A FRAMEWORK FOR FACULTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND MERIT ALLOCATION

I. Premises and Principles A FRAMEWORK FOR FACULTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND MERIT ALLOCATION 1. The criteria and standards are common to all programs within the Haile/US Bank College of Business. 1 Each department will be allocated a merit pool, at the discretion of the Dean, but generally based on its respective payroll, for distribution based on these policies. 2. All full-time faculty must complete documentation for Performance Review. Faculty who are neither Academically Qualified (AQ) nor Professionally Qualified (PQ) per Haile/US Bank College of Business Policy at the time of evaluation will not be eligible for merit pay until AQ or PQ status is achieved. Faculty must submit documentation for Performance Review using college-approved software (at the time of revision, Digital Measures). 3. The order of importance of (degree of contribution to) the individual performance areas to the overall performance rating are in order of descending priority: A. Teaching and Learning B. Scholarly and Creative Activity (Research) C. Service 4. The standards for performance in teaching, scholarly activity/research, and service are consistent with the Faculty Handbook and AACSB accreditation standards. 5. The assessment of teaching and learning will be multidimensional and will not solely rely on student evaluations. 6. Once an intellectual contribution has been evaluated as of good quality by a completed process, that evaluation will remain for all subsequent Performance Review processes. It is possible for an intellectual contribution that has been evaluated of poor quality in a completed Performance Review process to be reevaluated subsequently as of good quality. 7. Only items related to the missions of the department, college, and the University may be included as part of a faculty member's performance record on which an evaluation will be based. 1 Programs new to the Haile/US Bank College of Business may be exempt from these policies for a stipulated amount of time. 1

8. Although multiple, independent ratings of each individual's performance would be preferred, existing University policies, especially some contained in the Faculty Handbook, restrict the Dean from being directly involved in faculty performance evaluations. 9. With the exception of salary equity/market adjustments, annual merit allocation will be based entirely on performance evaluation. 10. The period of evaluation for teaching and service will consist of the previous calendar year. Scholarly and creative activity will have a three-year window. 11. New faculty members will not be disadvantaged in the merit allocation based on performance evaluation. Chairs will conduct all performance reviews based on the previous calendar year for teaching and service, and the three-year window for scholarly and creative activity. New faculty members with less than one calendar year of employment will receive the higher of (a) the average total rating for all faculty in the appropriate department or (b) their own performance rating. All ICs will count if the author is identified as affiliated with Northern Kentucky University. 12. For the policies governing Faculty Performance Evaluation and Merit Allocation, and those governing Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure, the broad category of Intellectual Contributions (ICs) consists of two distinct subcategories. The first is Peer- Reviewed Journal Articles (PRJs) and the second is Other Intellectual Contributions (OICs). For policies governing definitions of Academically Qualified, Professionally Qualified and the definition of Active Scholar the broad category of Intellectual Contributions consists of two categories, a premier category and a secondary category, as described in those policy documents. 13. Administrators in the college will maintain confidentiality of individual performance ratings. Performance ratings within departments or across the college will not be made public. 14. The annual performance evaluation process and either the RPT promotion/tenure decision process or the PTR are independent processes. 15. The rating scales provided in this document serve as a general guideline. 16. The annual merit pool for each department will be allocated 50% based on the Percentage Method, and the other 50% based on the Unit Method. 2

17. Faculty who choose to participate in public engagement projects may include them in multiple categories, where appropriate and with documentation and rationale. 18. For purposes of post-tenure review (PTR) a total evaluation of less than 1.5 equates to an unsatisfactory overall performance evaluation. 19. This document supersedes all previous college guidelines. It will first be utilized in 2011 for performance evaluation and merit allocation covering calendar year 2010. II. Annual Performance Review Faculty members will be evaluated in the areas of teaching and learning, research, and service (see rating scales in Appendix A). The overall evaluation will be the weighted average of the scores received in the three areas. Faculty member performance will be based on the documented evidence in those three areas from the year under review. The weights assigned to each area will be determined by the following: The percentage distribution of faculty workload must be agreed to in writing by the chair and faculty member as part of Performance Review. (see Appendix B). Under the current evaluation weighting plans, in cases where the chair and faculty member cannot reach agreement, the issue may be appealed to the Dean. In rare circumstances, customized weighting plans will be established for assignments not currently included in the framework and must be agreed upon by the faculty member, chair and dean. Evaluation Weighting Plans: 1. Non-tenured, tenure track faculty in the first three years of service towards tenure: Teaching and Learning 60% Research and Scholarship 35% Administration and Service 5% Total 100% 2. Tenured faculty and Non-Tenured, tenure track faculty in years 4 tenure: Teaching and Learning 50% - 70% 3

