Policies and Procedures


Annual Evaluation of Department Chairs

Preamble:  According to guidelines passed by the Faculty Council, an annual review needs to be thorough, fair, and unbiased. An evaluation process designed to improve the performance of the Chair requires a two-way, ongoing exchange of information. The underlying purpose of the review process should be to improve administrative performance and assure accountability for the achievement of departmental goals. The results of the annual reviews should provide valuable input for the annual and three-year reappointment reviews conducted by the Dean of the College of Engineering.

I. Annual evaluations of Department Chairs should be conducted by the tenured members of the elected Departmental Review Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (DRC). In the event that a DRC does not have at least three tenured faculty members, the Department faculty shall elect the necessary additional members from the remaining tenured faculty members in the Department. Tenured faculty members who were deemed ineligible for the DRC because of either review for promotion or service on the College Review Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (CRC) will be eligible to serve on the Chair Department Review Committee (CDRC).

2. The annual review process will be initiated when the Chair submits to the CDRC and to the Department faculty a summary of his/her accomplishments for the current academic year and goals for the upcoming year. Although the evaluation is to be based on the list of responsibilities identified in the Job Description of Chairpersons in the William States Lee College of Engineering, the Chair may also report upon his/her teaching and professional activities. This summary should be provided to the committee on or before April I of the current academic year.

3. Members of the Department faculty shall be invited to send comments on the Chair's performance to the CDRC. While the CDRC may simply ask for a general response, it could also guide these comments by asking for responses to questions such as "What did the Chair do well this year?" "What could this Chair do to improve his/her performance?" and "What other issues do you believe deserve the Chair's attention in the coming year?" The Department may choose to develop a short questionnaire to aid in the feedback process. The CDRC may also wish to seek input from one or more Chairs of other departments in the College of Engineering. The CDRC must guarantee the confidentiality of all responses. The CDRC collects and analyzes these responses. However, in preparing its analysis of the Chair's performance, the CDRC should not be limited solely to summarizing the evaluation responses but should also utilize its independent judgment to prepare an evaluation report and to make recommendations with the goal of improving the Chair's effectiveness. The CDRC's report should also include particular matters of faculty concern, if any.

4. The CDRC submits the draft copy of the evaluation report to the Chair for his/her review and comments.  The CDRC and the Chair may choose to meet to discuss the evaluation, or the Chair may simply reply in writing to the CDRC if he/she has disagreements with statements in the evaluation. The final copy of the evaluation report shall be signed by the Chair indicating that he/she has read the report.  The Chair's signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the report, but merely that he/she has read it. The signed final report, along with any letter of disagreement or explanation by the Chair and any minority reports from the CDRC, will be forwarded to the Dean of the College of Engineering by May 15.

5. After discussing the CDRC's report with the Chair, the Dean prepares a summary of both the CDRC's report and the actions mutually agreed upon by the Chair and the Dean with respect to any recommendations made by the CDRC. The Dean will meet with the CDRC at the beginning of the following academic year to discuss the Dean's recommendations.

May 1998

Appointment, Reappointment and Promotion of Non-Tenure Track Faculty

The William States Lee College of Engineering University of North Carolina at Charlotte July 29, 2014

Background

The William States Lee College of Engineering may employ faculty who are not governed by the college’s Policies and Procedures for Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure. 1 Full-time non-tenure track faculty within the professorial rank are appointed with the expectation that they may be promoted to higher faculty ranks. This document sets forth the guidelines for classification, appointment, review, and promotion of non-tenure track professors.

Classification

Non-tenure track professorial rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor must have one of the following modifiers. • Teaching: a contract with a principal responsibility in teaching • Research: a contract with a principal responsibility in research.

Appointment and Qualifications

Hiring decisions for non-tenure track professors are made by the chair in consultation with the faculty. Non-tenure track professors generally receive multiyear contracts. For faculty engaged in teaching, departments must have documentation that each faculty member is qualified in the subjects assigned, either based on degrees attained or alternative credentials. Documentation must comply with ABET and SACS accreditation standards.

Teaching or Research Assistant Professor • Ability or definite promise in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility. • Potential for directing activities in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility. • Ability and willingness to participate in department, college and university affairs. • Assistant Professors should have a doctor's degree, an equivalent degree, or a minimum of five years of professional experience and a master’s degree.

Teaching or Research Associate Professor • Recognized ability and potential for distinction in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility. • Demonstrated ability to direct activities in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility. • Demonstrated ability and willingness to participate in department, college and university affairs. • Associate Professors should have a doctor's degree, an equivalent degree, or a minimum of eight years of professional experience and a master’s degree.

Teaching or Research Professor • Distinguished achievement in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility. • Demonstrated ability to direct activities in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility. • Established reputation in the individual's profession or field of scholarly activity. • Demonstrated ability and willingness to participate in department, college and university affairs. • Professors should have a doctor's degree, an equivalent degree, or a minimum of ten years of professional experience and a master’s degree.

Evaluation and Reappointment Non-tenure track professors at any rank, are subject to evaluation by the department chair. The term of an appointment is negotiated between the department chair and the faculty member. Extension of the contract at current rank is by the chair’s recommendation and based on annual written evaluations of the candidate’s performance as well as availability of funds and the department’s current needs and priorities.

Promotion Non-tenure track professors are eligible to be considered for promotion in rank at their first contract renewal or any time thereafter. Chairs consider initiating promotion reviews that are appropriate based on the criteria below. The department chair shall form an ad hoc committee of faculty to evaluate a case being considered for promotion. Department chairs recommend promotion of nontenure track faculty to the dean, and the dean makes the final decision.

