PART 1: PURPOSE

This Rule affirms that the regular faculty are to be evaluated based on their performance in the Four Areas of Faculty Effort (See Part 3 below), and in accordance with their respective assigned workload’s Allocation of Effort. (See Also ARP 9.33 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure: The Professorial Ranks) This Rule also provides guiding principles (Part 2), the elements required to be in each Principal Unit’s Performance Evaluation policies (Part 4), and procedural guidelines relating to annual performance evaluation of the regular faculty (Part 5). (See Also ARP 6.71 Department Head Appointments and ARP 6.35 – Non-tenure Track Faculty Appointments.)

PART 2: GUIDING PRINCIPLES RELATING TO ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

(See Also  ARP 6.61 - Assignments – Teaching Load)

1. Service to Mission: The amount of effort that faculty members regardless of rank or position devote to the various aspects of their duties necessarily varies, and any promotion and tenure process will recognize these variations. A successful process considers whether the faculty member is effectively serving the mission of the university, as defined by a department’s criteria and the individual’s agreed upon goals and objectives. This means, for example, that the efforts of a faculty member made in response to administrators or committees are taken into account during promotion and tenure evaluation.
2. Consideration for Variance in Duties: The efforts of two faculty members may vary at the same points in their careers according to their particular strengths and department needs. Faculty assignments in different departments will also vary. For example, a department or program must not impose similar expectations for scholarship and creative activity, service, extension, or outreach from a faculty member teaching one class a semester as from another faculty member teaching three classes a semester or several large lecture classes.
3. Equitable Treatment: In order to ensure equitable treatment, every faculty member will complete an Allocation of Effort statement (See Part 4. B. 1. below) as part of the Annual Performance Evaluation process. When determining the Allocation of Effort, decisions must be made without regard to race, national origin, gender, gender identity, age, disability, political beliefs, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, special friendships, or animus towards candidates. Further, for the Allocation of Effort statement to be accurate and useful, administrators at all levels must understand and take an active role in avoiding institutional factors that could produce an undue burden on untenured faculty members.

PART 3: THE FOUR AREAS OF FACULTY EFFORT: TEACHING AND ADVISING, SCHOLARSHIP AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY, EXTENSION AND OUTREACH, AND SERVICE