Research and Scholarship 25% - 45% Administration and Service 5% - 25% Total 100% 3. Full-time lecturer: Teaching and Learning 85%-95%% Research and Scholarship 0% - 10% Administration and Service 5%-15% Total 100% 4. Tenured faculty with administrative assignments*: Teaching and Learning 10% - 25% Research and Scholarship 10% - 25% Administration and Service 50% - 80% Total 100% * Please note that administrative assignments are faculty with half or more reassigned time for administrative role 5. Full-time Advisors: Advising 75% Teaching and Learning 10%-15% Administration and Service 10%-15% Total 100% 4

III PERFORMANCE EVALUATION In accordance with Section IX of the NKU Faculty Handbook, the chair will review the faculty member's performance based on the written documentation provided by the faculty member. The chair's written evaluation summary will include a rating (0-5 with 5 as exceptional), and a completed Faculty Evaluation Form. A. For guidance, the following scale describes performance ratings in each category and total evaluation: Evaluation Ratings Exceptional 5.0 Substantially above expectations 4.0 Above expectations 3.0 Meets expectations 2.0 Unsatisfactory 1.0 Unacceptable 0 5

APPENDIX A RATING SCALES Teaching and Learning The evaluation of teaching is multi-dimensional, requiring consideration of the entire teaching portfolio, including course/instructor evaluations and grade distributions. The following is a general profile of teaching evidence. Not all items must be present and others may be substituted. Multiple items determine performance, and no single item by itself will determine an overall score. 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Weak syllabi, tests, class assignments, learning objectives Documented and verified student concerns about fairness, attendance, class preparation and/or course administration Weak teaching performance as evidenced by weak course content Weak student evaluations Marginall y acceptable Appropriate syllabi, tests, class syllabi, tests, class assignments, learning assignments, objectives learning objectives Marginally acceptable use of technology Marginall y acceptable teaching performance as evidenced by appropriate content Marginally acceptable student evaluations Appropriate use of technology Demonstrated currency in the content of courses taught Documented continuous improvement in courses taught repeatedly Acceptable teaching performance as evidenced by rigorous content as appropriate to courses taught Documented faculty development activities Well-developed and successful course innovations New course preparation (existing course) Strong teaching performance as evidenced by rigorous content as appropriate to courses taught Strong student evaluations Receipt of an external grant for teaching activities As in 3.0 and in addition Distinctive new course preparation(s)* New course development Documented faculty mentoring in teaching activities*. Innovative curricular development that demonstrates continuous improvement beyond singular courses*. Appropriate and relevant use of engaged teaching 1 approaches* Outstanding teaching performance as evidenced by appropriately rigorous Exceptional A rating to be used at the discretion of the chair to reward truly exceptional performance 6

Acceptable student evaluations content High student evaluations Active and documented assessment of course objectives for continuous improvement. Receipt of a major external grant for teaching activities Other activities ( such as independent studies, research mentoring, direction of individual student research and creativity projects that are reflective of diversity in teaching assignments) *As appropriate for faculty rank and opportunity Note: Student evaluations are not needed in classes with fewer than 6 students. 1 Engaged Teaching refers to course or curriculum-related teaching/learning activities that involve students with the community in mutually beneficial ways. This includes, but is not limited to, internships and co-op experiences; service learning and other communitybased learning experiences; the Mayerson Student Philanthropy Program; and involvement in community-based research or other community-based projects. [Note: Engaged teaching focuses on the student s engagement with the community, so it might more aptly be 7

