring establishes a trust between faculty and students in which confidence-building and the fruitful exchange of ideas can take place.
During the four-week period in the middle of the official University’s advising period, faculty members will provide a detailed schedule of their available advising times. These schedules will be placed in the main office, and students will sign up for specific open times. Each faculty member will allocate open time for advising. It is suggested that at least ten hours over the four week period be open for potential advisees.
Research: Scholarly/Creative Activity
Research may include any of a wide variety of activities depending upon the field of specialization and the interests of the faculty member. It is expected that each faculty member will pursue research or professional activities appropriate to his or her field of specialization and will achieve significant national recognition among his or her peers in one or more such fields of activity.
For a complete, detailed listing of the criteria for scholarly/creative activity see Appendix B.
Departmental service is required of all faculty members including, but not limited to, attendance at faculty meetings as well as participation on departmental committees. Faculty should also contribute appropriate service to the College, University and the profession (locally, nationally, and internationally). Especially important in evaluating faculty service are the following:
- University service, including participation on departmental, College, and/or University committees.
- Professional service outside of the University, including participation in community, state, regional, national, and international activities.
- Service outside academia is also recognized.
For a complete, detailed listing of the categories for the faculty evaluation process see Appendix B.
2.Standards for Acceptable Performance for Faculty Members
The Faculty Evaluation Committee will judge the merit of each Department member on a 100-point scale (see below). Normally, teaching and scholarly and creative research are considered of equal weight, 40 points each, with service weighted somewhat less, 20 points. The categories used for point ratings are those used for reporting promotion and tenure nominations.
- pt. Scale = 40 for teaching, 40 for scholarly and creative research/performance, 20 for service.
Teaching/Advising and Scholarly/Creative Research
- 40-33 “Excellent” means that the candidate substantially exceeds disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
- 32-25 “Very Good” means the candidate exceeds disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
- 24-17 “Good” means the candidate meets disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
- 16-9 “Marginal” means the candidate falls below disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
- 8-0 “Poor” means the candidate falls significantly below disciplinary and department/unit expectations for tenure and/or promotion to this rank.
(please refer to definition of standards above)
- 20-17 Excellent
- 16-13 Very Good
- 12-9 Good
- 8-5 Marginal
- 4-0 Poor
Evidence of “marginal” or “poor” performance in any of the three areas of responsibility will lead to intervention or will trigger the process for failure to meet academic responsibilities. If a faculty member receives an evaluation of “marginal” or “poor” in any category, the Chair will record an “unsatisfactory” for that category in the formal annual evaluation letter that is sent to the faculty member. Sustained failure as evidenced by three consecutive ratings of “unsatisfactory” will place an individual at risk for a recommendation for dismissal.
3.Differential Allocation of Effort
The Department of Film and Media Studies 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 scholarly and/or creative activity, 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 standard 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 20 percent on 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. Changes in faculty effort are to be negotiated and agreed upon before the start of the next academic year. Any individualized changes in faculty allocation of effort will be negotiated with the Chair and documented in the faculty member's personnel file.
For short-term DAE agreements (one academic year or less), the DAE is ultimately approved by the unit director or chairperson, with a copy of this endorsement sent to the contact associate dean. For long-term DAE agreements (lasting one year or beyond), approval must also be sought from the appropriate contact dean in the college. All DAEs are reported annually to the College Dean’s Office. Agreements for long- term DAEs must be reviewed every three years, although either the faculty member or chairperson/director may request an earlier review in response to changed circumstances or performance. At that time, the agreement may be revised, terminated, or continued.
The selection among these options should be made following the guidelines and process for approval of long-term DAEs contained in the University Policy on Differential Allocation of Effort (DAE).
Annual Evaluation System
The Department of Film and Media Studies will conduct an annual evaluation of its faculty that will yield information for departmental planning, merit salary decisions, progress toward tenure and promotion and/or tenure review, differential allocation of effort, and strategies for renewal or development. The Department's criteria for evaluation and promotion and tenure will serve as the standard by which accomplishments are evaluated.
