Workload and Performance Review

Faculty Workload Assignments and Performance Review

CHHS Workload and Performance Review

Introduction and Background

This document describes annual faculty workload, workload adjustments and assessment of
productivity and achievement in teaching, research, and service/community engagement (and,
administration in some cases), and how these expectations are measured in the evaluation of faculty
in the College of Health and Human Services. In addition, the six-principle platform upon which
the overarching mission and goals of the College is built is also considered in assessing faculty
contributions:

• Focus on student, faculty and staff success
• Focus on diversity, inclusion and vulnerable populations
• Promote innovation and entrepreneurship
• Promote interdisciplinary approaches and partnerships
• Promote internationalization and global perspective
• Steward resources effectively and creatively

The original version of this document was created in fall 2004, implemented in fall 2005, and revised
again in 2008. However, in 2014, the UNC General Administration to the UNC system universities
confirmed teaching workload expectations for all UNC system schools, including UNC Charlotte
(See UNC Policy Manual 400.3.4; The UNC Charlotte policy regarding teaching load can be found
at http://provost.charlotte.edu/policies/teaching-load ). According to the 2014 UNC Charlotte policy, a
teaching load of five courses per academic year is considered on average, the standard load
for a full time faculty member; this however, can vary or be adjusted depending upon the faculty
member’s assigned responsibilities. Of highest priority is the provision of accessible, high quality
instruction to all of our students so that they can progress through their academic programs in a
timely manner.

For faculty whose primary responsibility is teaching and advising, a teaching load that exceeds five
courses per academic year is generally assigned.

In turn, a tenure track faculty who is assigned fewer than five courses per academic year must
demonstrate “strong, ongoing contributions to the university’s research mission, a heavy
commitment to graduate education, or significant administrative responsibility.” Buyouts of teaching
time through external grants or contracts to allow faculty dedicated (and auditable) time to engage in
research and manage their grant funded projects is supported by the Units and the College, but full
time faculty cannot reduce their teaching load below two courses per year (see UNCC Policy).
Importantly, any anticipated need for adjustment in teaching load to support research activities must
first be discussed with the faculty member’s Unit Chair/Director and approved. Current CHHS
policy related to course buyout to support research can be found in detail at:
http://health.charlotte.edu/research/faculty-resources

Annual Review and Evaluation

The purpose of this section is to (1) discuss the assessment of the annual accomplishments of
faculty in the areas of teaching, research, and service; and (2) provide an overall framework for
reporting the annual activities of faculty members and the expectations and criteria by which
activities will be assessed during the annual evaluation process, which also is designed to address the
faculty member’s developmental trajectory with respect to their next comprehensive review (e.g.,
reappointment, tenure, promotion, or tenured faculty performance review). Faculty engaging in the
formal Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Process (mandated or elective) will find a separate
section addressing those processes for each type of faculty within the Faculty Handbook google
documents (Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure). Faculty workload is complex
and diverse across disciplines, faculty type, and rank; consequently, it is difficult to establish a
comprehensive representation (algorithm, matrix, or formula) that encompasses all of the activity
engaged in by College faculty.

Annual accomplishments by individual faculty are presented through the use of the CHHS Faculty
Annual Review and Workload Planning Document (FAR/WPD) which details
accomplishments within the planned workload of the faculty for one calendar year. The FAR/WPD
also includes a self-evaluation of progress toward goals during the reporting period as well as a
statement of goals for the coming calendar year.

The completed FAR/WPD is provided to faculty supervisors (Chair/Director) by February
1st, covering the previous calendar year. Faculty evaluations by their supervisors are generally
completed by the end of each spring semester. A downloadable copy of the Faculty Annual Review
and Workload Planning Document (FAR/WPD) is located in a separate file in this Faculty
Handbook.

Annual Review Rating Scale

Annual ratings of faculty by their supervisor are structured around, and made in conjunction with,
the following contextual factors: faculty type and rank, level of experience, years of experience, time
in rank, and faculty workload and related performance (accomplishments/achievement).

5= Clearly exceeds expectations. Evidence of substantial achievement confirmed through peer-
review processes. Especially noteworthy individual accomplishments are public, and typically listed
among the Unit’s annual accomplishments, substantially furthering Unit, College and/or University
goals. Reserved for outstanding and exemplary engagement and achievements, given the faculty
member’s rank, years of service, responsibilities, and workload, contributing at the highest of levels
to individual success, and that of the Unit, College and/or in achieving University goals.

