ANNUAL EVALUATION STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA Initially Adopted by Department of Marketing Faculty On January 22, 1999 First Revision Adopted Spring 2000 Second Revision Adopted May 26, 2004 Third Revision Adopted October 13, 2004; Approved by CEC December 16, 2004 Fourth Revision Approved by Procedures Committee, August 30, 2005; Approved by vote of Department tenured faculty, September 15, September 28 Amendments Approved by Procedures Committee and by vote of Department tenured faculty, March 10, 2006 Addendum Approved by vote of the Department of Marketing tenured faculty, September 27, 2006 Approved by Academic Affairs, October 9, 2006 Revision Approved by Procedures Committee and by vote of Department tenured faculty, September 26, 2007 and October 3, 2007 Revision approved by vote of Department of Marketing tenured faculty, January 28, 2008 Revision approved by vote of Department of Marketing tenured faculty, November 12, 2008
Transcript
ANNUAL EVALUATION STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
DEPARTMENT OF MARKETINGCOLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
Initially Adopted by Department of Marketing FacultyOn January 22, 1999
First Revision Adopted Spring 2000
Second Revision Adopted May 26, 2004
Third Revision Adopted October 13, 2004; Approved by CEC December 16, 2004
Fourth Revision Approved by Procedures Committee, August 30, 2005; Approved by vote of Department tenured faculty, September 15, September 28
Amendments Approved by Procedures Committee and by vote of Department tenured faculty, March 10, 2006
Addendum Approved by vote of the Department of Marketingtenured faculty, September 27, 2006
Approved by Academic Affairs, October 9, 2006
Revision Approved by Procedures Committee and by vote of Department tenured faculty, September 26, 2007 and October 3, 2007
Revision approved by vote of Department of Marketing tenured faculty, January 28, 2008
Revision approved by vote of Department of Marketing tenured faculty, November 12, 2008
ANNUAL EVALUATION STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES Department of Marketing
College of Business AdministrationUniversity of Central Florida
Introduction
The Department of Marketing Annual Evaluation Standards and Procedures (AESP) Plan is a work assignment and evaluation system designed to facilitate the annual performance evaluations of full-time faculty within the Department. The plan has six work assignment tracks for tenured/tenure-earning faculty. Descriptions of the tracks for instructors and non tenure-earning lecturers are provided in an addendum to this document.
Objectives of the Plan: Provide a range of work assignments that permits faculty members, in consultation with
their Chair, to choose the track that best matches their teaching and research capabilities, professional goals, and interests to the mission and objectives of the Department.
Allow faculty members to capitalize on their professional strengths and be evaluated and rewarded relative to those strengths.
Promote quality research and teaching by Department of Marketing faculty members.
Facilitate the evaluation of faculty members’ professional performance of assigned duties.
Modifications to the Annual Standards and Procedures plan
The Department of Marketing AESP plan must be dynamic in nature. The plan may require periodic changes as a result of changes in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, faculty governance, Department and College mission and goals, and/or AACSB/SACS accreditation standards. Proposed changes to the document will be considered by an evaluation standards and procedures committee in the department, submitted to the Dean’s Office where they will be reviewed and either sent back for further work or forwarded to Faculty Affairs, where they are reviewed and after communication with the college and department as needed, receive approval.
1
PART I - WORKLOAD TRACKSEvaluation Weights by Assignment Track
Each year the Department Chair will assess each faculty member’s performance based on teaching, research, service, and possibly, other assigned activities as applicable. Overall evaluations will be determined by weighting performance on teaching, research, service, and other by the faculty member’s formal FTE assignment of effort on each component. Table 1 contains the target assignment of effort weights for teaching, research and service for each workload assignment track for tenured/tenure-earning faculty members. The addendum at the conclusion of this document describes workload assignments for full-time non tenure earning faculty members. The “other” category is comprised of duties such as administrative activities or special projects that may occasionally be assigned to a faculty member. Since the nature of these assignments is variable, no attempt is made to specify target evaluation weights in the table below.