Documentation The chair’s recommendation to the Office of the Dean for appointment, reappointment and promotion of non-tenure track professors, should include the following documentation and be limited to 10 pages: • Current curriculum vita. • The department chair’s recommendation and written annual evaluations of the faculty member’s activities since the last previous appointment or promotion. • The written recommendation of the ad hoc review committee. • Material directly relevant to the contract assignment, e.g., student evaluations, recommendations from research collaborators, publications, industry recommendations, etc.

The following common guidelines are suggested for promotion to the higher ranks:

Criteria for promotion to the rank of Teaching or Research Associate Professor • Evidence of distinction in the realms of responsibility. • Leadership in collaborative activities that advance the mission of the department, the college, and/or the university. • A minimum of six years of full-time service to the department.

Additional criteria for promotion to the rank of Teaching or Research Professor • Outstanding performance in the realm of responsibility. • Leadership of major department or college efforts to enhance and expand the mission of the college. • A minimum of twelve years of full-time service to the department.

1 https://provost.uncc.edu/academic-budget-personnel/handbook/g-non-tenure-track-faculty-titles


Annual Evaluation of the Dean

Preamble: According to guidelines passed by the Faculty Council, an annual review needs to be thorough, fair, and unbiased. An evaluation process designed to improve the performance of the Dean requires a two-way, ongoing exchange of information. The underlying purpose of the review process should be to improve administrative performance and assure accountability for the achievement of college goals. The results of the annual reviews should provide valuable input for the annual and five- year reappointment reviews conducted by the Provost.

1. Annual evaluations of the Dean of the College of Engineering should be conducted by the Dean College Review Committee (DCRC) composed of the tenured members of the elected College Review Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (CRC). A department that is not represented on the CRC by a tenured faculty member shall elect a representative to the DCRC from the tenured faculty members of the Department.

2. The annual review process will be initiated when the Dean submits to the DCRC and to the College faculty a summary of his/her accomplishments for the current academic year and goals for the upcoming year. Although the evaluation is to be based on the list of responsibilities identified in the Job Description for the Dean in the William States Lee College of Engineering, if appropriate the Dean will also report upon his/her teaching and professional activities. This summary should be provided to the committee on or before April 1 of the current academic year.

3. Members of the College faculty shall be invited to send comments on the Dean's performance to the DCRC. While the DCRC may simply ask for a general response, it could also guide these comments by asking for responses to questions such as "What did the Dean do well this year?" "What could this Dean do to improve his/her performance?" and "What other issues do you believe deserve the Dean's attention in the coming year?" The College may choose to develop a short questionnaire to aid in the feedback process. The DCRC must guarantee the confidentiality of all responses. The DCRC collects and analyzes these responses. However, in preparing its analysis of the Dean's performance, the DCRC should not be limited solely to summarizing the evaluation responses but should also utilize its independent judgment to prepare an evaluation report and to make recommendations with the goal of improving the Dean's effectiveness. The DCRC's report should also include particular matters of faculty concern, if any.

4. The DCRC submits the draft copy of the evaluation report to the Dean for his/her review and comments. The DCRC and the Dean may choose to meet to discuss the evaluation, or the Dean may simply reply in writing to the DCRC if he/she has disagreements with statements in the evaluation. The final copy of the evaluation report shall be signed by the Dean indicating that he/she has read the report. The Dean's signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the report, but merely that he/she has read it. The signed final report, along with any letter of disagreement or explanation by the Dean and any minority reports from the DCRC, will be forwarded to the Provost by May 15.

5. After discussing the DCRC's report with the Dean, the Provost prepares a summary of both the DCRC's report and the actions mutually agreed upon by the Dean and the Provost with respect to any recommendations made by the DCRC. The Provost will be asked to meet with the DCRC at the beginning of the following academic year to discuss the Provost's recommendations.

May 1998


Pickup Truck & Trailer Use Guidelines

Shop Manual
Reference: Univ. Policy Statement #74

Who May Drive

The North Carolina State insurance carrier, Travelers Insurance Company, requires that drivers of university owned vehicles fulfill several requirements.

1.  Drivers must be current, active, employees of the university.

2.  Drivers must hold a current valid driving license from any state.

3.  Drivers must pass a supplemental writing and practical driving test.

a.  This will qualify the driver for a University driving license.

b.  License is issued by University Safety Office

4.  Present the university license when checking out the keys to the  vehicle.

Check Out Guidelines

FACULTY and STAFF:

1.  Faculty and staff of all departments, who hold a valid university driving license, may use the pickup truck to conduct College of Engineering business.

2.  Valid University driving license must be presented for check out.

3.   The keys may be checked out at the Mechanical Shop room #130 A.

4.   Advance notice should be given to insure availability of the vehicle.

5.   A departmental account number must be provided to allow the fuel to be replenished, when the truck is returned, at the Facilities Management pump.

STUDENTS:

1.  Student employees may operate the College of Engineering vehicle.
2.  Faculty approval (Signature) is required.
3.  Student's use must be in support of a sanctioned College of Engineering activity.
4.  The student must obtain a university driving license in compliance with university policy.
5.  Advance notice should be given to insure availability of the vehicle.
6.  A departmental account number must be provided to allow the fuel to be replenished, when the truck is returned, at the Facilities Management pump.

General Guidelines

1.  Before driving away, inspect the vehicle for damage. Make the shop technician aware of any damage you find.

2.  Notify the shop technician as soon as possible of malfunctions or damage so that arrangements for correction can be made.

3.  All trash and personal items must be removed prior to returning the truck.

4.  If the truck is very dirty there are wash racks at the Facilities Management compound. If time does not allow washing, Facilities Management will wash and clean out the truck for an additional charge of $15.00.