termed engaged learning. (From the NKU Glossary of Outreach and Engagement. Published in Aligning for Public Engagement, Laying the Foundation, 2006) Scholarly and Creative Activity (Research) These policies supplement those found in the Faculty Handbook (IV.B.2). The College will use a three-year window for evaluating scholarly activity. Works may be counted only when published and will be included for three years in the rolling window. All quantities refer to major contributing author status as defined in the Haile/US Bank College of Business active scholar policy. 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Authoring or coauthoring Authoring or co- Authoring or co- As in 3.0 with ICs of a two authoring one peerauthoring two peer- higher quality or greater intellectual reviewed journal reviewed journal quantity contributions, 1 both of article supplemented articles, 2 good quality by two other supplemented by at No scholarship reported intellectual contributions, 1 all of 2 good quality least two other ICs 2 all of good quality 1, Exceptional A rating to be used at the discretion of the chair to reward truly exceptional performance 1 An intellectual contribution must be published, or be a fully documented (i.e., completed manuscript), peer-reviewed presentation. Per AACSB standards, peer reviewed refers to those intellectual contributions reviewed by academic, professional and/or practitioner colleagues. This would include reviews by editorial review boards or editors. research monographs; textbooks and professional/practice/trade and/or scholarly books; chapters in textbooks and professional/practice/trade and/or scholarly books; peer-reviewed proceedings from teaching/pedagogical/professional practice/scholarly meetings; peer-reviewed paper presentations from teaching/pedagogical/professional practice/scholarly meetings that are fully documented (i.e., completed manuscripts); 8

2 faculty research seminars (teaching/pedagogical/professional practice/scholarly); publications in trade journals; peer reviewed cases with instructional materials; instructional software; publicly available materials describing the design and implementation of new curricula or courses; technical reports related to funded projects; publicly available research working papers; and other (with documentation) The quality of intellectual contributions is subject to the judgment of the chair of the department. Intellectual contributions may be evaluated using any combination of the following criteria as documented by materials submitted by the author: The intrinsic quality of the work itself; The quality of the journal/book as evidenced by: o Review Process Faculty must document the review process to demonstrate that it was substantive o Acceptance Rate o Make-up of editorial board o Other factors Evidence of impact: o Citations of the publication o Citations of the journal/book o Circulation or level of adoption o Geographic scope (international vs. national vs. regional) o Other. 9

Service 1 These profiles are general in nature because of the variety of professional service opportunities available. Professional service may be provided to businesses, governmental entities or non-profit organizations. All service to be considered must be related to the mission of the department, the college or the university. The following is a profile of annual service, not all of the items need be present and other equivalent examples of professional service as described in the Faculty Handbook (IV.B.3) may be substituted for those listed. Compensation received for service activities will be considered in the weight given the activity. 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 No evi dence of positive contributions to departmental and college life Membership and participation in professional business organizations. Membership on committees Some continuing, positive contributions to departmental and college life Active membership and participation in professional business organizations. Active membership on committees. Consistent, continuing, positive contributions to departmental and college life Regular attendance at college and departmental meetings Attendance at commencement As in 2.0 and in addition Chairing major committees at the departmental, college, university, state, regional or national level Evi dence of major contributions to the profession Advi sing a student organization Receipt of an external grant for service activities As in 3.0 and in addition Successfully chairing major committees at college, university, state, regional or national level Evi dence of significant contributions to the profession Successful leadership of a college program, center or institute Conducting professional seminars, workshops or similar functions Significant contribution and/or leadership in engaged service 1 * Exceptional A rating to be used at the discretion of the chair to reward truly exceptional performance 10

ceremonies Evi dence of active involvement in the profession Receipt of a major external grant for service activities Documented and significant impact as advisor to a student organization *As appropriate for faculty rank and opportunity 1 Engaged Service is service to the community outside the university; it may benefit Northern Kentucky, the broader region, parts or all of the Commonwealth, the nation or parts of the world. To be considered engaged service, it must relate to the faculty member s discipline or role at the university, and must serve a group other than the faculty member s own disciplinary/professional associations. [Note: Service to a professional or disciplinary association is considered service to the profession.] Examples include workshops, camps, programs, events etc. designed for P-12 students; instructional activities for P-12 teachers including in-service program, professional activities/initiatives, and summer enrichment opportunities; facilitating organizational development in the community, improving existing practices or programs in the community; providing services to support or enhance economic development in the region; providing clinical services including those relating to physical health, mental health, and wellness; providing consulting help, technical assistance, demonstration projects, impact assessment, or poly analysis. If the service results in a peer-reviewed product, then it might also be considered engaged scholarship. Engaged service also includes planning and/or implementing public events, such as teaching non-credit classes or workshops; providing public lectures, arts, performances, and art displays; participating on panels or symposia for public presentations, serving on boards, committees, commissions because of one s disciplinary expertise; writing grant proposals and grant awards for a group outside NKU or for a partnership with a group outside NKU. 11

