Faculty of Humanities
Faculty Evaluation Policy

The criteria for evaluation and the assessment methods defined and outlined in this document apply to the annual evaluation of faculty members as well as to the reappointment, promotion and tenure processes within the Faculty of Humanities, the standards for which are set out in FA 15.1.3, 15.2.3, 16.3 and 18.0.

I Components of Evaluation
Teaching Effectiveness, Scholarly and Professional Achievement, and Other Contributions are considered within the evaluation of all members of the Faculty other than Senior Instructors and Teaching Professors, who are evaluated on the basis of Teaching Effectiveness and Other Contributions. In order to facilitate this evaluation process, all faculty members are required to provide to their department Chair a report (which is a subset of the required curriculum vita, FA 13.1.2b, 13.5) detailing their activities over the past three years (subject to the provisions of FA 73.3.4); the report, along with required supporting documentation, must be submitted annually by March 31. If the required documentation is not provided, no assessment of merit can be made and no increments awarded.

Teaching Effectiveness
Faculty members are involved in the teaching of undergraduate and graduate courses offered by the University of Victoria. Participation in teaching may vary from having sole responsibility for a class to providing a “guest lecture” in a class conducted by somebody else.

Teaching also involves participation in related activities including but not limited to the following:

• supervision and examination of graduate students
• mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students
• mentoring of colleagues to improve quality of teaching
• involvement in the scholarship of teaching including publications related to university-level teaching
• scholarship that enhances teaching effectiveness (see FA 13.1.2(a))
• course development
• development of auxiliary course materials
• preparation of course-related documents
• involvement in international student and/or professor exchanges
• integration and/or development of computer-assisted learning within one’s teaching
• participation in teaching workshops

Scholarly and Professional Achievement
Scholarship in the Humanities takes on a wide variety of forms and it is not possible to be fully inclusive in listing all such activities, especially in light of the evolving nature of scholarly disciplines and the increasing emphasis on interdisciplinarity. Furthermore, not all scholarly achievement results in publication. Items that will be considered may include but are not limited to the following; there is no inherent hierarchy in the order of the following list since, in the Humanities, the value of an activity is to be judged in each case on the basis of its individual qualities:

• book
• edited book
• translation
• scholarly edition
• monograph
• article in journal
• book chapter
• editing a journal
• book review
• critical bibliography
• professional writing (including journalism)
• audio-visual program and material
• documentary film
• information technology application
• creative writing, drama script, musical score, recording, etc.
• paper given at a conference
• paper in conference proceedings
• oral presentation of research
• participation in an academic or professional conference as a panel member or discussant
• policy position paper
• funded research grant awarded to an individual or a group of researchers
• preparation of research proposal for funding
• scholarly refereeing of book or article manuscript, research project, grant proposal
• serving on the editorial board of a scholarly journal or book series

Other definitions of scholarly activity, including the “scholarship of teaching, integration and application”, in addition to the “scholarship of discovery” which is emphasized within the above list (Glassick, Huber and Maeroff, Scholarship assessed: evaluation of the professoriate, 1997), may prove useful in the evaluation of the work of some members of the faculty. Such scholarship can provide evidence not only of scholarly achievement but also of production when it results in measurable activity.

Other Contributions
Other contributions may take place within the context of the University of Victoria or outside it. While it is not feasible to itemize all possible activities, within the University such service may include but is not limited to the following:

• service to the University, Faculty, Department, Faculty Association or student organization
• serving as Chair or Director of a unit within or outside the Faculty
• serving as chair of a University, Faculty or Department Committee
• membership on a University, Faculty or Department Committee
• review or evaluation of peers for purposes of promotion, merit, or awards
• activities related to the internationalization of the University
• significant collaborative work with other units in the University

Outside the University of Victoria, such other contributions are normally voluntary activities clearly related to the faculty member’s broadly defined discipline. Such other activities may include but are not limited to the following:

• service to another University
• service in or for professional organizations and government bodies
• public appearances, e.g., speech, broadcast, newspaper article, workshops, talks to community and professional groups
• involvement at some official level in national and/or international organizations
• position on Board of Directors of an academic association
• involvement in and representation at professional and community groups
• consultation and professional services to government, public agencies, professional associations and individuals
• involvement in media and presentations designed to inform the public
• activities that bring academic distinction to the Faculty or University

II Assessment techniques used in making evaluations
In order to assess contributions within the categories of teaching, scholarship and other contributions, certain criteria will be used within each category to guide considerations.