Table 1. Evaluation Weights by Workload Assignment
While it is expected that most faculty members' time will be allocated to academic activities in the proportions shown above, it is recognized that circumstances may arise which warrant variations in the percentages under each option. Each faculty member’s annual performance evaluation will be based on the actual workload for that year. That is, it will be based on the actual number of courses taught, the actual research assignment, etc. Therefore, overall evaluations will be determined by weighting performance ratings on each of the components (teaching, research, service, other) by the faculty member’s formal FTE assignment of effort on each. Note: Appendix A contains a “Workload Assignment Application” form; it also explains the policies and procedures governing requested changes to workload assignment.
Assessment of Overall Professional Performance
Consistent with University policy and published deadlines, at the beginning of each year faculty members will prepare and submit an annual report to the Chair for review and evaluation. The overall evaluation rating and the rating of each of the areas of professional activity (teaching, research, service, and other) will be based on the scale shown in Table 2. The overall evaluation score will be calculated using the weighted average of the points earned across teaching, research, service, and other for each workload assignment described in Table 1.
2
College of Business faculty will be evaluated using performance standards specified for all relevant performance dimensions (teaching, research, service, and other activities). The Chairs/Director will confer with the Dean upon completion of all evaluations.
Generally, for a faculty member to achieve an outstanding rating on any performance dimension, it is expected that s/he would have excelled in a specified number of basic and additional applicable performance standards, consistent with unit and college goals.
Table 2. Evaluation Scale
Evaluation Point Values Rating Scale PointsOutstanding 4 3.01-4.00
Above Satisfactory 3 2.01-3.00
Satisfactory 2 1.01-2.00
Conditional 1 0.50-1.00
Unsatisfactory 0 0.00-0.49
PART II – EVALUATION OF TEACHING,RESEARCH, SERVICE, and OTHER
Evaluation of Teaching Performance
The Department Chair will evaluate the teaching component of each faculty member's assignment and rate this performance using the evaluation scale shown in Table 2. The teaching evaluation will be based on all assigned teaching activities during the current calendar evaluation year (Spring, Summer, Fall). Faculty members will submit a teaching portfolio to the Chair for review and evaluation. Faculty members are encouraged to thoroughly document the activities/dimensions used in the evaluation standards outlined in this document in order to detail effectiveness and to seek means by which teaching can be improved.
The teaching evaluation will be based only on teaching activities in the current calendar evaluation year. While recognizing that effective teaching has many aspects, the evaluation of the teaching component of a faculty member's workload will be based primarily along four broad professional dimensions (see Tables 3 and 4 for a detailed listing of indicators):
1. The academic content and pedagogy used in courses as documented by each faculty member,
2. Student, peer and self documented measures of teaching effectiveness,3. Documented evidence of teaching effectiveness in student learning, and4. Other documented activities/achievements listed in this document.
3
Evaluation of teaching will utilize the guidelines listed below:
a. An “Outstanding” evaluation will be assigned if the faculty member has consistently exceeded expectations in all dimensions of teaching performance.
b. An “Above Satisfactory” evaluation will be assigned if the faculty member has exceeded expectations in one or more of the dimensions.
c. A “Satisfactory” evaluation will be assigned to teaching performance if the faculty member has documented meeting University, College, and Department policies and procedures and professional expectations for course delivery in all four of the dimensions described above during the period of evaluation.
d. A “Conditional” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet University policies and procedures and professional expectations for course delivery in at least one of the four of the dimensions described above during the period of evaluation.
e. An “Unsatisfactory” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet University policies and procedures and professional expectations for course delivery in two or more of the four of the dimensions described above during the period of evaluation.
Table 3. Basic Teaching Standards
A. Course syllabi: Department/College/University guidelines for syllabi construction are followed. Course objectives are clearly stated. Assessment Learning Outcomes are clearly stated. Evaluation (grading) procedures and standards are clearly stated.
B. Course content: Course content is current; it is based on contemporary research and practice in the field.
C. Course structure and design: Teaching/learning methods, technological tools, and course materials appropriate to each
course are used to facilitate communication and active learning. Practical applications are infused into course materials and pedagogy. Final exam (or appropriate final project/exercise) is held according to the University
calendar and policy unless exemption is granted by the Department Chair.
D. Evaluation of student performance (grading): Course contains multiple, timely, and appropriate methods of measuring student
performance. Course objectives and performance measurement are in alignment. Quality and timely feedback is provided to students about their performance.