Faculty performance evaluations are conducted annually by a Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC), consisting of three tenured faculty members drawn by lot who serve two year, staggered terms. They are expected to be thoroughly familiar with tenure and promotion protocols of the College. The FEC is responsible for evaluating the annual reports of all tenured and tenure track faculty members on an annual basis in February. The Chairperson of the Department serves as the FEC chair ex-officio.
The FEC will consist of the Chairperson of the Department and three other faculty members to be drawn by lot on an annual basis from among all tenured faculty members in the Department who have completed a minimum of two semesters of service. Those who have served on the committee in the previous year will not be included. In the event that a faculty member should decline service, he or she will be replaced by another faculty member, and will be eligible for selection the following year. In the interest of providing every member of the Department the opportunity of service on the Committee through a regular rotation of membership, no faculty member with prior service on the Committee shall be selected until every other member of the faculty has served on the Committee.
The Chairperson of the Department shall serve as chairperson of the FEC but will not vote.
The domain of this board will be to discuss and make recommendations on all matters relevant to the evaluation of faculty performance on an annual basis and any subsequent recommendation for merit salary increases for faculty members. The FEC shall be responsible for review of its own members, with individual members under review excused from self-review. In these situations, the Departmental Chairperson (who does not vote in other cases) shall take the place of the colleague under review and vote on recommendations for performance evaluation. Any changes to evaluation procedures must be approved by the Film and Media Studies faculty.
At the last faculty meeting of the fall semester, the committee Chair will announce deadlines for submission of materials for the Annual Performance Evaluation review.
By mid-February, the Chair will receive from the Faculty Evaluation Committee (Appendix C: Faculty Evaluation Results by the Faculty Evaluation Committee) for each faculty member in the department. The results of each faculty member’s evaluation are then summarized by the Chair in a formal letter to the faculty member based on the quality, quantity, and impact of the work in the three areas of responsibility. The scores and written comments, as well as any information about expectations of the position, progress toward tenure review, promotion and/or tenure review, and any suggested strategies for improvement or renewal, etc. are also documented in the letter. The letter is provided to the faculty member so that any opportunity for discussion of the report occurs prior to the timelines established for merit salary decisions.
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.
During January, each faculty member is responsible for developing a portfolio documenting both quantity and quality of effort in teaching, research, and service for the previous calendar year in accordance with Appendix B: Faculty Evaluation Categories for Annual Faculty Review. This portfolio is submitted to the Faculty Evaluation Committee by no later than mid-February. This time frame allows for sufficient time for the written evaluation report to the faculty member and the opportunity for discussion of the report prior to the timeline established for merit salary decisions.
3.Portfolio or Annual Report Review and Evaluation
The portfolio materials are submitted annually for review according to Appendix B: Categories for Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation Review. In the Department of Film and Media Studies, the FEC reviews and evaluates the faculty member’s portfolio. The quantity, quality, significance, and impact of performance are evaluated within the context of the faculty member’s specific academic responsibilities, including consideration of differential allocation of effort, and discipline expectations and standards.
Each faculty member will be assigned points of 40, 40, and 20 to the responsibilities of teaching/advising, research, and service respectively for the evaluation; the exception would be those faculty who have a different DAE that has been negotiated and agreed upon by the faculty member and chair. If a faculty member has an official “allocation of effort” that is different than the normal 40:40:20, these different percentages will be used to evaluate the faculty member’s contributions to the University and to later recommended the awarding of any merit.
Each faculty member is evaluated on the basis of an account of activities in teaching/advising, research, and service supplied by that faculty member.
Teaching/advising is a primary function of the University, which strives to provide an outstanding education for its students. The evaluation of teaching includes consideration of syllabi, course materials, and other information related to a faculty member’s courses; peer and student evaluations; a candidate’s own statement of teaching philosophy and goals; public representations of teaching; and other accepted methods of evaluation, which may include external evaluations.