1. Evaluation Emphasizes Four Areas of Faculty Effort
   Serious attention must be given to performance in the Four Areas of Faculty Effort: teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, service, and extension and outreach. The relative importance of each of these areas varies according to the cumulative Allocation of Effort statements. Each area is vital to the university’s ability to achieve its mission, and the performance of a faculty member will be viewed as an indication of future contributions.
2. Leadership May Be Considered in Each Area of Faculty Effort
   While a faculty member’s performance must be evaluated through their contributions to the Four Areas of Faculty Effort, leadership is an important component. Leadership must not be considered as a separate area to be evaluated. Rather, when applicable, its value should be considered in how they affect performance in one or more of the Four Areas of Faculty Effort.
3. Teaching and Advising
   1. Description of Teaching and Advising Activities:
      1. Elements of Teaching as Essential Criterion: Teaching is central to NMSU’s mission. For those who teach, effectiveness in teaching and advising is an essential criterion for tenure and for advancement in rank. The teaching and advising category includes all forms of university-level instructional activity, as well as advising undergraduate and graduate students, both within and outside the university community. Such activities are commonly characterized by the dissemination of knowledge within a faculty member’s area of expertise; skill in stimulating students to think critically and to apply knowledge to human problems; the integration and application of relevant domestic and international, social, political, economic, and ethical implications into class content; the preparation of students for careers in specific fields of study; and the creation and supervision of appropriate field or clinical practicums.
      2. Responsibilities of Teaching and Advising: Teaching and advising responsibilities may include, but are not limited to, preparation for and teaching of a variety of courses, seminars, and other academic learning experiences; non-credit workshops and informal instructional activities; course and program development; team or collaborative teaching; web-based instruction, both on and off campus; supervision of student research, performances, or productions; service on graduate student program and research committees; field supervision and administration of field or clinical experiences; production of course materials, textbooks, web pages and other electronic aids to learning; and others.
      3. Forms of Faculty Advising: Faculty advising may take the form of assisting undergraduate or graduate students in the selection of courses or careers, assisting learners in educational programs on and off campus, mentoring students, serving as faculty adviser to student groups, research and teaching advising, as well as other forms.
         (See Also ARP 9.32 Part 8, “University Library Faculty”)
   2. Evaluation Criteria for Teaching and Advising:
      1. Evidence to Assess Teaching Effectiveness: Teaching is a complex and multifaceted activity. Therefore, several forms of evidence should be used to assess comprehensively teaching effectiveness. Each form of evidence will be weighted according to appropriate to its importance in evaluating teaching. Such documentation must demonstrate command of subject matter, the ability to organize material and convey it effectively to students, and assessment of student learning. It may also demonstrate revision and updates of curricula, and the integration of scholarship (for faculty who produce scholarship) and service with teaching. Materials appropriate for evaluating teaching should include: (a) evidence from the instructor, (b) evidence from other professionals, (c) evidence from students, and (d) evidence of student learning. It is not necessary for all four types of evidence to be used, but in accordance with state law, at a minimum, student evaluations and one other form of evidence must be used. Student evaluations considered as part of performance evaluations, may not include numerical ratings, letter grades, or other “scores” of specific aspects of the course, the course as a whole, or of the instructor.
      2. Principal Units to Develop Guidelines: Each Principle Unit is to create clear guidelines for its teaching faculty that define teaching responsibilities and specify required evidence documenting teaching effectiveness. Specific data to be included in the evaluation packet will be determined by each Principle Unit.
      3. Evaluation of Advising: For evaluation promotion and tenure considerations, performance in such activities must be documented and evaluated. Each Principle Unit is to create clear guidelines regarding the responsibilities and documentation requirements for its faculty who advise or mentor.
4. Scholarship and Creative Activity:
   1. Description of Scholarly and Creative Activities:
      1. Rationale: This understanding is grounded in Boyer’s concept of the four scholarships:
         1. The scholarship of discovery involves processes, outcomes, and the passionate commitment of the professoriate and others in the university to disciplined inquiry and exploration in the development of knowledge and skills;
         2. The scholarship of teaching involves dynamic, reciprocal, and critically reflective processes among teachers and learners at the university and in the community in which their activity and interaction enriches and transforms knowledge and skills, taught and learned;
         3. The scholarship of engagement refers to the many and varied ways to responsibly offer and employ knowledge and skills to matters of consequence to the university and the community; and