E. Assessment of Learning Outcomes Instructor collects assessment data in a timely and appropriate manner according to a
schedule supplied by the Department Chair. Instructor participates and contributes to the Department’s review and refinement of the
assessment process, procedures, and outcomes.
4
F. Student Evaluation of Instruction Student evaluations are administered according to College/University schedule and
procedures. A majority of student ratings on the instructor-related items below will exhibit a mean
rating of 2 or higher; a majority of written student comments about the items will be positive.
o Instructor provides performance feedbacko Instructor interest in student learningo Instructor communication of ideas and informationo Instructor communication of performance expectations in courseo Instructor availability to assist students outside the classroomo Instructor respect and concern for studentso Instructor stimulation of interest in the subjecto Instructor facilitation of learning
Faculty members will achieve student ratings in the category “Overall Assessment of Instruction” on the Student Perception of Instruction Reports of at least 50% in the “Good,” “Very Good,” and “Excellent” categories (accumulated across all courses taught during the evaluation period).
G. Curriculum development Active participation in department and/or program curriculum review and development
process when asked/elected to do. Active participation in deliberations on assessment process results.
H. Interactions with Students Student advising is performed when called upon to do so. Classes are held according to the University schedule. Instructor responds to student email messages in a timely fashion. Office hours are posted, are adequate in number, and are held when scheduled.
Table 4. Additional Teaching Standards (for current year evaluation period):
1. Course design/delivery exhibits extraordinary innovation/creativity2. Student learning is enhanced through creative and/or extraordinary use of technology3. Student ratings of instruction on the 8 items in (F) above place instructor in top half of
department (all full-time faculty)4. Student ratings of instruction on the 8 items in (F) above place instructor in top quartile
of department (all full-time faculty)5. * Teaching award (s) from external organizations, e.g., American Marketing Association,
Academy of Marketing Science, etc.6. * Excellence in Teaching Award at the University level 7. Excellence in Teaching Award at the College level 8. * TIP Award 9. One or more independent studies supervised10. Major course revision undertaken-must be thoroughly documented in portfolio11. One or more new courses prepared and delivered
5
12. Honors-in-Major thesis(es) supervised13. Honors-in-Major thesis(es) committee member14. Multiple course preparations (GT 2) during a term15. W, M, or V course developed and delivered16. Streamed video class(es) delivered17. Course GPA indicative of the ability to discriminate among student performance levels18. Assigned classes demand extraordinary travel, e.g., classes delivered at multiple locations
(GT 2) during a term19. Large numbers of students taught (equal to or GT one standard deviation above
department average SCHs (not including the core class).20. Textbook (or revision) published21. Course supplements, templates, workbooks, software for classroom use published (can
be associated with a textbook or sold alone)22. Publication of a refereed journal article on an education topic23. Publication of a conference proceedings article on an education topic24. Track or session chair, discussant or reviewer for professional conferences (teaching-
related session)25. Participation (chair or panel member) in a conference panel on teaching-related issues26. Consistent use of higher-order learning activities in courses, e.g., essay exams,
27. Requirement of individual projects, cases, and/or papers in course28. Integration of writing and/or speaking assignments into course29. Integration of a computer simulation into course pedagogy30. Incorporating student projects with companies in the region into course(s)31. Guest speaker series developed and implemented for course(s)32. Significant relationship/involvement with industry that benefits teaching in some tangible
way33. Internal or external grants related to teaching won34. Participation in PhD student training and mentoring (teaching seminars, etc.)35. Teaching seminars/presentations conducted (internal/external), e.g., Parent’s Weekend,
New Student Orientations, etc.36. Attendance at two or more teaching local/regional/national workshops or training
modules during the evaluation period37. Completion of the IDL6543 class on web class design and development38. Successful completion of other teaching-related activities as assigned by the chair during
the evaluation period
Notes: (1) The above list is not considered exhaustive; faculty members may bring to the attention of the chair and thoroughly document activities not included in the above list; those may be counted towards the teaching performance evaluation. (2) Winning any of the teaching awards marked with an asterisk ( * ) during the evaluation year results in a teaching evaluation of “Outstanding” for the evaluation year. (3) Chair has the discretion to weight one or more of the above criteria more heavily based on performance that is significantly above the department norm. _______________________________________________________________________
6
Evaluation of Research Performance-Tenured Faculty
The research component of each tenured faculty member's assignment will be evaluated based on research accomplishments over the most recent five-year period. Publications (accepted or conditionally-accepted) are counted for the latest 5-year period (includes the evaluation year). Newly-hired tenured faculty members will count research publications from their prior academic position(s) in the 5-year window. Research accomplishments will be rated using the scale in Table 2.
