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

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


To articulate the procedures for evaluation for Teaching Professors in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

Applies to: 

Teaching Professors within the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

Juniper Gardens
Policy Statement: 
1 Introduction
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.
2 Department Expectations
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.
3 Evaluation
3.1 Overview
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:
  • To provide a basis for determining merit salary increases. Failure to submit a portfolio may result in no merit salary increase for that year.
  • To provide constructive feedback and assistance to any faculty member whose productivity has fallen significantly below expectations. The expectations are defined by the faculty and are subject to periodic faculty review.
  • To determine if a faculty member is failing to meet academic responsibilities
  • The EECS faculty has charged the Chair with conducting annual evaluations.
3.2 Portfolio Preparation
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.
3.3 Portfolio Review and Evaluation
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:
  • Above expectations: Performance goes beyond that expected of the typical faculty member. This might be the case in which a faculty member garners teaching awards and other evidence of outstanding classroom performance.
  • Meets expectations: Performance that is expected of the typical teaching faculty member.
  • Below expectations: Performance that falls below what is expected of the typical teaching faculty member but still exceeds the minimum acceptable level. A faculty member in this category is still contributing in a positive way.
  • Failure to meet academic responsibilities: Poor teaching performance. This might be the case when a faculty member fails to follow the ABET description for assigned EECS courses, receives poor feedback from students, fails to teach the necessary material required for subsequent courses, and contributes poorly to committee and other service assignments. Failure to meet academic responsibilities also includes performance that is detrimental to students and/or colleagues including consistently failing to meet his/her classes. Engaging in proscribed conduct as described in Appendix A also constitutes failure to meet academic responsibilities.
3.4 Outcomes of the Annual Performance Evaluation
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.
3.4.1 Faculty Enhancement
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).
3.4.2 Actions for Failure to Meet Academic Responsibilities
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.
3.5 Conflict Resolution/Review Process
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.
Appendix A Proscribed Conduct
Proscribed conduct includes the following categories:
  • Willful failure of a faculty member to carry out his/her academic responsibilities. The gravity of such failures may vary. The failure to meet a class is more serious, as a rule, than failure to attend a committee meeting. Cumulative absences or failures to perform even in less grievous matters are more serious than occasional lapses over long periods of time.
  • Violation of lawful published University regulations.
  • Knowingly furnishing false information to the University, or forging, altering, or misusing University documents or instruments of identification with intent to defraud.
  • Failure to respect the rights or academic freedom of students, staff or of other faculty members.
  • Behavior in the discharge of his/her duties that violates commonly accepted standards of professional ethics as defined, for example, in the statement of professional ethics adopted by the 52nd Annual Meeting of the AAUP, April, 1966. 2 (See also the University of Kansas Policy on Consenting Relationships.) Abusive or unprofessional treatment of students, faculty, or other members of the University fall within this category. Repeated infractions of one's responsibilities, whether informal and/or formal admonitions, warnings or reprimands have occurred, are more serious than initial infractions of the same type. Also proscribed is any form of sexual harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, age, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation.
  • Plagiarism, misrepresentation or fraud in classroom presentations, published works, or published presentations.
  • Committing an act that involves such moral turpitude as to render the faculty member unfit for his/her position. As used in this section, conduct involving moral turpitude means intentional conduct, prohibited by law, which is gravely injurious to another person or to society and which constitutes a substantial deviation from the accepted standards of duty owed by a person to other persons and society.
  • If another University tribunal or body exists which might properly entertain a claim or charge of conduct proscribed in Article V, the processes of that body or tribunal normally must first be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the Judicial Board can be invoked. However, in extraordinary circumstances the Judicial Board may exercise original jurisdiction notwithstanding failure to exhaust remedies available in other University tribunals. Whether such extraordinary circumstances exist as warrant the exercise of original jurisdiction by the Judicial Board shall be determined by such Board.

Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
1520 West 15th Street
2001 Eaton Hall
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045-7608

Approved by: 
EECS Faculty
Approved on: 
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Effective on: 
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Review Cycle: 
Annual (As Needed)
Evaluation, Teaching Professor, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Change History: 

04/05/2023: Added to Policy Library.
01/30/2019: Approved.

School/College Policy Categories: 
Additional Policies

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