School of Engineering Teaching Professor Evaluation Plan, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

 

The Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science uses the teaching 

professor evaluation process to enhance the goals of the Department and individual teaching faculty members, including curriculum development, research opportunities, and service to the community, state, nation, and profession.

 

The faculty of the EECS Department will place this document on the agenda of the first faculty meeting in the fall semester every year. At that time, if any changes are made to the document, they must be approved by a vote of the faculty. The revised document will then be submitted to the Provost’s office. If no changes are approved, the document on file in the Provost’s office will serve as the governing plan for that academic year unless the faculty chooses to modify it during the year.

 

 

The Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, as a department, espouses the goals of the School of Engineering to provide a balance between undergraduate teaching, graduate teaching, research, and service that does not emphasize one at the expense of another. To that end, we assign teaching faculty to teach required undergraduate courses, undergraduate electives, and graduate courses. As a department, we strive to be recognized for quality teaching, strong research, and excellent service to the profession. We expect all of our undergraduate programs to be fully accredited, a recognized measure of quality. In an overall sense, our expectation is to educate graduates who are excellent technical professionals and who will excel in their chosen career path.

 

Teaching faculty in the department are expected to teach undergraduate, undergraduate electives and graduate courses, advise undergraduate students, mentor undergraduate students, engage in scholarly activities, and render professional service. Teaching faculty may contribute to course transformation efforts and assessment; conduct and present research on teaching and learning and/or typical disciplinary scholarship. The mix of activities and level of contributions to these areas will vary according to rank, be consistent with the interests of individual faculty member, and accomplish the goals of the department. The mix of activities will be negotiated between the faculty member and the Chair. 

 

The EECS department seeks, across the department, for teaching faculty to contribute typically 65% to teaching, 15% to research and student mentoring, and 20% service. Individual contributions will vary. Nominal EECS expectations for regular faculty are described below.

 

Teaching (65%): The nominal teaching load for teaching faculty is six courses per year. Teaching faculty members are expected to hold scheduled office hours during the academic year. Scheduling of courses to meet department, school, and university requirements is the unilateral responsibility of the Chair. Teaching faculty are expected to meet all class sessions consistent with the responsible conduct of their assigned class. Faculty members have the latitude to reschedule classes due to research and service demands and other academic responsibilities. This privilege is not used to the detriment of students or the educational mission of the department, but for the enhancement of the education experience. Effective teaching is monitored by student evaluations, peer reviews, and alumni responses and surveys.

 

Scholarship (15%): Teaching faculty may contribute to course transformation efforts and assessment; conduct and presents research on teaching and learning and/or typical disciplinary scholarship.

 

Service (20%): All teaching faculty members are expected to advise and mentor undergraduate students. Teaching faculty are expected to perform service to the department’s constituent communities: the department, the School of Engineering, the University, the State, the Nation, and the profession.

 

Faculty Members are expected to contribute to the department goals in the following ways:

 

Teaching: All teaching faculty are expected to cover the material described in the ABET description of the EECS courses that they are assigned to teach for undergraduate courses and maintain an acceptable level of classroom performance as measured by student evaluations and/or other forms of course evaluations that are approved by the EECS faculty.

 

Scholarship: Teaching faculty may contribute to course transformation efforts and assessment; conduct and presents research on teaching and learning and/or typical disciplinary scholarship. Scholarly activities will be measured and evaluated by cumulative contributions over time and will take into account the individual’s overall contribution to the department.

 

Service: All teaching faculty members are expected to advise and mentor undergraduate students. Beyond advising activities minimal service at the local level is expected from assistant teaching professors. The associate teaching professors are expected to provide service to the department, school, university, and at the national level. Teaching full professors should be active in service to the department, school, and university; to the State of Kansas; and should be active on a professional and national/international level including demonstrated leadership.

 

 

The EECS Department evaluates teaching faculty on an annual basis. Teaching faculty have a comprehensive evaluation every three years. In January, teaching faculty members prepare a Faculty Activity Report (FAR) describing their activities for the past calendar year. The FAR format and content is defined by the School of Engineering and may be supplemented by the department. Faculty may include additional information with their submission. The Chair reviews the FARs in February. Results of the review are discussed between the individual faculty member and the Chair.

 

Assistant teaching professors are additionally reviewed in the fall. They submit their documents to the Chair. The Chair appoints a committee members to conduct a critical evaluation of their progress toward promotion. This committee submits their report to the Chair who then meets with the faculty members, gives them a written summary, and discusses actions to be taken to ensure a successful promotion to associate teaching professor or notifies the individual of a non-reappointment decision. Teaching professors will have a comprehensive evaluation every three years of the appointment prior to another 3-year appointment.

 

The scope and objectives of annual evaluation are:

 

The Faculty Activity Report (FAR) is the primary instrument for collecting basic data. The FAR format is defined by the School of Engineering. In addition to the FAR, each faculty member submits a summary of the student feedback forms for each class, and a copy of their curriculum vitae. Peer evaluations of classroom teaching are conducted for teaching faculty by senior faculty visiting their classes. The FAR submitted for the purpose of the annual evaluation and distribution of merit salary increases includes the following: courses taught, advising activity, awards, grants, proposals, publications, presentations, department/school/university committee service, professional service, community outreach, and honors and awards.

 

Based on the data provided, the Chair evaluates each faculty member’s performance. Among other items of review, the Chair will indicate in writing the overall performance level of the faculty member and state of his/her performance level. The evaluation is discussed between the individual faculty member and the Chair. The performance levels are defined as follows:

The annual evaluation is used to guide the department toward attainment of its established goals and an instrument to facilitate faculty member’s attaining their career goals.

 

The EECS Chair may recommend the faculty member engage in multiple opportunities for teaching. The Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science conducts an annual, daylong retreat at the beginning of the academic year to discuss issues relating to the future of the department. The retreat is an opportunity to discuss future curriculum development, future research opportunities for faculty, outreach/service opportunities, and long-term departmental goals.

 

The EECS Department encourages faculty to take advantage of faculty development initiatives at the school and university level, including summer research grants related to class room teaching, and to pursue opportunities provided by professional organizations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).

 

The individual will not be reappointed if the Chair determines that performance is classified as fails to meet academic responsibilities.

 

Teaching faculty have a right to appeal the chair’s evaluation of failure to meet academic responsibilities to the standing departmental Faculty Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities (FRPR) committee; only members of the FRPR committee who are of the same rank or higher as the subject faculty member will participate in the evaluation. The faculty member must submit her/his concerns in writing to FRPR and may appear before the committee. FRPR will review the faculty member’s record and other written material submitted by the faculty member. In case of an appeal the Chair will provide a justification of the determination of failure to meet academic responsibilities to FRPR. The FRPR will provide an evaluation and recommendation to the Chair and the evaluation and recommendation will become part of the faculty member’s departmental personnel record.

 

If a faculty member disagrees with the annual review, the Chair and the faculty member will attempt to resolve the disagreement. A faculty member may add to the portfolio additional written information. If the conflict cannot be resolved, the faculty member may request a review with the departmental FRPR. The FRPR will provide a non-binding recommendation to the Chair regarding the disagreement. Should the disagreement not be resolved through the review, the faculty member may appeal to the Dean.