The Chair shall consider research productivity and the contribution of this productivity to each faculty member’s research program and to the mission and goals of the Department and College. It is the responsibility of faculty members to fully document their research productivity and activities in the annual report. The Chair’s assessment includes the quantity and quality of publications in scholarly journals and other academic outlets, research contracts and grants, and other activities included in the list below. In determining the relative importance of different indicators of research productivity, the Chair will give the highest importance to the following indicators (see Table 6 for additional standards):
1. The quantity and quality of publications in peer-reviewed journals and other academic outlets,
2. Research publications in proceedings of national and international conferences,3. Research presentations at national and international conferences,4. Internal and external awards recognizing published research,5. Maintenance of academic qualification for AACSB/SACS accreditation,6. Research grants and contracts, and7. Other contributions to the research productivity of the Department.
An illustrative listing of journals and their respective quality categories are provided in Appendix B. The journal listing in Appendix B is not exhaustive; it also may be evaluated and revised periodically by the Department.
Evaluation of research will utilize the guidelines listed below:
a) An “Outstanding” evaluation will be assigned if the faculty member has excelled in several or all of the indicators listed above to evaluate research performance.
b) An “Above Satisfactory” evaluation will be assigned if the faculty member meets the criteria for ‘satisfactory’ and has significant contributions to two or more of the indicators.
c) A “Satisfactory” evaluation will indicate the faculty member has published in high quality peer-reviewed journals or other academic outlets appropriate to the workload assignment and has made some additional contributions.
d) A “Conditional” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet Department expectations for publications in high quality peer-reviewed journals or other academic outlets appropriate to the workload assignment.
e) An “Unsatisfactory” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet Department expectations for publications in high quality peer-reviewed journals or other academic outlets appropriate to the workload assignment, and also fails to make contributions in a majority of the other indicator areas.
7
Evaluation of Research Performance-Tenure Earning FacultyPreface: Appraisal of Progress toward Promotion and Tenure
Consistent with University policy and time deadlines, tenure-earning faculty members in the Department of Marketing will be independently reviewed each year by a Department committee comprised of all tenured faculty members. Separate reviews will be conducted by the Department Chair and the Dean. Each tenure-earning faculty member will submit for review a comprehensive dossier of research publications and work in progress, in addition to his/her annual performance report. Promotion and tenure appraisals are based on cumulative performance, including the current year. The Chair may consider appraisal outcomes when assessing annual performance.
With respect to expectations, the Department places primary emphasis on publishing discipline-based scholarship in top quality refereed journals. In addition to an emphasis on targeting and placing scholarship in top quality outlets, consistency in producing scholarship over the years leading to application for promotion and/or tenure, as well as a strong programmatic focus to the scholarship are of prime importance.
A successful applicant for promotion and/or tenure must demonstrate competence in scholarship and have made significant contribution(s) to the advancement of knowledge in a (some) well-defined area(s) of the marketing discipline. Moreover, there is an assessment of the likelihood that research performance after achieving promotion and/or tenure will continue at, or exceed, current levels of performance. A major indicator of this proclivity is establishing oneself as the primary/lead researcher in a well-defined program of research focused on a specific area in the marketing discipline. Evidence of the contribution takes the form of an accumulated number of publications in top-quality, peer-reviewed journals, as well as a significant amount of quality research under review and in-process. It is expected that a number of refereed journal placements will be in the best outlets in marketing.