Teaching Effectiveness
Teaching effectiveness means the effectiveness of all of a faculty member’s methods and forms of teaching and student supervision that are described and evaluated in accordance with the Evaluation Policy (FA 13.1.2a).

Both effective teaching and efforts to improve teaching effectiveness are to be valued. Higher standards of quality in performance are expected as a faculty member is promoted from one rank to another and with the number of years in rank (FA 13.4.1). Faculty members are required to provide evidence of teaching performance, which will always include the required Teaching Dossier (see below), so that an assessment of teaching may be conducted; the absence of the required documentation will necessarily result in a judgement of “unsatisfactory” teaching. Individual workload and demands on time and energy are to be considered in making judgements on efforts to improve teaching effectiveness.

Evidence of outstanding teaching may be indicated by multiple instances of meritorious work in the area of teaching.

Evidence of meritorious teaching may include, but not be limited to, some of the following conditions:

• receipt of a teaching award
• mentoring of colleagues to improve quality of teaching
• repeated significantly positive student evaluations
• publications related to university level teaching
• innovative course development
• development of auxiliary course materials
• introduction of a new course to the curriculum
• preparation for new teaching assignment
• development of an important teaching innovation
• program development (e.g., undergraduate program, professional diploma or graduate program)
• involvement in international student and/or professor exchanges
• development and/or innovative use of computer-assisted learning
• an excellent reputation enjoyed by the instructor among students and peers
• significant effort in advising, assisting and mentoring undergraduate and graduate students outside regularly scheduled classes (e.g., in decisions regarding further education and career choices)
• unremunerated extra-to-load teaching such as directed reading courses, graduate supervision and examination, etc.

Evidence of satisfactory teaching may be indicated by the absence of evidence of unsatisfactory performance, and by satisfactory student and/or peer evaluation.

Evidence of unsatisfactory teaching may include, but is not be limited to, a continuing (over more than one term), significant and documented pattern of some of the following factors:

• disregard of University and/or Faculty-approved policies and procedures regarding course outlines, hours of teaching, grading procedures etc.
• cancellation of classes without providing the Chair with prior notice or acceptable reasons
• negative evaluation of teaching performance (from students, peers, or both) across the range of classes taught during the period under review
• substantiated reports of prejudicial or disrespectful treatment of students (accounts of which must always be supported by written documentation)

Scholarly and Professional Achievement
As a scholar, each faculty member is expected to have a continuing mastery of his or her field of knowledge and awareness of the research results of other professionals working in the same field or closely related areas. Scholarly achievement is thus understood to be the mastery of a field and its related research as exemplified in scholarly production, and that production will form the basis for the annual assessment. Scholarly achievement and production which fall outside a faculty member’s recognized disciplinary, multi-disciplinary and/or interdisciplinary activities may need special attention when submitted for evaluation in order to assess the degree to which such work may be relevant nevertheless to a faculty member’s recognized field of knowledge. Collaborative work is valued but the specific nature of the contribution to a multi-authored activities will need to be documented.

While it is possible to categorize the products of scholarship in the Humanities and to enumerate them within those categories, it is not possible to quantify scholarly productivity so as to produce a fixed scale which would assign merit increments to certain levels of scholarship. In assessing and interpreting performance, judgement of quality and good sense are paramount, and they must take precedence over counting and weighing.

Higher standards of quality in performance in the area of scholarship are expected as a faculty member is promoted from one rank to another and with the number of years in rank (FA 13.4.1).