5.  The truck should be returned with a full tank of gas:

a. WHILE ON THE ROAD:

Buy gas using your personal cash or your credit card and submit a check request for reimbursement.

b. OR UPON YOUR RETURN:

Fill tank at Facilities Management pump. Using the same account number as on the checkout sheet.  Go to the service counter at Facilities Management and fill out a fuel voucher.  The staff at the service counter will direct you to the proper pump to fill up.  Once the truck is filled it can be returned to COE.

6. If a trailer will be pulled with the truck, it must be connected using all equipment included with the hitching mechanism. This includes, anti-sway bars, equalization bars, breakaway chains, and safety chains.

a. Keys for the trailer should be turned in at the same time as returning the truck.

b. The same guidelines for the truck control trailers where applicable to trailers.

7. The truck must be turned in as soon as you are finished with it, so that it will be  available for others in the college that may need to use it.  After hours the keys should be dropped in the night slot on the door to room #130 B.

Guidelines and Procedures for Teaching Enhancement

The college of Engineering is committed to teaching excellence in every phase of teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.  The college recognizes that teaching can take on many form and includes classroom teaching, advising senior project groups, directing graduate theses, and other forms of teaching which all contribute to the enrichment of our students and faculty.  This document delineates guidelines and procedures directed at enhancing classroom teaching and teaching related to classroom teaching but conducted external to the classroom environment such as meeting with students during office hours, etc.  These guidelines and procedures are consistent with the vision statement of our college, which considers student education and learning as being paramount and central to its mission.  This document on guidelines and procedures is augmented with another document, which comprises suggested instruments for implementing these guidelines.  The instrument document also includes sample questionnaires for students, faculty, alumni, and employers.

There are three major components to teaching enhancement:

 

  • Education and Training -this refers to the education and training of our faculty in the art of teaching.
  • Teaching/Learning Evaluation -this refers to a mechanism for evaluating the teaching effectiveness of our faculty.
  • Assessment of the Teaching Evaluation Process -this refers to a set of measurements that can be used to assess the progress of our College faculty in meeting our goal of continuous quality improvement in teaching.

I. Education and Training

There are two major components to education and training.

 

  • Mentoring of Probationary Faculty -this refers to mentoring of probationary faculty by senior faculty.
  • Continuing Education of All Faculty - this refers to faculty attending seminars/presentations, reviewing articles, etc., on teaching effectiveness and enhancement and deepening their understanding and remaining current in the subject matter they teach.

I.1 Mentoring of Probationary Faculty

Although it is primarily intended to help junior faculty members in matters pertaining to teaching enhancement, the mentoring program can be utilized to help junior faculty in other areas such as faculty governance, laboratory facilities, and so forth. Participation in the mentoring program is optional on the part of the junior faculty member, but it shall be made available to every junior faculty member by each Department.

Herein, we will refer to the faculty member being mentored as the faculty member.

 

I.l.1 Duties of the Mentor

The duties of a mentor may include, but are not limited to the following.

  • Meeting with the faculty member on a regular basis.
  • Reviewing class handout material, course goals, and plan for meeting course goals.
  • Visiting classroom.
  • Counseling the faculty member on ways to improve teaching scholarship.

The mentor's duties may not be limited to the area of teaching, but may include offering counsel on professional development and scholarship.

I.1.2 Selection of the Mentor

The mentor may be selected from either within or external to the Department of the faculty member in consultation with the faculty member. The following delineates the selection procedure.

  • The Chair initially appoints a mentor who would normally (see next bullet) serve in that capacity until the time of the award of tenure.
  • In the year subsequent to that of the initial appointment, the faculty member may request from the Chair a change of mentor who would continue to serve in this capacity until the time of the award of tenure.

I.2  Continuing Education or All Faculty

The College of Engineering will make available to its faculty a library of videotaped presentations and published articles on teaching effectiveness, evaluation, and enhancement.

Probationary faculty are required to attend at least one workshop/seminar/presentation, or review at least one article, on teaching per annum. This activity is to be documented by the probationary faculty member in his/her annual activities report, which is submitted to the department chair.

All faculty are strongly encouraged to be well educated on the subject of teaching by attending seminars/presentations, and/or reviewing articles on teaching.

II. Teaching Evaluation

Evaluation of faculty teaching includes the following components.

  • Student Evaluation -this refers to evaluation of faculty teaching by their students.
  • Self-Evaluation- this refers to a self-evaluation by the faculty member.
  • Peer Evaluation of Probationary Faculty - this refers to faculty evaluation of probationary faculty.
  • The evaluation criteria.

 

Each of the above elements encompasses a feedback process that can be used by the faculty member as a measure of his/her teaching effectiveness for the purpose of teaching enhancement. The suggested teaching evaluation criteria for all faculty is given in section II.3.2.

II.1           Student Evaluation

Formal student evaluation of faculty teaching will be conducted for each lecture and laboratory section of each course that is taught. Student evaluations must be conducted in the absence of the faculty member teaching the course. The evaluations will be conducted in class by a designate student or faculty/staff member. The students must be given sufficient time to perform a thorough evaluation. These evaluations will be forwarded by the designate to the chair via the department secretary and maintained in the faculty member's permanent file.

The evaluation instrument includes number of questions selected by the College from sources such as the CAFETERIA dictionary to provide some measure of consistency among the various departments. Each department may augment the instrument with additional items.

It is also recommended that informal student evaluations be conducted at various points in time during the semester so that the faculty member can obtain feedback that he/she can utilize during the rest of the semester.