Research Evaluation Standards for Tenure-Earning FacultyTable 5 provides the specific standards that must be met in order to achieve a rating on research of Satisfactory, Above Satisfactory, and Outstanding, given the assigned workload track for a tenure-earning faculty member (normally four courses or less). Publications are counted cumulatively for untenured faculty members, until the time at which the P&T dossier is constructed (normally just prior to the beginning of the sixth year). The research window for faculty members hired with some number of years credit towards tenure will be the number of years credit plus years at UCF. Newly-hired faculty members from their PhD programs or with no credit towards tenure from prior positions may count research publications from their PhD programs and/or prior positions in the 5-year window. Necessarily, new faculty with publications from their PhD programs and/or prior academic positions will need to establish and accumulate a research record at UCF that is consistent, programmatic, and sufficient in quantity and quality.
Table 5. Research Evaluation Standards for Tenure-Earning Faculty (4 courses or fewer workload assignment)
Year counted for P/TEnd of First Year P&T appraisal of at least At-
Expectation on researchMeet the requirements for Satisfactory, plus have additional work in process (e.g., manuscripts under review, working papers, etc.) or manuscripts accepted for publication in peer-reviewed (P-R) journals
Meet the requirements for Satisfactory, plus have significant additional work in process (e.g., manuscripts under review, working papers, etc.) or manuscripts accepted for publication in higher quality P-R journals (category A minus or higher)
End of Second Year P&T appraisal of at least At-Expectation on research, with evidence of a programmatic stream of quality work in process
Meet the requirements for Satisfactory, plus have additional work in process (e.g., manuscripts under review, working papers, etc) and at least one manuscript conditionally or accepted for publication in a P-R journal (category A minus or higher)
Meet the requirements for Satisfactory, plus have significant additional work in process (e.g., manuscripts under review, working papers, etc.), and more than one manuscript conditionally or accepted for publication in a P-R journal (category A minus or higher)
End of Third Year P&T appraisal of at least At-Expectation on research, with at least one manuscript conditionally or accepted in an A plus journal
Meet the requirements for Satisfactory, plus have additional work in process (under advanced review, working papers), and at least one manuscript conditionally or accepted for publication in a P-R journal (category A minus or higher)
Meet the requirements for Satisfactory, plus have significant additional work in process (under advanced review, working papers), and more than one manuscript conditionally or accepted for publication in a P-R journal (category A minus or higher)
End of Fourth Year P&T appraisal of at least At-Expectation on research, with at least one manuscript conditionally or accepted in an A plus journal, and at least one manuscript conditionally or accepted for publication in a P-R journal (category A minus or higher)
Meet the requirements for Satisfactory, plus have additional work in process (e.g., manuscripts under advanced review, working papers, etc.), and have more than one manuscript conditionally or accepted for publication in a P-R journal (category A minus or higher)
Meet the requirements for Satisfactory, plus have significant additional work in process (e.g., manuscripts under advanced review, working papers, etc.), and have at least two manuscripts conditionally or accepted in A plus journals (at least one of which has to be in marketing), and at least one additional manuscript conditionally or accepted in a P-R journal (category A minus or higher)
End of Fifth Year P&T appraisal of at least At-Expectation on research, and have at least two manuscripts conditionally or accepted in A plus journals (at least one of which has to be in marketing), and at least one additional manuscript conditionally or accepted in a P-R journal (category A minus or higher), plus at least two activities from the listing below
Meet the requirements for Satisfactory, plus have additional work in process (e.g., manuscripts under advanced review, working papers, etc.), plus at least three activities from the listing below
Meet the requirements for Satisfactory, plus have significant additional work in process (e.g., manuscripts under advanced review, working papers, etc.), plus at least four activities from the listing below
Conditional and Unsatisfactory evaluations of research for tenure-earning faculty:
9
a. A “Conditional” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet the requirements in Table 5 for an evaluation of “Satisfactory.”
b. An “Unsatisfactory” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet the requirements in Table 5 for an evaluation of “Satisfactory” and shows little to no promise of being able to improve.