From the NKU Glossary of Outreach and Engagement. Published in Aligning for Public Engagement, Laying the Foundation, 2006. 1 Administrators (Chairs, Associate Deans) are evaluated by the Dean using a 0-5 scale (0 = Unacceptable to 5.0 = Exceptional) based on the following dimensions: Leadership, Budgeting and Planning, Faculty Affairs, Faculty Evaluations of the Chair, Faculty Evaluations by the Chair, Student Affairs, External Affairs, Scheduling, Contributions to the Executive Team, University Service, Supervision, Accreditation, and other. 12

Rating Scale for Advisor/Lecturers General Guidelines The following is a general profile of advising evidence. Not all items must be present and others may be substituted. Rating Scale 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 D. Advising Acceptable evidence of the following nature will be used to assess quality performance for advising. Student s evaluations of advising will account for no more than 50% of the overall advising evaluation. The following is a general profile of advising evidence. Not all items must be present and others may be substituted. Multiple items determine performance, and no single item by itself will determine an overall score. Advised minimal number of contacts Documented patterns about customer service, preparation, or accuracy Significantly below Advising Center ratio appt : evaluations Unexcused absence or repeated late arrivals. Lack of team effort Unprofessional Advised below average number of contacts Documented patterns about customer service, preparation, or accuracy. Weak performance as evidenced by student evaluations, by Advising Center ratio appt : evaluations, and by input from the chairs Poor Team Effort Inappropriate Professionalism Advised Average number of contacts Documented continuous improvement in advising Appropriate advising performance coupled with acceptable student evaluations and Advising Center ratio appt : evaluations, and by input from the chairs Appropriate use of technology Appropriate Team effort Appropriate Professionalism Advised above average number of contacts Documented continuous improvement in advising Strong advising performance as evidenced by strong student evaluations, by Advising Center ratio appt : evaluations, and by input from the chairs Appropriate use of technology Participation in Training & Development Programs Well-developed and successful advising innovations Documented faculty mentoring in advising activities Good Team Effort Strong Professionalism Advised significantly above the average number of contacts. Distinguishing documented advising development activities. Distinguished advising performance as evidence by high student evaluations, by Advising Center ratio appt : evaluations, and by input from the chairs Innovative use of technology Awards, honors, certificates, presentations and/or publications. Well-developed and successful advising innovations. Documented faculty mentoring in advising activities. Excellent Team effort Excellent Professionalism Exceptional A rating to be used at the discretion of the Assistant or Associate Dean to reward truly exceptional behavior. Exceptional advising performance as evidence by high student evaluations. And Advising Center ratio appt : evaluations, and by input from the chairs 13

Merit Allocation Policy: Percentage Method (half merit pool) APPENDIX A: Allocation of Merit Pay The total evaluation score received by a faculty member shall determine, in direct proportion, his/her share of the total merit pool provided to the department for all continuing faculty. The merit increase distribution policy is based upon the premise that faculty with performance ratings above the average for the department should receive above average percentage distributions and faculty with performance ratings below the average for the department should receive below average percentage distributions. Merit Allocation Policy: Unit Method (half merit pool) Fifty percent of salary distribution is based on the concept that all faculty with the same performance evaluation number will receive the same dollar raise. The process for this method entails summing all of the evaluation numbers (called "units") assigned to faculty and then dividing the raise pool by that total to determine a "dollar per unit" of salary increase. Each individual's salary is then adjusted by the amount of the units earned multiplied by the dollar per unit. Thus, two faculty with identical performance evaluation numbers will have identical dollar increases; the percentage increase will differ if the base differs. 14

APPENDIX B: FACULTY EVALUATION FORM Faculty Evaluation Form Name: Year of Review SUMMARY OF EVALUATION Summary Weight (%) X Rating Evaluation TEACHING/LEARNING X = RESEARCH X = SERVICE/ADMINISTRATION X = TOTAL RATING The following signatures indicate only that the parties have met and discussed the evaluation. If the content is unsatisfactory, the faculty member is responsible for providing a written addendum stating the differences of opinion For purposes of post-tenure review (PTR) a total evaluation of less than 1.5 equates to an unsatisfactory overall performance evaluation. Faculty Member Signature: Date Dept. Chair Signature: Date 15