(See the Implementation Procedure Attachment for specific details.)

II.2    Self Evaluation

At least once per annum, each faculty member is required to submit to his/her department chair a written assessment of his/her teaching. The assessment should include at least the following components:

  • Goals of course.
  • Assessment of faculty's effectiveness in helping students achieve the course goals.
  • Identification of ways to improve his/her teaching.

 

II.3    Peer Review of Teaching for Probationary Faculty

In recognition of the importance of teaching to the mission of The William States Lee College of Engineering, a formal peer review process for assessing the teaching effectiveness of probationary faculty in the College is hereby adopted. The objectives of the peer review process are (1) to provide probationary faculty with regular feedback regarding their teaching effectiveness and (2) to provide input concerning the assessment of their teaching competency during tenure decisions.

II.3.1 Peer Review Procedures

Minimal procedures for carrying out the peer review process are listed below:

1. Each probationary faculty member (hereafter referred to as "instructor") will host at least one classroom visit per year, preferably to an undergraduate course, by at least one member of the tenured faculty (hereafter referred to as "observer"). This visit is for the purpose of evaluating the instructor's presentation and classroom skills and should take place in the fall semester to provide timely feedback in the event that a follow-up review is recommended for the spring semester. The choice of observer shall be made by the chair, in consultation with, and with the approval of, the instructor.

2. Prior to the visit, the instructor shall provide the observer with relevant classroom materials (e.g., text selection, syllabus, class notes for the day of the visit, homework and/or project assignments, and exams) to assess their appropriateness. If the observer does not have expertise in the area of the course subject, he or she can elect to have the material reviewed for this purpose by a tenured colleague with appropriate expertise.

3. After the classroom visit, the observer shall provide a timely written report of the results of the review prior to the end of the semester based on the assessment criteria listed below to the department chair and the instructor. This report shall be provided prior to the end of the semester. Upon review of the report, the instructor shall have the opportunity to meet with the observer and/or the chair for the purpose of discussing the results of the classroom visit. It is the right of the instructor to respond in writing if she or he feels that the observer's report is imbalanced, inaccurate, or unfair. If required by the chair or if requested by the instructor, a second review will take place during the spring semester.

II.3.2 Review Criteria

During the classroom visit, the observer must note the following:

1.  Is the instructor prepared and organized?

2. Does the instructor display enthusiasm for the subject?

3. Is the instructor's written and oral communication clear?

4. Does the instructor complement and supplement material in the text?

5. Is the instructor in control of his or her class?

6. Is student participation encouraged?

7. Is the physical classroom environment conducive to learning?

II.4 The Evaluation Criteria

The following evaluation criteria are applicable to all faculty teaching and are to be regarded as general guidelines.

There exists no single set of criteria that can effectively measure the teaching effectiveness of every faculty member for every course in every discipline of engineering, engineering technology, and computer science. Of distinct significance is the course pedagogy and goals appropriate for each individual course.

Nonetheless, any teaching evaluation criteria should include the following three principal components:

  • Instructional style, delivery mechanics, and teaching integrity.
  • Level and quantity of learning
  • Quality of learning

Il.4.1 Instructional Style Delivery Mechanics and Teaching Integrity

This is concerned with: the style of communication, the tools and techniques of delivery, and with factors such as punctuality (arriving to class on time) of the faculty member under evaluation and his/her availability and willingness to help students external to the classroom environment.

II. 4.2 Level and quantity of learning

This criterion focuses on the receiving end rather than the delivery end of teaching. Here the central question is: to what degree have the students learned the course material in relation to the course goals? However, this should be tempered by the recognition that the intrinsic learning abilities of the students are legitimate variables that will influence the level of learning.

II.4.3 Quality of learning

This criterion focuses on the scope as well as the long-term and ancillary effects of the learning experience. It also includes course content. This includes issues such as: the faculty member's enthusiasm for teaching the subject matter, and the degree to which he/she motivates and inspires the students.

 

III.  Assessment of the Teaching Evaluation Process

The College of Engineering has set up a mechanism for assessing the teaching progress of its faculty on a continuous basis.

A college-level committee on teaching enhancement is to be formed.  The committee will consist of five tenured members of the faculty.  There shall be a representative from each department.  In addition, the committee will include at least one student representative who will serve as a non-voting member of the committee.  The committee is to work with the departments and the college faculty to continuously assess the effectiveness of the teaching evaluation process and recommend improvements.

The assessment shall include the following components.

  • Assessment of the education and training program.

  • Assessment of the student evaluation process.

  • Assessment of the self-evaluation process.

  • Assessment of the peer evaluation process for probationary.

III.1 Assessment of the Education and Training program

This comprises an assessment of the education and training program for all faculty.  It includes assessment of the education and training opportunities as well as the mentoring program.

III.2 Assessment of the Student Evaluation Process

This can include the building and analysis of a database on faculty teaching evaluations for each course.  Such a database will show the degree to which faculty evaluations improve from year to year.  It can also include analysis of the performance of our students on standard examinations such as the EIT (Engineer In Training) and PE (professional Engineer) exams.  In addition, it is recommended that the departments conduct interviews with graduating seniors, alumni, and employers of their students.

III.3 Assessment of the Self-Evaluation Process

This can include assessment of dossiers that are developed by faculty for each course and how each faculty member perceives his/her teaching effectiveness and improvement from year to year.

III.4 Assessment of the Peer Evaluation Process for Probationary Faculty

This comprises an assessment of the peer evaluation procedures including the visitation team, the documentation, the pre-observation conference, and the feedback supplied to the faculty member.