Table 6. Additional Research Standards (during the evaluation year):
1. Section editor of refereed journal2. Best paper award from conferences3. External grant awards of $10,000 or more (includes ORC grants)4. Guest lectureship in research at other colleges, universities, and institutes5. Research presentations made to the business community6. International, national, or regional research awards7. Membership on PhD dissertation committees8. Chair of PhD dissertation committee9. Membership on advisory research councils10. Membership on editorial review board of academic journal11. Ad-hoc reviewer for peer-reviewed journals/conference proceedings in the discipline12. Research presentations at international, national, or regional conferences13. Publication of research books or research monographs14. *Significant research award (s) from journals, external organizations, etc.15. *RIA award 16. *University Excellence in Research Award17. CBA Excellence in Research Award18. Research workshops conducted (internal and external)19. Track or session chair, discussant or reviewer for professional conferences (research-
related)20. Sole authorship in a top journal (Category A or B) in the discipline21. Publication in A+, A, and A- journals in the discipline22. Publications that have a particularly strong contribution/significance to theory, method,
and/or practice as indicated by citation indices, etc.23. Evidence that faculty member has established an international/national reputation in a
specific area of research24. Evidence of a number of research projects in process that are consistent with the research
program25. Demonstration of a programmatic approach to research 26. Demonstration of temporal consistency in publication activity27. Successful completion of other research-related activities as assigned by the chair during
the evaluation period
Notes: (1) The above list of research indicators is not considered exhaustive; faculty members may bring to the attention of the chair and document activities not included in the above list that may be counted towards the research performance evaluation. (2) Winning any of the research awards marked with an asterisk ( * ) during the evaluation year results in a research evaluation of Outstanding for the evaluation year. (3) The faculty member and department chair may determine that certain research activities that require extraordinary time commitments may count as more than one research activity. (4) The Chair has the discretion to evaluate and apply
10
research equivalencies to the minimum publication standards as well as the discretion to evaluate the contribution, value, and quality of out-of-field (non-marketing) publications, as well as to differentially weight recent contributions more heavily.
The service component of each faculty member's assignment will be evaluated for the current calendar evaluation year by the Chair and rated using the scale in Table 2. Service is expected of all faculty members. Individual ratings are associated with a record of consistent effort and quality contributions. However, the type of service activity can be expected to vary based on the professional focus of a given individual. The Chair shall consider the full range of service contributions in evaluating the service performance of faculty members. Service contributions upon which faculty members will be assessed may include activities at the departmental, college and/or university levels; external professional involvement in one’s discipline; and public/community service. Documentation and other supporting evidence demonstrating service activities/contributions are provided by the faculty member in the annual report. All service activities performed during the current calendar evaluation year will be evaluated. Service contributions in each of these three broad areas may include (see Table 7 for a detailed listing):
1. Department, College, and/or University-level service, including committee activities and governance leadership positions, student advising; guest lectureships; and faculty senate duties, among others.
2. Professional service to the discipline, including professional association activities (e.g., committee or executive council membership) and reviewing promotion and tenure dossiers for candidates at other institutions, among others.
3. Public/Community service, including expert activities in conjunction with businesses and committee membership at the local, state, or federal levels (e.g., task force or program assessment committee activities), among others.
Evaluation of service will utilize the guidelines listed below:
a) An “Outstanding” evaluation will be assigned if the faculty member has made exceptional contributions in two or three of the areas described above.
b) An “Above Satisfactory” evaluation will be assigned if the faculty member has made significant contributions in one or more of the areas described above.
c) A “Satisfactory” evaluation will indicate the faculty member has been active in one or more of the three areas described above during the period of evaluation.
d) A “Conditional” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet the criteria above to achieve a “Satisfactory” evaluation.
e) An “Unsatisfactory” evaluation is assigned if a faculty member fails to meet the criteria above to achieve a “Satisfactory” evaluation, and actively resists/rejects participation in service activities, whether they might be elected, appointed, or ad hoc requests from the Chair.
Table 7. Service Activities (for evaluation period):
11
1. Regular attendance at Department and College faculty meetings, unless excused by the Department chair because of conflicting professional engagements, e.g., teaching, conference attendance, advisory board meeting, etc.
2. Program coordinator in the Department, e.g., PhD program, internship program, etc.3. Attend at least one CBA commencement ceremony during the evaluation year as
scheduled by the Department Chair. A faculty member may be excused from this requirement because of extraordinary circumstances.
