Nicholls State University regularly evaluates the effectiveness of all faculty members.

Annual Faculty Evaluations

As required by the policies of the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System [1], all full-time faculty members are evaluated at least once annually. Section 2.9 (Promotion and Tenure Policies) of the University's Policy and Procedure Manual describes in detail procedures for evaluation, levels of performance expected, and timelines for reports to be submitted [2]. This section of the handbook clearly articulates what the Board of Supervisors mandates and how Nicholls State University meets those mandates.

At Nicholls, the process established for the yearly evaluation is the formative evaluation described in Section 2.10.3.1 of the University's Policy and Procedure Manual : "the formative evaluation of all instructors and probationary and tenure contract academic faculty shall be conducted by the Department Head in the spring and shall be based upon evidence of performance in the prior calendar year" [3]. Faculty members complete the Faculty Evaluation Agreement form [4] to indicate their goals for teaching, research, and service for the following year and the Common Form [5] to document their accomplishment of those goals. Department Heads then document their assessment of faculty performance using a Department Head Annual Performance Evaluation form [6]. When completing the common form, faculty members assign percentages or weights to specific criteria within the areas of teaching, research/creativity, and service in which they would like to be evaluated during the upcoming year. At the completion of that calendar year, faculty members are then evaluated based on their having met those self-determined criteria. A detailed timeline for the process for the formative evaluation is described in Section 2.10.3.2 of the University's Policy and Procedure Manual [7]. Click here for a sample of a completed Common Forms [8]. Completed Faculty Evaluation Agreement Forms and Department Head Annual Performance Evaluation forms are on file in departmental offices.

Student Evaluations

Students anonymously evaluate faculty performance each semester using the Student Instructional Report II (SIR II) [9]. The SIR II consists of survey questions to which students respond that are related to teaching effectiveness. All full-time faculty members are evaluated each semester in classes that equal one-half of their teaching loads. Part-time or adjunct faculty members are evaluated by every class. In addition to the SIR II, students are also given the opportunity to anonymously complete a narrative section or comment form for each class being evaluated. The SIR II is used annually in year-end evaluations as indicators of teaching effectiveness and cumulatively for promotion and tenure decisions. Results of the SIR II evaluations and narrative or comments are sent to all faculty members to provide information for improving both course delivery and content. Faculty members document improvements they make as a result of this assessment on Form B and/or in the teaching section of the Common Form. Click here for a sample SIR II report [10] and Form B samples [11].

Tenure and Promotion Guidelines and Post-Tenure Review

Guidelines for tenure and promotion, as stated in Section 2.10.3.4 of the University's Policy and Procedure Manual, describe the process for the summative evaluation or peer review [12].

Peer review takes place when faculty members apply for promotion and/or tenure. Tenure and promotion decisions are based on information provided by faculty members in portfolios as well as in formative (yearly) evaluations. Tenure may be granted to those who hold the rank of assistant professor or higher and who have demonstrated excellence in teaching/job effectiveness and or in professional activity. The formative evaluations establish progress toward meeting departmental, college, and university goals for tenure and promotion.

Annual evaluations apply to all faculty members, including those who have been tenured. At Nicholls State University, tenured faculty shall be subject to the Board-mandated remediation after "two (2) consecutive overall unsatisfactory ratings" or after "three (3) overall unsatisfactory ratings in a five (5) year period." Section 2.11.3 of the University's Policy and Procedure Manual lists detailed procedures that apply for "all cases of Board-mandated remediation of tenured faculty" (post-tenure review) [13].

Sample Departmental Formative Evaluation Process

Each department may have its own discipline-specific criteria and may have its own formative evaluation form, but such criteria with appropriate rubrics and such a form must comply at least minimally with the criteria and evidence in the Common Form. The evaluating department head must also require the Common Form in addition to any departmental form.

The Department of Biological and Agricultural Sciences has developed a process specific to its needs. As required by Nicholls State University, all full-time faculty members within the University are evaluated annually. The Department of Biological and Agricultural Sciences adheres to the University's formative evaluation guidelines in teaching, research, and service found in Section 2.10.3.1 of the University's Policy and Procedure Manual. In addition, the Department has developed its own formative evaluation rubric which follows the University's guidelines and which is based on a cumulative point system that can be mathematically converted to the University's criteria for determining meritorious activity in teaching, research, and service.

The formative evaluation is a sequential process that involves the Department's annually electing a formative evaluation committee of three, consisting of a full professor, associate professor, and assistant professor. Newly-hired faculties that are not eligible for evaluation are required to become non-voting members to familiarize themselves with the process. Each faculty member in the Department of Biological and Agricultural Sciences must supply a personal dossier containing documentation of annual activities for assessment. Included in the dossier is a self-evaluation using the Department's point criteria. The formative evaluation committee reviews each dossier and assesses its own point criteria for comparison. The committee also develops written comments to explain any differences in point assessment. The written comments, the self assessment, and the committee assessment are given to the Department Head for review. The Department Head uses the information to develop a final assessment of the dossier and assigns final point values. The Department Head meets with all faculty members, reviews their annual dossier, and notifies them of their evaluation status. This department follows a timeline which is developed yearly by the faculty to be in accordance with the University's timeline. Click here for copy of the Department's evaluation instructions [14] and the Department Head's evaluation rubric [15].

Students evaluate Department faculty each semester using the Student Instructional Report II (SIR II). The SIR II student rating items numbered 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, and 40 are also used as part of the Department of Biological and Agricultural Sciences' formative evaluation process.

The Department of Biological and Agricultural Science's tenure and promotion guidelines follow those of the University's as stated in Section 2.11.3.4 of the University's Policy and Procedure Manual. However, the Department clearly states in its tenure and promotion policy document that an annual excellent rating on the formative evaluation does not guarantee promotion or tenure. Tenure is not available for anyone below the rank of assistant professor.

In each faculty member's third year, the Head of Biological and Agricultural Sciences meets with the faculty member to review progress towards tenure and promotion. In the faculty member's sixth year, a portfolio with proof of academic activities is submitted to the College of Arts and Sciences' peer review committee which evaluates the portfolio and makes its recommendation to the Dean and the Department Head.