(February 21,1995)

(Amended November 1996)

(Revised August 1998)


Attachment:  Implementation Procedure for End-of-the-Semester Teaching Evaluation

(November 1996)

 

 

 

 

The William States Lee College of Engineering

MEASURING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT USING

END-OF-SEMESTER TEACHING EVALUATIONS

Implementation Procedure Attachment to the

Guidelines and Procedures for Teaching Enhancement

(November 1996)

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.  Introduction

II. End-of-Semester Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

III. Measuring the Learning Environment

 

 

I.  INTRODUCTION

The learning environment should be one that fosters personal and interpersonal growth and development.  A fertile learning environment produces a climate, which actively cultivates receptive minds with the goal of having individuals, groups and even organizations reach their full potential.

The curriculum revisions that have recently been approved and are currently being implemented in The William States Lee College of Engineering are the beginning of what is likely to result in profound change in the way we develop and deliver a competitive, comprehensive educational experience to our students.  Research done by National Training Laboratories (NTL) of Bethel, Maine, for example, indicates that students only retain an average of 5% of what is presented through lecture format.  If lectures are combined with reading, audio-visuals and demonstration of material, the average retention by students increases to 30%.  According to NTL, the remaining 70% of the material "missed" by the students represents a learning gap, which must be overcome using discussion groups, practice sessions and peer-to-peer teaching.  Thus, it is important that we monitor the impact these curriculum changes are having on the learning environment and what, if any, new pedagogical techniques are facilitating student learning.

II. END-OF-SEMESTER STUDENT EVALUATION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS

End-of-semester evaluations will be conducted for each lecture and laboratory section taught.  The evaluation will be done in the absence of the instructor at the beginning or end of class by a student or faculty/staff member.  A cafeteria-style survey will be used for all end-of-semester evaluations so that both qualitative and quantitative feedback may be obtained.  Results of the evaluation will be provided directly to the faculty member under review and his/her department chair to identify opportunities for improvement as well as used as input into all promotion, tenure and salary reviews.

II.1 Procedure for Conducting End-of-Semester Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

 

(1) The department chair notifies all faculty members that end-of-semester evaluations are due by a specified date.

(2) Two weeks prior to the deadline for conducting the evaluations, the chair delivers a package to / the faculty member which includes the cafeteria questionnaires, "bubble" (op scan) sheets and a suggested "script" which may be used as a communication tool/reference (see pages 4-5, respectively.)

(3) The faculty member reserves some time at the beginning or end of a class to conduct the evaluation.

(4) The faculty member explains the purpose of the evaluation and how it will be conducted. (Reference the suggested script.)

(5) The faculty member asks for a volunteer {or selects a student) to collect the results. During normal office hours (8:00 AM - 5:00 PM) the student delivers the completed bubble sheets and written comments in a sealed envelope to the department secretary.  If the evaluations are completed after 5:00 PM, the student delivers them in a sealed envelope to the Central Office (open until 7:00 PM) or to a lock box if available.

(6) The department forwards the bubble sheets to Academic Assessment to be scanned and summarized.

(7) All written comments are typed by the department secretary in order to maintain confidentiality.

(8) The results of the evaluation are provided to the faculty member under review and his/her chair and a record is kept in the department office.

(9) After reviewing the results, the faculty member and/or the department chair may use the feedback to develop a personal plan for improvement.

End-of-semester evaluations must be conducted in the absence of the faculty member under review. Results are used as input into promotion, tenure and salary reviews.

 

The William States Lee College of Engineering Survey of Teaching Effectiveness includes:

15    questions (#1 - #15) chosen by the College's task force on teaching enhancement (CAFETERIA catalog)

10    optional questions (#16 - #25) selected by the department

4     standard questions (#26 - #29) required by the University

-------

29    total questions

 

III. MEASURING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT THROUGH END-OF-SEMESTER TEACHING EVALUATIONS  

SPART recommends that question #10 on the Study Survey of Teaching Effectiveness, i.e. "The climate of this classroom is conducive to learning", be used as an indicator to assess the learning environment in the College of Engineering. In addition, in an effort to more fully understand what other factors influence and facilitate learning as well as create a positive learning environment, SPART will also track the following:

  • class size
  • time of day the class is taught
  • day of week the class is taught
  • format of the class (i.e., lecture, lab, etc.) required vs. elective course
  • classroom (location, facilities, etc.)

As SPART uncovers the factors that most influence student learning this information will be shared with the college faculty for the purpose of discussion, feedback and improvement.

The process for conducting end-of-semester course evaluations as outlined by the University requires that all bubble sheets be forwarded to Academic Assessment so that department-specific, college- specific and university-wide results may be collected and analyzed.


 

THE WILLIAM STATES LEE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

"SUGGESTED SCRIPT"

for

Cafeteria-Style Survey for End-of-Semester Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

Instructor to Students:

"Please take some time today/tonight to evaluate this course and my performance as an instructor.  I have a questionnaire and bubble sheets for you to respond on.  If you have any additional comments you would like to make, feel free to write them on the questionnaire or your own paper and be sure to turn them in with the completed survey.  If you need a #2 pencil have some here that I can let you use.  All feedback from the questionnaire will be confidential -that is, I won't know who filled out the op scan sheet because I will leave the room while you complete it.  Your comments will be typed by a secretary so that I will never see the original written comments.  Can I have a volunteer to collect the surveys and comments and deliver them in a sealed envelope to the department?  After I have turned in the final grades for this particular course, the department chair and I will review the results of the questionnaire.  I'll use your feedback to make appropriate improvements for the next time I teach this course.  Thank you for your help."