         4. The scholarship of integration is the process by which knowledge and skills are assessed, interpreted, and applied in new and creative ways to produce new, richer, and more comprehensive, insights, understanding, and outcomes. Boyer, Ernest L. (1990).
         5. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
      2. NMSU Definition of Scholarship and Creative Activity: Products developed through these processes, are typically public, open to peer review, and available for use by others, but may also include classified projects, protected intellectual property or other confidential materials. Scholarship and creative activity can take many forms, including but not limited to refereed publications and patented intellectual property. At NMSU’s community colleges, scholarship and creative activity includes scholarship that is also evidenced by professional development activities that disseminate knowledge to the college’s learning communities.
      3. Acknowledgement of Land Grant Mission: This definition reflects the university’s mission as the state’s land-grant university, serving the needs of New Mexico’s diverse population through comprehensive programs of teaching and advising, scholarship and creative activity, extension and outreach, and service. It addresses the breadth and diversity of scholarly and creative activity among faculty, staff, and students through which this mission is fulfilled.
   2. Evaluation Criteria for Scholarship and Creative Activity: All scholarly activity and outcomes, regardless of funding source, must consider the following criteria adapted from Diamond:
      1. The activity’s purposes, goals, and objectives are clear. The objectives are realistic and achievable. It addresses important questions in the field.
      2. The activity reveals a high level of discipline-related expertise. The scholar brings to the activity a high level of relevant knowledge, skills, artistry, and reflective understanding.
      3. Appropriate methods are used for the activity, including principles of honesty, integrity, and objectivity. The methods have been chosen wisely, and applied effectively. It allows for replication or elaboration.
      4. The activity achieves its goals and its outcomes have significant impact. It adds consequentially to the field. It breaks new ground or is innovative. It leads to further exploration or new avenues for exploration for the scholar and for others.
      5. The activity and outcomes have been presented appropriately and effectively to its various audiences.
      6. The activity and outcomes are judged meritorious and significant by one’s peers.
      7. The scholar has critically evaluated the activity and outcomes and has assessed the impact and implications on the greater community, the community of scholars and on one’s own work. The scholar uses this assessment to improve, extend, revise, and integrate subsequent work.Diamond, Robert M. (2002). Serving on promotion, tenure, and faculty review committees: A faculty guide, 2nd ed. Bolton, MA: Ankar Publishing.
5. Extension and Outreach:
   1. Description of Extension and Outreach Activities:
      1. The central role of extension and outreach is recognized in that several Principle Units are dedicated to these functions. There are also numerous faculty members in other units for whom extension and outreach are major components of their duties.
      2. Collaborative Effort: Extension and outreach work is collaborative by nature. Faculty should provide evidence of collaboration with whomever necessary to identify local needs, garner resources, discover and adapt new knowledge, design and deliver programs, assess clientele skill changes, and communicate program results. Collaborative effort should also include networking with other university faculty in identified areas of program discovery, development, and delivery, including applications to teaching and advising where appropriate.
   2. Evaluation Criteria for Extension and Outreach: Faculty must provide evidence of the collaborative and other efforts to receive recognition in this Area of Faculty Effort.
      1. The documentation should provide evidence that the work is:
         1. creative and intellectual;
         2. communicated to stakeholders; and
         3. have a beneficial effect on stakeholders and the region.
      2. Components of extension include:
         1. developing programs based on locally identified needs, concerns, and/or issues; targeting specific audiences;
         2. setting goals and objectives for the program;
         3. reviewing current literature and/or research for the program;
         4. planning appropriate program delivery;
         5. documenting changes in clientele knowledge, behaviors, attitudes, and/or skills;
         6. conducting a reflective critique and/or evaluation of the program;
         7. validation of the program by peers and/or stakeholders; and
         8. communicating results to stakeholders and decision makers.
6. Service
   1. Description of Service Activities: Service is an essential component of the university’s mission and requires the faculty member to contribute to the organization and development of the university, as well as to provide service to local, state, national, or international agencies, organizations or institutions which may benefit from the faculty member’s professional knowledge and skills.
   2. Evaluation Criteria for Service Activities: The type and amount of service that a faculty member performs should be determined in consultation with the appropriate administrator(s). All relevant activities in which a faculty member participates should receive appropriate consideration for promotion and tenure decisions. Service contributions should be evaluated based on how they are applied and how they draw upon the professional expertise of the faculty member.