In making judgements about the meritorious nature of scholarship, the following factors are among those to be taken in account:

• while quantity of production may be relevant, quality is to be emphasized
• the relative standing of journals, university presses and commercial publishing houses is relevant to the assessment
• the refereeing process is to be considered important
• reviews of published works and honours received for scholarly accomplishments can serve as factors to be considered in assessing quality
• oral publication is an important vehicle for dissemination of scholarly work and of creative endeavours; the context and evaluation process of such deliveries will be taken into account in their assessment
• the award of a research grant is significant indicator of peer evaluation; assessment of grants will take into account the source of the money and the competitive context in which the award has been made
• computer-based activities are considered a part of contemporary scholarship in the humanities and may be assessed in a manner similar to that of print publications (including refereeing, weighing of collaborative efforts, originality, contribution to discipline etc.). Some additional information is in the “Report on Academic Computing Recognition” approved by the Faculty of Humanities, May 1998
• interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary activities are to be encouraged and assessed on the same basis as activities more traditionally connected to the disciplinary activities of a faculty member’s department.

A judgement of unsatisfactory performance in the area of scholarship will be made when a faculty member can provide no evidence of significant ongoing research activity within the period of review.

The responsibility for providing evidence that will help in the assessment of quality resides with the individual faculty member. Work which has not been subjected to accepted editorial selection procedures by experts in the field will require special scrutiny in the assessment process. The Chair may, in consultation with the faculty member, solicit external advice regarding the assessment of an item of scholarship. Faculty members are responsible for providing to the Chair and/or the Dean, when requested, appropriate evidence of any items of scholarship which have been proposed for credit.

Credit in any given year may be received for works of scholarship which have been published during the period of review as well as any for which official acceptance has been received and can be documented.

Other Contributions
Other contributions may take place within the University of Victoria context or outside it. Faculty members are expected to contribute to the working of the University. Higher standards of quality in performance are expected in the area of other contributions as a faculty member is promoted from one rank to another and with the number of years in rank (FA 13.4.1), suggesting that the level (but not necessarily the quantity) of the participation will assume greater significance and responsibility over the course of a faculty member’s career.

In judging meritorious performance in the area of other contributions, the following factors are among those to be taken into account:

• level and significance of participation
• level of responsibility
• level of leadership
• workload and demands on time and energy
• setting (e.g., internal/external, local/national, disciplinary/non-disciplinary)
• extent to which such activities contribute to the workings of the University or bring academic distinction to the University (which may include contributions by Senior Instructors who choose to involve themselves in scholarly activities which cannot be considered as directly related to their teaching activities)

Repeated refusals to serve on any committees, or to accept other assignments contributing to the governance of the department, faculty and/or university, or to attend meetings, will be a basis for a judgement of unsatisfactory performance in the area of other contributions unless these factors are compensated for by significant other contributions within or outside the University context.

III Teaching Dossier: Format and Content
All teaching members of the Faculty are required to submit a teaching dossier each year covering the last three years of their teaching (subject to the provisions of FA 73.3.4 regarding new appointees and leaves). This dossier shall include the following two items:

1) a statement of a maximum of two pages in which the member’s teaching is summarized. Among the matters which could be included are the following:

• statement of one’s teaching philosophy
• statement of teaching responsibilities and teaching related activities
• goals and objectives directed towards teaching improvement
• summaries of descriptions of efforts to improve teaching
• summaries of unsolicited letters from students/colleagues/alumni
• summaries of implementation of innovative teaching strategies and results
• summaries of current educational research
• summaries of courses developed or modified
• summaries of awards/grants/nominations relevant to teaching
• any other comments that the member feels are relevant in order to allow an assessment of teaching to take place
• supporting data (as appendices; any material provided beyond the statistical summary of student evaluations must be summarized in the two page statement)

2) the complete aggregated statistical results of student evaluations for the period of review

• there is no obligation to include anecdotal or subjective student comments; if a faculty member chooses to include comments which have been collected as a part of a survey of students in a course, all such comments from that course must be included in the dossier (FA 13.7.3)
• the student evaluations will be conducted according to departmental procedures, normally in every course every time it is taught
• the student evaluation form used will follow departmental guidelines but must always include the two evaluative elements (previously approved as mandatory by the Faculty of Humanities):

1) evaluate the overall effectiveness of this course

2) evaluate the overall effectiveness of the instructor.