4. Service on Department faculty recruiting committee and/or conference interviewing committee
5. Service on PhD student advisory committee and/or examination committee6. Faculty advisor to student organizations, groups, competitions, etc. 7. Member of Department, College, or University committees/task forces beyond the basic
expectation listed above (each membership counts)8. Chair of Department, College, or University committees/task forces beyond the basic
expectation listed above9. Professional service to scholarly and professional organizations, governmental boards,
agencies, and commissions, at the state, regional, or national level10. Editor of conference proceedings11. Editor of national or regional research publications12. Editor of International/national/regional journal13. Editor of special issue of a refereed journal14. Leadership position related to accreditation activities15. * Excellence in Service Award won at the College, University, or National level 16. Leadership position related to a University activity or initiative17. Presentations and/or service to public schools or other higher education agencies18. Profession-related talks or speeches delivered to university, local, regional, or
national/international groups or organizations19. Leadership role in professional and/or community organizations impacting the
discipline/profession 20. Member of an accreditation site visit team or review board21. External reviewer for promotion and tenure case at another university22. Reviewer of book(s) for peer reviewed journal23. Officer in an organization relevant to the discipline, e.g., AMA, AMS, etc.24. Successful completion of other service activities as agreed upon by the faculty member
and the Chair
Notes: (1) The above list is not considered exhaustive; faculty members may bring to the attention of the chair and document activities not included in the above list that may be counted towards the service performance evaluation. (2) The faculty member and department chair may determine that certain activities that require extraordinary time commitments may count as more than one service activity. (3) Winning a service award (internal/external) designated above with an asterisk ( * ) during the evaluation year results in a service evaluation of Outstanding for the evaluation year. (4) UFF service does not count as service to the department, college, or university and will not be evaluated as such. (5) The Chair has the discretion to vary from the above standards for faculty assigned to regional campuses where opportunities for performing service differ from those available on the main campus.
12
Reporting Service Participation. It is the faculty member’s responsibility to demonstrate that a reported service activity represented a valuable contribution and a significant time commitment. When listing service activities in the annual report, a faculty member must provide a brief description of the activity, including information such as the number of meetings, and an estimate of the amount of time spent on the activity during the evaluation year. If this information is not provided, the service activity will not be factored into the annual evaluation. Service assignments which result in little or no effort during the evaluation period will not be factored into the annual evaluation.
Other university duties are occasionally assigned for special activities such as administrative duties or other special projects. Since the nature of these assignments is variable, no attempt is made to specify evaluation dimensions in proportion to the total amount of time the assignment is weighted in the annual assignment form.
Relationship between Annual Evaluations and Tenure/Promotion
The results of a faculty member’s annual evaluations in the College of Business Administration represent just one of numerous components that are examined in the University tenure and/or promotion process. Therefore, it should not be construed that achieving a Satisfactory or above rating on any or all annual evaluations will automatically result in a positive tenure or promotion to associate professor decision. The same is true for evaluation of promotion to the rank of Professor.
This revised version of the Marketing AESP plan is effective for the 2010 evaluation year, i.e., for evaluations performed in Spring 2011.
Appendix A
DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING WORKLOAD ASSIGNMENT APPLICATION
13
Annual Evaluation Standards and Procedures
Date
Faculty Name (PRINT)
Faculty Department or School
Current Workload Assignment (No. of courses per academic year)
Proposed Workload Assignment (No. of courses per academic year)
Term Proposed Workload Assignment Would Begin (Semester & year)
Summary Justification for Assignment (Use only the space below)
Required Attachments:Current VitaSummary of Research Activities
14
Annual Evaluation Standards and Procedures Workload Assignment Procedures and Standards
Standards
1. Each faculty member’s chair/director, in consultation with the Dean, will determine the appropriateness of the requested workload assignment. The determination will be based upon the relationship between the requested assignment and both the college’s and department’s mission and goals and the needs and professional development of the faculty member.
2. Each faculty member’s annual performance evaluation will be based upon the actual workload for that year. That is, it will be based upon the actual number of courses taught, the actual research assignment, etc.