PART 4: REQUIREMENTS FOR PRINCIPAL UNITS’ EVALUATION POLICIES

1. Policies
   Performance evaluation policies of the Principle Units must:
   1. State that Performance Evaluations are conducted annually.
   2. Include a timeline consistent with the timeline for promotion and for tenure as described in ARP 9.25 Part 9, “University Timeline for Promotion and Tenure.”
   3. Require that each faculty member meet with their department head or comparable administrator annually regarding progress toward promotion and tenure as appropriate, the recording of objectives and goals, and the department faculty evaluation format.
   4. Describe the process for the faculty member to submit a written statement in response to the annual performance evaluations.
   5. Outline process for transmitting the performance evaluation, along with any supporting material, from the faculty member to the faculty member’s department head.
   6. Describe a process for transmitting a written copy of the department head review to the individual being reviewed and, along with the faculty member’s written statement, if any, to the dean or equivalent administrator.
   7. Include a certification from the department head indicating that the Annual Performance Evaluation meeting with the faculty member occurred. The performance evaluation will not be considered final until the meeting has occurred and been documented, typically by the signatures of the Department Head and the faculty member.
2. Performance Evaluation Forms
   Performance evaluation forms in the Principle Units must include the following elements:
   1. Allocation of Effort Statement:
      1. Use of Allocation of Effort Statement: Each college shall develop and use an Allocation of Effort statement as specified here and in ARP 6.61. These statements shall also be a part of the candidate/faculty member’s tenure and/or promotion Portfolio, and all aspects of the agreed upon efforts shall be factored into the recommendation made at each step of the process.
      2. The allocation percentages will be negotiated by the faculty member and the department head in alignment with the departmental workload policy and ARP 6.61, and will be approved annually by the faculty member’s department head and dean. If agreement cannot be reached, the dean or equivalent administrator may assign the Allocation of Effort, and the faculty member may appeal through existing university procedures.
      3. The Allocation of Effort statement and assigned percentages may be altered during the year with the mutual agreement of the faculty member, department head, and dean to reflect changing circumstances, such as service on a particularly time-consuming committee or grant, time for scholarship and creative activity, emergency teaching and advising assignments, etc.
      4. At the minimum, the Allocation of Effort statement will contain the following elements:
         1. Percentage of effort to be devoted to the Four Areas of Faculty Effort. The total percentage shall be 100%, but any category may be zero percent.
         2. A statement of what the Principle Unit considers a full teaching and advising load.
         3. If the Principle Unit utilizes a weighting, ranking, or scoring system, the value assigned to each category must be indicated. The values must be calculated proportionately to the faculty member’s Allocation of Effort.
   2. Current Position Description.
   3. Submission from Faculty Member: A written section submitted by the faculty member detailing and citing accomplishments in relation to the Four Areas of Faculty Effort.
   4. Written Review by Department Head: A written review from the department head including specific commendations, concerns, and recommendations in each of the areas of performance, as well as separate comments about progress toward promotion and tenure.

PART 5: PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

1. The performance of each regular faculty member, including College Faculty, Research Faculty, and library faculty, must be reviewed at least once a year. The Annual Performance Evaluation provides documentation of expectations and a record of faculty performance relative to stated expectations in Allocation of Effort documents.
2. Each college and community college determines and uses its own performance evaluation form (See Part 4.B. above, “Performance Evaluation Forms”). Early in each fall semester the department head supplies each faculty member with a form. At this time the department head confers with new faculty members concerning the recording of objectives and goals and the general use of the form. In the case of continuing faculty members, the department head or faculty may request a conference for the purpose of revising or updating objectives previously agreed upon. Department heads will share the above agreements in writing with the faculty member.
3. Department heads are expected to meet with all new faculty members regarding progress toward promotion and tenure and to certify in writing to the appropriate dean that these meetings have occurred. Returning faculty members or their department heads may request an annual meeting regarding progress toward promotion and tenure. Specific evaluative comments in each of the three areas of performance are required, as well as separate comments about progress toward tenure and toward promotion.
4. Each faculty member completes a written form or digital database detailing and citing accomplishments in Four Areas of Faculty Effort, of teaching, research and/or creative scholarship, service, and extension and outreach during the performance evaluation period. The type, method of collection, and disposition of evidence regarding effectiveness of teaching is of particular importance, and faculty should consult their with department head concerning collection of this evidence. The performance evaluation form, along with any supplemental material, is submitted by each faculty member to the faculty member’s department head.
5. The department head reviews the faculty performance forms, prepares a written evaluation based upon accomplishments reported as compared with previously set goals and objectives (a copy of this report will be shared with the faculty member), and confers with appropriate deans on the written recommendation and the prepared summary to be discussed with the faculty member. Following the conference with the dean, the department head meets with the faculty member to discuss all aspects of the performance evaluation, addressing separately the person’s progress toward promotion, progress toward tenure, strengths, and weaknesses. This conference also serves to set goals and objectives for the ensuing year. These goals and objectives will be placed in writing, with a copy to the faculty member. At community colleges with program coordinators, the coordinator performs the duties of a department head in the evaluation process.
6. Department heads, along with departmental promotion and tenure committees, college dean, and college promotion and tenure committees formulate independent recommendations where appropriate regarding evaluation on the basis of policies stated in this manual. These are communicated to the provost and chief academic officer.
7. Each college generates its own time schedule for accomplishing the above items within the parameters of the university calendar.