Research performance is assessed in the following three areas, ranked in order of importance: (1) Published books, films, chapters and articles, edited media compilations (audio and video), research reports, exhibits, peer-reviewed World Wide Web publications, annotated databases, special lectures or colloquia, papers presented at professional meetings, film festivals, presentations to local or regional audiences. Although peer-reviewed books, films, screenplays, and articles are weighted most heavily, substantial research contributions often appear in other outlets. In such cases, an explanation of the nature and value of the contribution should be submitted. (2) Research in progress: archival work; grant, contract, or fellowship applications submitted; awards received; manuscripts and film/media projects in progress. (3) Contribution of research to the university, profession, and larger community: Financial support for students, stimulation of areas of research, invited lectures, press coverage, consulting in areas of research expertise, and integration of research with teaching, are among the ways research contribution is determined.
Departmental service is required of all faculty members, including, but not limited to, participation on department committees as well as attendance at faculty and department meetings. Service to the University; College; profession; local, national, and/or international communities is expected.
Especially important in evaluating faculty service are the following: (1) University service, including participation on departmental, College, professional, or University committees. (2) Professional service outside the University, including participation in local community, state, regional, national, and international activities. Professional service encompasses activities such as reviewing articles for journals or grant applications for funding agencies; editing; and serving as an officer in a professional society. (3) Service outside the academy is also recognized.
The evaluation consists of a score in each of the categories of teaching, research, and service. These scores, together with any written comments, are recorded on the Faculty Evaluation Results form, (see Appendix C) by the Faculty Evaluation Committee.
4.Annual Evaluation of Feedback Process
Each faculty member is provided with a copy of the Faculty Evaluation Results form and has the right to meet with the FEC to review the evaluation in case of disagreement. At this time, the faculty member also has the right to add additional information, as appropriate, to the evaluation record. The FEC will announce to all faculty the days and times the committee is available for this “check-back” procedure.
After all disagreements have been discussed and the FEC’s evaluations are finalized, the FEC submits its evaluations to the Chair. The numerical evaluation scores are final, and the Chair cannot intervene to adjust the final evaluation scores. The Chair will summarize the report in a letter to the faculty member. The letter will also inform the faculty member of the opportunity to schedule a meeting with the Chair to discuss their annual evaluation.
In cases where improvement in a faculty member’s performance is warranted, the Chair will indicate, in specific terms, in writing, where the faculty member’s evaluations are unsatisfactory (i.e., marginal and poor.) Although the faculty member is under no obligation to do so, within two weeks of the date of the distribution of the evaluation letters, the faculty member may request a conference with the Chair of the Department to discuss their annual evaluation. Following this conference, and upon formal written request to the Chair, a faculty member may meet with the FEC to discuss his or her evaluation and may request a reconsideration of the evaluation by the committee. A copy of the written evaluation summary is then maintained in the faculty member’s personnel file.
5.Post-tenure Review and Integration into the Annual Evaluation Process
This section includes information for faculty members undergoing Post-tenure Review.
- The Department of Film and Media Studies has elected to combine the post-tenure review with the annual evaluation given that the post-tenure review is conducted by the same committee that conducts annual evaluations. Thus, the post-tenure review and annual evaluation are combined into a single process. The committee will recommend outcomes in accordance with the unit’s policy.
- The Post-tenure Review committee will provide a copy of their report to the faculty member, who may submit a written response for inclusion in the post-tenure review file before it is forwarded to the chair for his or her review. If the chair agrees with the report, he or she will indicate that agreement in writing to the faculty member and place a copy in the post-tenure review file. If the chair disagrees with the committee’s evaluation, he or she shall explain the reasons for any disagreement in writing, with a copy to the faculty member and the committee.
- Unit procedures for ensuring that as part of the annual evaluation process, results of the post- tenure review assessment are used to determine annual evaluation outcomes are outlined below in #6.
Additional information can be found in the Unit’s Post-tenure Review Policy.
6.Outcomes of the Annual Performance Evaluation
The evaluation process of the Department of Film & Media Studies, seen in all its aspects, yields multiple outcomes. It acknowledges faculty accomplishments or shortcomings and makes them matters of record. It initiates discussions that influence the planning of both individual career development and unit evolution. It assists in the identification of opportunities for faculty improvement and renewal. It provides annual as well as cumulative data for merit-salary recommendations, sabbatical-leave and grant applications, tenure and promotion decisions, post-tenure review, and reassignments of responsibilities. And it provides documentation that may be used, at extremes, in support of either recognition or dismissal.