 

THE WILLIAM STATES LEE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Student Survey of Teaching Effectiveness

(Revised June 2001)

Please rate your responses to the following using the following scale:

1 2                             3                          4                               5

strongly agree                            somewhat agree                              strongly disagree

 

1. My instructor displays a clear understanding of course topics.

2. My instructor has an effective style of presentation.

3. My instructor seems well prepared for class.

4. My instructor displays enthusiasm when teaching.

5. This course has effectively challenged me to think.

6. My instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.

7. My instructor is readily available for consultation.

8. My instructor returns papers quickly enough to benefit me.

9. I feel free to ask questions in this class.

10. The climate of this class is conducive to learning.

11. Lecture information is highly relevant to course objectives.

12. There is sufficient time in class for questions and discussion.

13. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.

14. I am generally pleased with the text(s) required for this course.

15. Course topics are dealt with in sufficient depth.

(Optional: Insert 10 questions selected by the department.)

26. Overall, this course is among the best I have ever taken.

27. Overall, this instructor is among the best teachers I have known.

28.  Overall, this instructor was effective

29. Overall, I learned a lot in this course.

Additional Comments:


Guidelines for Reassignment of Duties Program

1. Reassignment of duties is for one semester at full salary or one academic year at half salary.  Payment includes fringe benefits fully paid by UNC Charlotte for its contribution.  At the option of the faculty member, if a person is away for one year at half salary, UNC Charlotte will pick up the University share of TIAA or the state retirement for the full salary and the faculty member must pay his/her contribution.

2. The intention of this program is general faculty development, but preference will be given for the scholarly activities which have strong prospects for the leading to extramural funding, journal publication, and those activities which generally enhance the faculty member's and UNC Charlotte engineering's standing in the national and international professional community.  The program is not intended for course development, which is viewed as a normal activity for any faculty member.  Major curricular developments or professional upgrading of a faculty member is viewed as an appropriate activity for this program.  If such activities are shown to be critical to a department's achievement of its long-range goals in education.  It is not required that the reassignment period is spent off-campus but such relocation is encouraged.

3. The major criterion for selection of this award is the "technical" merit of the program as described in a short proposal.  For proposals of equal merit, preference will be given to those faculty members who have obtained outside support to allow for an academic year of reassignment at another institution or laboratory.  This program is not intended to enhance a faculty member's normal full-time salary and, therefore, a faculty member who obtains temporary full employment at an industry, educational or government laboratory at a salary equivalent to or greater than the UNC Charlotte salary is ineligible for the program.

4. Supplemental funds for equipment, supplies, travel, and relocation - A faculty member may request additional money beyond the salary stipend to support expenses associated with the travel to professional meetings, equipment and supplies necessary for conducting the program, and help in relocation expenses when such expenses are not covered by another institution or laboratory.

5. Faculty members planning to submit a proposal for a reassignment of duties should attempt to obtain extramural funding from foundations or other sources.  Evidence that such effort has been made will be a positive factor in the evaluation of a proposal.

6. Eligibility - All engineering faculty members holding regular tenure-track appointments at the rank of assistant professor or above are eligible for this program.  While no time in grade requirement exists, preference will be given to the faculty member with the longer UNC Charlotte tenure in the event of equal "technical" merit.  Lecturers and visiting faculty members are not eligible.

7. Evaluation procedures - Proposals for the reassignment of duties program will be evaluated by a committee consisting of four eligible members of the Engineering faculty.  The chairman of the committee will be elected at large by all voting members of the College while the other three will subsequently be elected by the individual departments.  Election is to take place in early September and no member of the committee may submit a proposal to the committee.  Terms of service are for one year but a member may stand for re-election without limit.  The committee serves as a recommending body to the Dean of Engineering who makes the final decision on awards.

8. Deadlines -  All proposals for the reassignment of duties program must be submitted to the Dean of Engineering in the fall of the year preceding the reassignment period.  Announcement of awards will generally be made by the start of the spring semester.   Check with the dean's office for the specific deadline schedule.

9.  Proposal Content - The proposal should contain the following:

a)  Cover page which gives name, rank, original appointment date, place of reassignment, dates of reassignment, and signature of the department chairman.

b)  Abstract which briefly describes the proposed reassignment.

c)  Narrative which describes the reassignment in greater detail with special emphasis on benefits to be accrued to the faculty member, his/her department and the College.  The proposal should describe the impact which the applicant's reassignment would have upon the department and what steps would need to be taken to satisfactorily accommodate the proposed reassignment.

d) Up-to-date curriculum vita.

e) Supporting documentation if the reassignment is at another institution, laboratory, or industry.

f) Evidence that outside funding has been sought.

g) Supporting letter from the department chairman (optional).

h) Stipend request for expenses supplies, equipment, travel, etc., if any.

10. Report - Within the first six months upon return* from the reassignment, a formal report describing activities of the reassignment with pertinent accomplishments is due in the Dean's office.  This report should contain reprints of publications, abstracts, manuscripts submitted, proposals, etc., which resulted from the reassignment.

*  A minimum of one year of service in residence at UNC Charlotte following any reassignment of duties leave is required.

Policies and Procedures for Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure

RPT Policies and Procedures

Curriculum Vitae Template

eRPT Instructions

2016 Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Schedule


Policy on Faculty Responsibilities, Workloads, and Teaching Course Loads

Introduction

The totality of the professional responsibilities of full-time faculty members in the William States
Lee College of Engineering are evaluated according to the broad categories of teaching,
scholarship or creative activity, and service. These responsibilities require that faculty members
teach students, colleagues, and members of the broader community. Thus, faculty members
bring their own and others' scholarship and creations to their institutions, professions and
communities. Over their careers, faculty members may emphasize these broad categories
differently. Early in their careers, faculty members may stress research or creative activity to
establish themselves in a field; in later stages of their careers, faculty may stress classroom
teaching or service to the institution and the community in order to pass their wisdom to the next
generation.