Inclusion of peer reviews of teaching in the Teaching Dossier, which are required at the time of application for tenure and promotion, are also encouraged.

IV Procedures for annual salary evaluation

The normal period of review will be the three years prior to the time of the evaluation, subject to the provisions of FA 73.3.4. Any adverse effect of sick leave, long term disability, maternity, parental leave or special leave should be taken into account in the evaluation process. In assessing the awarding of Career Progress Increments and Merit Increments, the following guidelines will be followed:

As stated in FA 73.5.1, a CPI “recognizes satisfactory career progress of a Faculty Member, other than Senior Instructors and Teaching Professor:

(a) whose Teaching Effectiveness and Scholarly and Professional Achievements are judged to have satisfied the expected standard of career progress in the period of review, or

(b) whose Teaching Effectiveness is judged to have satisfied the expected standard of career progress and whose Other Contributions are judged to have been substantial in the period of review.

A CPI recognizes satisfactory career progress of a Senior Instructor or Teaching Professor:

(a) whose Teaching Effectiveness is judged to have satisfied the expected standard of career progress in the period of review, or

(b) whose Teaching Effectiveness is judged to have been satisfactory and whose Other Contributions are judged to have been substantial in the period of review.”

In the awarding of Merit Increments, Faculty members other than Senior Instructors and Teaching Professors will be evaluated on the basis of their teaching, scholarly and professional achievements, and other contributions in the ratio of 40:40:20 respectively. An alternative ratio in which no criterion in the ratio is weighted at less than 20% may be agreed between a faculty member and the Chair, and approved by the Dean, in advance for a fixed period not exceeding five years. Deviation from the standard ratio will be considered only in cases where the individual faculty member’s workload differs significantly from the department’s workload standard. Chairs and Directors will normally make such agreements with the Dean at the time of their appointment as Chair or Director which will be in effect for the term of the appointment.

In the awarding of Merit Increments, Senior Instructors and Teaching Professors will be evaluated on the basis of their teaching and other contributions [see FA 73.3.5.1 (f)] in the ratio of 80:20 respectively. An alternative ratio in which neither criterion in the ratio is weighted at less than 20% may be agreed between a Senior Instructor and the Chair, and approved by the Dean, in advance. Deviation from the standard ratio will be considered only in cases where the individual faculty member’s workload differs significantly from the department’s workload standard.

Merit Increments are awarded for meritorious performance beyond “satisfactory career progress”. An award of 4 Merit Increments will indicate outstanding performance overall in the period of review. Meritorious and outstanding performance in one or more areas in the period of review will thus be rewarded by between 1 and 3 Merit Increments, while recognizing the balancing that must take place within the evaluation for Merit Increments implied by the ratio of the areas (40-40-20 or 80-20) as well as the need to recognize that "higher standards of quality in performance are expected when a Faculty Member is promoted from one rank to another and with the number of years in rank" (FA 13.4.1)

V Procedures for annual Merit Increment distribution

From the total allotment of Merit Increments to the Faculty (97% times 2 times the number of eligible regular faculty members), the Dean will initially reserve Merit Increments equivalent to 2 times the number of eligible Chairs.

Each chair will receive an allocation of 2 Merit Increments for 90% of the number of faculty members within the department (minus the chair) rounded down to the closest whole number for distribution among the members of the department.

The remainder of the Merit Increments will be kept by the Dean for distribution in consultation with Chairs in order to ensure equity between departments and in the Faculty overall.

By May 1 of each year, Chairs will submit to the Dean a ranked list of the CPI/MI recommendations and justifications for their faculty members. In the first week of May, each Chair will meet with the Dean to review the recommendations.

Prior to May 15, the Dean will communicate the outcome (recommendations for CPI and the number of MIs, if any) of the assessment process to each faculty member.

All recommendations for MIs at the Faculty level must adhere to the limits on the percentage of faculty members who may receive Merit Increments as indicated by the Framework Agreement 73.6.6: 8.33% must receive 4 MIs, 25% must receive 3 MIs and 33% must receive 2 MIs.

VI Review of the Evaluation Policy

This evaluation policy will be subject to review by the Faculty of Humanities as required by the Framework Agreement 13.8.2.