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.
Procedures for addressing failure to meet academic responsibilities
If a faculty member has been informed that his/her performance still 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 (Program Directors) 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.
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.
7.Faculty Development Initiatives
One of the most important aspects of faculty development is the mentoring of untenured faculty members. These evaluations help the Department keep in close communication with the progress of its faculty. They help recognize both the achievements of new faculty as well as areas that may need some improvement in order to help new faculty excel in all three areas of evaluation. In terms of faculty improvement, these evaluations can help the evaluator intervene early in situations where faculty members have difficulties, such as ineffective teaching or inactive research programs. Through discussion the Chairperson can communicate the needs of the Department as well as offer helpful suggestions to the faculty member (e.g., how to apply for grants for the improvement of teaching; information on paper presentations; help to attend conferences; assistance in the application process for research scholarships and grants; and a discussion of temporary alteration of the 40/40/20 allocation of faculty effort).
To further assist and support new faculty members in the Department, there is a mentoring system that links a new faculty member with a tenured faculty member from the Department, or depending on the new faculty member’s field, it could be a senior faculty member outside the Department. This mentor assists the new faculty member in understanding the mission, requirements, and standards of teaching, research, and service excellence of the Department and the University.
Other faculty development opportunities include:
- ACE Fellows Program
- Acquaints mid career faculty with the issues and challenges of higher education administration and provides an opportunity for them to assess their interests and talents in a career shift to administration. The University encourages selected faculty to apply for participation in this national program and contributes full salary and benefits for individuals who are selected.
- Center for Teaching Excellence
- Offers instructional development support, networking opportunities for professional dialogues on effective learning and innovation in teaching, and encourages collaborative activities emphasizing the scholarship of teaching and research on learning. Faculty will be provided videotaping and instructional consultation services.
- Colleague to Colleague Teaching Enhancement Program (Teaching Fellows, Teaching is a Shared Experience, Campus Dialogs)
- Provides an opportunity for faculty from diverse disciplines to share ideas and classroom techniques through campus dialogs. Interested colleagues and new faculty are provided consultation on effective teaching strategies through an informal mentoring process and classroom observations.
- Faculty Travel and International Travel Funds
- Supports the presentation of papers at professional meetings and conferences.
- General Research Fund
- Provides research support on a competitive basis to individual faculty and groups of investigators.
- Hall Center for the Humanities Programs
- Promotes excellence in scholarship through research and creative fellowships, travel support for research and scholarly consultation in the humanities, funding for collaborative projects designed to have a sustained impact on teaching in the humanities, assistance with grant preparation, interdisciplinary study in the humanities through lecture series, forums, research discussion groups, and mini classes and seminars.
- IntraUniversity Professorships
- Provides mid career faculty an opportunity to strengthen their knowledge of an academic specialty, to broaden or achieve greater depth in a defined field of study, or to achieve competence in a new area of scholarly endeavor by spending a semester's residence in another academic department.
- Library Instructional Program: Integrating Library Research into Instruction
- Assists faculty in integrating library research skills and services into instruction through providing assistance with assignment design and workshops for faculty on teaching students to do library research.
- National Fulbright Scholar Program
- Provides an opportunity for faculty to teach or conduct research under the auspices of the Fulbright Scholar Program. To encourage participation, the University provides up to one semester's salary to individual's receiving grants under this program. This incentive supplements the basic stipend provided by the Fulbright Program.
- New Faculty General Research Fund
- Assist new tenure-track faculty in initiating research and developing grant applications to sustain research programs through a mentoring and peer review process.
- Perspectives on promotion and tenure
- A discussion with senior faculty, administrators, and members of the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure of institutional expectations, strategies for developing an academic career leading toward tenure, and the promotion and tenure process.
- Progress toward Tenure Review
- Provides formative and summative feedback regarding progress toward tenure.