The instructional activities of faculty members can take the form of contact inside or outside
classrooms, offices, studios, and laboratories in both on- and off-campus settings. In-class
instruction may be large group, small group, or one-on-one. Faculty members teach in defined
university settings; in the evenings or on weekends, they may also teach in workshops, institutes,
and short courses for public school teachers and students in professional applied areas and with
internship agencies. Out-of-class teaching involves mentoring, counseling, directing of theses and
dissertations, supervising student projects, overseeing educational field experiences, and
supervising performances in clinical settings and industrial sites. Both in-class and out-of-class
teaching requires additional time and effort for preparation, reflection, and improvement; a onehour
contact in a classroom typically takes more than one hour of preparation and many follow-up
hours in advising and evaluating papers and projects; the use of educational technology can
consume many hours of development time.

While the category of scholarship or creative activity of faculty members is sometimes considered
separate from teaching, the two are closely linked. University instruction requires a level of
knowledge and mastery of material that can only be attained and maintained by continuous
scholarship. Such scholarship takes the form of original research or creative endeavors,
integrative scholarship, and the use and representation of knowledge with peers in the
profession. It involves attending professional conferences and presenting papers at them, writing
books, articles, or book reviews, and seeking and managing external funding to support their own
scholarship or programs at their institutions.

The service activities of faculty members involve the use of their expertise in their departments,
college, institutions, professions, and communities. Service activities include academic and other
advising, sponsoring of student and other organizations, laboratory and studio management,
involvement in departmental, college and university committees, participation in faculty
governance bodies, administrative assignments, and fundraising. Outside the university setting, it
often involves service in professional organizations; editorship of professional journals, lectures,
performances, and readings at local, regional, or state clubs and organizations; reviewing
research proposals and articles for publication in professional journals or conferences;
sponsorship or organization of conferences; consulting at local and regional businesses and
social agencies; and other service to community groups or organizations.

The way in which a faculty member's activities are combined to define the individual faculty
member's total workload depends on the mission of the institution, the college and the
department. In major research institutions, faculty members spend relatively more time on
graduate student teaching and research activities than on undergraduate student teaching
because the mission of the institution is to deliver that mix of services; and faculty responsibilities
reflect that obligation. By contrast, in baccalaureate institutions, faculty members spend most of
their time on undergraduate student teaching because the overriding mission of the institution is
to deliver baccalaureate-level courses and degrees. Between these two extremes are
comprehensive institutions whose responsibilities for graduate-Ievel instruction and research vary
from heavy to light and where classroom-teaching responsibilities may show considerable
variation. Consequently, the Board of Governors has established a system for monitoring
teaching course loads at UNC institutions that generally calls for standard annual three (3) credit hour
course loads no lower
than the following:

  Research Universities I: four three-hour courses per year
  Doctoral Universities I: five three-hour courses per year
  Masters (Comprehensive) I: six three-hour courses per year
  Baccalaureate (liberal arts) I and II: eight three-hour courses per year

A potential direct implication of this system of standard course loads for departments within the
William States Lee College of Engineering is that departments with doctoral programs would have
"standard" annual course loads of five (5), those with master's programs would have six (6), and
those with only baccalaureate programs would have eight (8). However, UNC Charlotte is now
classified as a doctoral university I with a standard faculty teaching course load of five three-hour
courses per year.
 

Teaching Course Load Assignments

University funding from both state appropriations and student tuition for faculty positions is based
upon the concept of a "full-time equivalent student as an" undergraduate student who takes 12 or
more course credit hours, or a graduate student who takes at least nine (9) course credit hours."
Part-time students are considered as an appropriate fractional FTE. The present instructional
funding formula for UNC Charlotte provides for one full-time faculty position for approximately
every 15 FTE's.

The University (and the departments and colleges therein) assume the responsibility to provide
each enrolled student with the courses, academic and career advising, consultation, and other
services appropriate to the student's chosen major. Thus, the instructional activities for each fulltime
faculty member is ordinarily composed of classroom or laboratory teaching, academic
advising, course-related consultation, thesis, dissertation and project supervision, course
development, and the other activities described in the introduction. The formal teaching course
load assignment for a faculty member may vary from semester to semester and from faculty
member to faculty member depending upon the other components in the faculty member's total
workload within the department and/or college. A faculty member can be assigned more or less
than the "standard" teaching course load commensurate with other responsibilities. Also, such
factors as class size, number of preparations, lecture vs. lab, project supervision, student contact
hours, etc. must be taken into consideration. In addition, the following definitions are very
important in describing and reporting a faculty member's workload:

Release time - A portion of a faculty member's time is "bought" from the department by
some source of "real dollars" for working on some specific project. The corresponding
"released instructional funds" are available to the department for hiring of replacement
teaching faculty. Example: research grant funds enable a faculty member to be “released”
from some classroom instructional duties to work on the research project. The "release
funds" could then be used to hire part-time instructional faculty or graduate teaching
assistants.

Reduced Workload - A faculty member can be given a reduced workload only if it is
accompanied by a commensurate reduction in salary. Examples: educational leave
without pay or reduced load and pay due to prolonged illness.

Reduced Course Load - A faculty member is assigned a course load less than the
"standard" for justifiable reasons related to total workload. Examples: newly hired faculty
might be assigned only one or two courses to “get started”; faculty “released” by means
of "release time" funding, etc.