Procedures
1. Workload assignments and changes in workload assignments will be made in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Every third year each faculty member will request a track assignment (number of courses within the track range) that will last for a period of three years. This request must be made in writing by May 1 of the year preceding the spring semester in which the new workload assignment is to begin. Requests for an assignment should be made by submitting the Faculty Workload Assignment Application (Appendix A). Endowed Chair and Professorship holders will be evaluated in accordance with College policy. Faculty will be notified of the approved workload assignment within 45 days of the receipt of the application by the Chair and Dean. Workload assignments for untenured faculty are made by the Chair and Dean.
2. After a comprehensive review of the application, the Chair, in consultation with the Dean, will make the final decision on track assignment. The Chair will notify the faculty member of the assignment prior to making the final written assignment. If a faculty member is assigned to a track other than the track for which application was made, upon receiving that faculty member’s written request, the chair will have a conference with the faculty member regarding the approved assignment. Upon written request, a faculty member may appeal the workload assignment to the Dean.
3. The Department Chair, in consultation with the faculty member, will decide on the distribution of courses between the fall and spring semesters. For example, a faculty member assigned to the “ F “ track (3 courses per year) could teach a 1-2 load, a 2-1 load, a 0-3 load or a 3-0 load. In making this allocation the chair will balance the faculty member’s research and teaching goals with department’s teaching needs and objectives.
4. A faculty member may request reassignment to a different workload track during the course of a three-year assignment period. This request can be made by submitting a new Faculty Workload Assignment Application to the Chair by May 1 of the year preceding the spring semester in which the proposed new workload assignment would begin. The process for reviewing and responding to the application will be the same as the process
15
described in item 2 above. Any change in workload assignment initiated by the Chair will be based on demonstrated performance and department needs and objectives. The Dean must approve all changes in workload assignments.
Summary of Research Activities
1. Describe the research theme(s) that you will emphasize over the upcoming three years. Indicate why you believe this theme(s) is important.
2. Complete the following Faculty Research Summary for both current and proposed research.
A Plus (Premier) Journals Journal of Marketing ResearchJournal of MarketingJournal of Consumer ResearchManagement ScienceMarketing ScienceA Journals Journal of RetailingJournal of the Academy of Marketing ScienceMarketing LettersInternational Journal of Research in MarketingJournal of Service ResearchA Minus JournalsJournal of Consumer PsychologyJournal of Personal Selling and Sales ManagementJournal of Product Innovation ManagementJournal of Advertising ResearchJournal of Public Policy and MarketingB Plus JournalsJournal of AdvertisingPsychology & MarketingJournal of International MarketingJournal of MacromarketingIndustrial Marketing ManagementB Journals European Journal of Marketing International Marketing Review Journal of Business-to-Business MarketingJournal of Business and Industrial MarketingJournal of Consumer AffairsJournal of Consumer MarketingJournal of Current Issues and Research in AdvertisingJournal of Direct MarketingJournal of Global MarketingJournal of Health Care MarketingJournal of the Market Research Society (UK)Journal of Marketing EducationJournal of Marketing Theory & PracticeJournal of Pricing ManagementJournal of Services MarketingMarketing Education Review
Department of MarketingAddendum to AESP
Workload Tracks for Non-Tenure Earning Positions
This addendum to the AESP recognizes the role of full-time faculty with non-tenure-earning appointments. As listed in Table 1, the plan has three work assignment tracks for non-tenure earning instructor and lecturer positions.
Table 1. Workload Assignment Tracks
TrackAcademic Year Teaching
Assignment (or equivalent)ABC
8 courses7 courses6 courses
Table 2 contains the target weights for teaching, research and service for the non-tenure track instructor and lecturer AESP options.
Table 2. Evaluation Weights by Workload Assignment for Instructor and Lecturer Positions
1. Upon hire, faculty members appointed to instructor or lecturer positions will request a track assignment in consultation with the Chair. It is normally expected that Instructors will be assigned to Track A. Lecturers will normally be assigned to Tracks B or C. Faculty requesting Tracks B or C will also request target weights for teaching, research, and service within the ranges specified. The Chair and Dean will make the final decision on the initial track assignments and target weights.
2. All other aspects of work assignments, change procedures, and assessment of performance will be made using the policies and procedures outlined in Part I of the Marketing AESP. Evaluation of teaching, research, service, and other activities will be made as outlined in Part II of the Marketing AESP.