- Research Intensive Semesters (RIS)
- The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences offers all junior faculty members in good standing a reduced teaching responsibility at some point during the faculty member’s pre-tenure employment. Faculty members will be released from classroom teaching duties for up to two courses, 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 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.
- Sabbatical Leave
- Provides opportunities for faculty development and enhancement activities.
- Administrative Fellows Program
- Acquaints mid career faculty with the issues and challenges of higher education administration so they may better understand the university and provides an opportunity for them to assess their interests and talents in university administrative matters.
See Faculty Development Programs for information about additional faculty development opportunities.
Appendix A – Student Evaluation of Teaching
Appendix B – Categories for Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation Review Appendix C – Faculty Evaluation Results
Appendices A – Student Evaluation of Teaching
Instrument(s) used in the evaluation of student teaching; the Department of Film and Media Studies utilizes the University’s “Student Survey of Teaching” form as this instrument.
Department of Film and Media Studies Survey of Teaching Instrument
(Approved by the Film and Media Studies Department Committee on March 9, 2010)
- Evaluations of teaching will be administered during the last two full weeks of classes each semester. Evaluations may not be conducted during the time designated for final examinations. The class session during which evaluations will be distributed should be announced at least one class period in advance. (Classes with an enrollment of three or fewer students will not be run due to confidentiality concerns.)
- The instructor should designate a student volunteer to administer the evaluations. The instructor will provide the student with an instruction sheet for administering and returning the completed evaluations to the department office. See below for “Instructions for Administering Student Evaluations.”
- Sufficient time (no less than 15 minutes) is to be provided during the class session for students to complete the evaluation. The instructor is to leave the room while the questionnaires are being completed.
- The student-volunteer will collect the completed forms, blank forms, and pencils and return them in a sealed envelope to the designated individual in the department office.
- Faculty and Graduate Teaching Assistants may not have access to their evaluation forms and/or results until after grades have been submitted.
- For annual review, faculty members will receive copies of the summaries for inclusion in their annual evaluation files.
II.Instructions for Administering Student Evaluations
Thank you for agreeing to assist the Department of Film and Media Studies in administering student evaluations. The instructor will provide the evaluation forms for you to pass out in class. The instructor will not be present when you administer the evaluations.
We ask that you please read the following statement to the class prior to distributing the evaluation forms:
The University of Kansas and the Department of Film and Media Studies are committed to effective teaching. Students assist in maintaining and enhancing this effectiveness by completing teaching evaluations in a thoughtful and honest manner. We ask that you take time to respond to all questions. If you do not wish to participate in the process, leave the form blank and turn it in.
Student evaluations can help improve instruction and are used in the annual faculty and graduate teaching assistant evaluation, reappointment, promotion, and tenure processes.
The instructor will not be given your comments nor informed of the results of the evaluation until after final grades have been submitted. Thank you for taking the time to answer thoughtfully. Please use a pencil.
Appendices B – Categories for Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation Review
Faculty Evaluation Categories for Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation Review
Faculty: Please make a list of your activities since your last annual evaluation. Use the categories and subcategories below, adding any relevant data not covered. A brief summary of what each faculty member considers his or her main accomplishments in teaching, research, and service is useful to the evaluation committee in its deliberations. The following list is to remind you of possible activities that should be brought to the attention of the committee, who will evaluate your work.
Quality of both undergraduate and graduate teaching is essential to the mission of the Department of Film and Media Studies; neither can be judged as more important than the other. Faculty members vary in their interests, ability to relate the material, and general orientation vis-à-vis undergraduate or graduate education. A faculty member's performance as a teacher cannot be evaluated by any single formula, nor can it be easily quantified.
Factors to be considered in developing an overall evaluation of teaching performance: Any evaluation of faculty teaching should be based on as many factors as can be assessed. These may include: Department and provost “Standardized Teaching Evaluation Forms”; peer reviews; teaching awards; enrollment figures; M.A. and Ph.D. production; advising; development of new courses; updating of courses; new and innovative approaches; outreach (off-campus, Internet, and distance learning courses).
Peer review of teaching will normally be conducted only for promotion and tenure decisions. Enrollment figures are evaluated in terms of the kind and level of courses.