Course Overload - A faculty member is assigned a course load greater than the "standard"
for justifiable reasons related to total workload. Examples: non-tenure track faculty hired
primarily to "teach”; faculty might be assigned an “overload' in fall in exchange for a
"reduction” in the spring, etc.

 

Assignment of Faculty Workloads and Annual Performance Evaluations

The assignment of faculty duties and course loads is the fundamental responsibility of the
department chair in consultation with individual faculty members and subject to review by the
dean. For an individual faculty member, such assignment would normally include some
combination of a formal teaching course load and other instructional activities such as academic
advising, thesis, dissertation and project supervision, curriculum development, etc.; scholarly and
creative activities such as conducting research, the writing of papers and books, seeking and
managing externally-funded projects, etc.; and service activities internal and external to the
university such as committee assignments, administrative duties, recruiting of students, and
service to the professional and industrial community.

While the instructional activities form the fundamental basis for the performance evaluation of a
faculty member, all of the faculty member's activities - instructional, scholarly, and service--and
the results emanating there from
- are weighed in an appropriate manner in the annual
performance evaluation process for each faculty member. The annual evaluation is done within
the context of "performance expectations" through which the chair attempts to guide the faculty
member on how he/she might direct or redirect their energy or modify the emphases of their
activities. When appropriate, such expectations may include "targets" for short and/or long-term
accomplishments. For a new faculty member, these expectations are developed by the
department chair shortly after initial employment with input from the faculty member and are
subsequently reviewed and/or modified at the time of the annual performance evaluation with the
participation of the faculty member. (For present faculty, their performance expectations have
been "evolving," albeit to different degrees, as part of the existing annual performance evaluation
process.)

The annual performance evaluation process begins in late spring and is concluded by the start of
the fall semester. It is composed of the following elements: the gathering and assimilation of
appropriate information; the preparation by the chair of a formal document (the evaluation
including appropriate performance expectations); an opportunity for discussion and/or rebuttal;
and a final document, a copy (including any rebuttal) of which is forwarded to the dean. The
faculty member is expected to sign the annual performance evaluation document merely
acknowledging his/her receipt of the document and an opportunity for discussion and/or rebuttal.
The faculty member may submit a document to be attached to the annual performance evaluation
indicating any disagreement or rebuttal to the evaluation and/or performance expectations. The
annual performance evaluation with any appended document is part of the formal personnel
record of the faculty member (with a copy forwarded to the dean) and is included in appropriate
personnel actions related to reappointment, promotion, tenure, and salary increase.

 

Principles of Employment for Non-Tenure Track Faculty-Appended 5/30/03

The professional responsibilities and workload of non-tenure track faculty members in the William
States Lee College of Engineering are assigned in a manner that enables the college to complete
its broad mission. Assignments are generally focused on teaching, student mentoring and
advising. However, scholarship directed at educational pedagogy, institutional research,
administration, service duties and program assessment may be an important component of the
workload assignment. The distribution of responsibilities can change over time and the
distribution of duties is assigned by the appropriate supervisor.

As is the case with all faculty members, instructional and learning activities can take the form of
contact inside or outside classrooms, offices, studios, and laboratories in both on and off-campus
settings. In-class instruction may be large group, small group, or one-on-one. Teaching
assignments can be in the evenings or on weekends, and may also be in workshops, institutes,
and short courses for public school teachers and students in professional applied areas and with
internship agencies. Out-of-class teaching involves mentoring, advising, counseling, supervising
student projects, overseeing field educational experiences, and supervising performances in
clinical settings and industrial sites. Traditional in-class teaching requires additional time and
effort for preparation, reflection, and improvement; a one-hour contact in a classroom generally
takes several hours of preparation. Review of papers and projects, distance education, advising
individual and project teams, supervising student organizations and making use of educational
technology can consume many hours of development time.

Non-tenure track faculty associates often engage in creative activity as it pertains to educational
outcomes, and it is sometimes closely linked to the instructional role. In many cases, it involves
preparing proposals for soliciting external grants and gifts to support the educational goals of the
college. Educational scholarship emerging in these areas can also involve attending professional
conferences or presenting papers at them. These activities help to disseminate methods
developed and promote the college to the broader engineering community. Non-tenure track
faculty members are not ordinarily engaged in extensive engineering research, and it would rarely
constitute a primary portion of their workload.

Non-tenure track faculty members often have service assignments directed at institutional
research and/or supporting processes that assess student learning outcomes and program goals.
Service can also include substantial administrative assignments, student recruiting, overseeing
international student exchange programs, career guidance and liaison to the community.
Non-tenure track faculty member’s activities are assigned by their college or unit supervisor and
depend on the mix of a unit’s need. Nominally, non-tenure track faculty with a full-time
assignment involving primarily traditional classroom instruction will teach four three-hour courses
or the equivalent per semester. Additionally, occasional administrative duties in support of the
department may be assigned to all faculty members. Correspondingly, a 50% conventional
teaching assignment would imply two three-hour courses per semester. Similarly, a 75% teaching
assignment would consist of three courses. The distribution of conventional teaching is made by
the supervisor and depends on the assignment of the other duties described above.

Part-time faculty members are selected based on proven teaching skills and their unique
expertise which complements college faculty. Two-semester continuing contracts for part-time
faculty can only be issued to faculty who have effectively discharged their assigned duties in the
past and when a two-semester back-to-back course offering is planned. Many engineering
courses and/or sequences are not generally offered every semester and, when offered, are
dependent upon sufficient enrollments; therefore, the opportunity to offer two-semester contracts
is limited.

September 1996
Non-Tenure Track - Appended 5/30/03
Revised – March 06, 2007