- Courses taught
- Service courses
- Other undergraduate courses
- Lower-level graduate courses
- Upper-level graduate courses
- Class evaluation scores
- Freshmen-sophomores (include numbers)
- Undergraduate majors (include numbers)
- Graduate students (include numbers)
- Ph.D. orals
- M.A. orals
- Contributions to Ph.D. written exams
- Contributions to M.A. written exams
- Dissertation direction (chair of committee)
- Dissertation committees (membership)
- Coordination or direction of several sections of a course
- Supervision/training of GTAs
- Research/Creative Work
As in teaching, no simple mechanism can be used to evaluate the quality of research/creative work produced by a faculty member. To achieve a comprehensive evaluation, the committee will evaluate research/creative work performance in the following three areas, ranked in order of importance.
1.Results of research/creative work
Published books from scholarly presses, adjudicated films, videos, screenplays, chapters and articles, edited media compilations (audio and video), research reports, exhibits, peer-reviewed electronic/digital publications, annotated databases, special lectures or colloquia, papers, films, or videos presented at professional meetings or film festivals. Although peer-reviewed books and articles are weighted most heavily, substantial research/creative work contributions often appear in other outlets. In such cases, an explanation of the nature and value of the contribution should be submitted.
2.Research/creative work in progress
Archival work; sponsored research; grant, contract, or fellowship applications submitted; and manuscripts, films, or videos in progress.
3. Contribution of research/creative work to the university, profession, and beyond Financial support for students, invited lectures, media interviews, press coverage, consulting in areas of research/creative work and curricular expertise, and citations of scholarly work, integration of research/creative work with teaching are among the ways research/creative work contribution is determined.
4.Research/Creative Work Activities
- Published books from scholarly presses
- Films, videos, and media, including contributions in key creative positions
- Published refereed articles
- Scholarly media and databases (note if refereed)
- Published articles in un-refereed journals, working papers
- Published solicited articles or solicited creative work
- Other published articles in conference proceedings and other books
- Published reviews
- Articles reprinted, translated, etc.
- Other publications [pamphlets, reports, bibliographies]
- Work in progress
- External research/creative grants awarded
- International research/creative work grants awarded
- Research/creative work grants submitted
- Theses, dissertations, and privately circulated unpublished misc.
- Conferences and professional meetings
- Papers/creative work presented at professional meetings
- Attendance at professional meetings, conferences, film festivals
Departmental service is required of all faculty members including, but not limited to, attendance at faculty and department meetings as well as participation on department committees. Service to the college, university; profession; local, national, and/or international communities is expected.
Especially important in evaluating faculty service are the following:
Service, including participation in departmental, college, or university committees.
Professional service outside the university, including participation in community, state, regional, national, and international activities. Participation encompasses activities such as peer reviewing articles for journals or grant applications for funding agencies; editing; and serving as an officer in a professional society.
- Administrative duties (e.g., chair of a standing committee, associate chair)
- Administrative duties (e.g., director of a program)
- Graduate Studies
- Administrative duties
- Administrative duties
- Faculty Senate
- Other University related service
- Alumni Association
- Kansas Union
- Athletic Board
- Search and review committees for faculty and/or staff
- Student recruiting
- Sponsor/advisor of student organizations
- Participation in musical or theatrical groups, etc.
- Service to the profession
- Officer of professional organization
- Member of professional organization
- Professional organization committees
- Editorial work on a journal or report
- Organizing a professional meeting
- Chairing a session at a professional meeting
- Service to the community
- Awards and Honors
Faculty Evaluation Results by the Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC)
Name: Rank: Years in Rank: Years at KU:
- Teaching/Advising Score: Comments:
- Scholarly and/or Creative Activity Score:
- Service Score: Comments:
Department of Film & Media Studies
University of Kansas
1621 W. 9th St
Lawrence, KS 66045-7555
01/26/2017: Converted to policy PDF page.
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.
06/27/2014: Technical edits - added outline formatting, updated links, standardized method of date notation for Review, Approval & Change History.
10/28/2013: Updated outline to add new boilerplate text.
10/03/2012: Approved by the Provost Office.