4= Meets and frequently exceeds expectations. Exceeds adequate performance and
demonstrates excellence given the faculty member’s rank, years of service, responsibilities, and
workload. Consistently engages in activities that contribute significantly to individual success and to
that of the Unit, College, and/or University goals.

3= Meets expectations. Adequate performance given the faculty member’s rank, years of service,
responsibilities, and workload. Demonstrates consistent performance that contributes positively to
Unit, College, and/or University goals.

2= Partially meets expectations. Demonstrates inconsistent performance with evidence of both
adequate and less than adequate performance, given the faculty member’s rank, years of service,
responsibilities, and workload; inconsistent contribution to Unit, College, and/or University goals.

1= Unsatisfactory. Poor performance given the faculty member’s rank, years of service,
responsibilities, and workload. An action plan will be developed between the faculty member and
supervisor to help improve the faculty member’s performance in the specified area(s).

All supervisors will use the 5-point scale in their review of a faculty member’s activities over the past
year in research, teaching, and service, and in community engagement and administrative
responsibilities when applicable. Faculty with significant administrative assignments (e.g.,
coordinator or director of a degree program) will also be evaluated for their administrative
performance. The ratings will take into account the relative emphasis on research, teaching, service,
community engagement and administration according to the faculty member’s workload plan
(established in advance of the administrative assignment or through the use of the FAR/WPD).

Expectations Overview

The expectations outlined below represent criteria to meet expectations in teaching,
service/community engagement and research (administrative achievement varies by assignment).
The criteria outlined are not the only measures used in the review process. For example, the
introduction outlines a range of valued activities that are important parts of the evaluation process.
In terms of service for example, the amount of time as faculty member has been at the University
and their level of seniority should be taken into consideration regarding the time commitment,
intensity and expected outcomes of that service. For example, a newly hired tenure-track faculty
would not be expected to be a contributing member of the same level of intensity and number of
committees as a tenured faculty member would be, however, all faculty members are expected to
make annual contributions to the three-part mission of the Unit, College and University.

1. Scholarly Expectations: It is expected that tenure-track and tenured faculty members are developing
or sustaining a defined and focused program of research or line of inquiry. In addition to these
research activities (represented by outcomes such as grants, graduate students, publications, reports,
new community/industry partnerships, presentations, etc.), expert consultations, other defined
scholarly-related activities and being honored for one’s scholarship are also taken into consideration.
Typically, it is expected that tenure-track faculty produce a three-year average of 2 new publications
a year and that they actively and consistently seek and receive funding to support their scholarship
and importantly, their graduate students. Clinical faculty are also expected to demonstrate, through
tangible products (certifications, publications, etc.) the Scholarship of Practice. Details of expected
outcomes by type of faculty and rank appear in the section on RPT.

2. Teaching Expectations: Effective teaching is an expectation in the College of Health and Human
Services. As stated in the Introduction, the average organized course sections assignment for full-
time faculty at the University is five (5). The evaluation of teaching occurs using multiple
indicators. Student evaluations constitute one component. Peer evaluations of teaching are
important as well as other evidence of teaching competence including: pedagogical presentations or
publications; participation in faculty development workshops; teaching courses with new
characteristics (e.g., online, large lecture, clinical, seminar); student advising; receipt of SOTL funds;
mentoring new faculty in teaching; supervision of student capstone projects, independent study,
theses, and dissertations (serving as a major professor on a thesis or dissertation or serving as a
member of a graduate student committee). Student evaluations of teaching are often contextualized
by a number of variables (e.g. student demand, class size, method of delivery, course level/type, and
course requirements). Generally, it is expected that a faculty member’s student evaluations on the
two University (“Overall, I learned a lot in this course” & “Overall, this instructor was effective”)
and two College student items (“I am free to express and explain my own views in this class” and
“The course increased my knowledge of the subject matter”) should be equal or greater than 3.0 on
a 5-point Likert scale and within one standard deviation of the mean within the faculty’s Unit.

3. Service Expectations: Faculty are expected to engage in rank/experience –appropriate service
activities to support Unit, College and University goals. Service expectations are also driven at the
Academic Unit level, and as such, please consult Unit handbooks. In addition to service to the Unit,
College and University, faculty also are expected to engage in developmentally–appropriate
professional service activities and, community engagement. For example, tenure-track and tenured
faculty should provide evidence of scholarly service in addition to that for UNCC (e.g. as a grant
reviewer, abstract reviewer, manuscript reviewer, service on editorial boards, study sections, etc.).
Additionally, tenured faculty are expected to participate at a higher level than pre-tenure faculty (as
exemplified through assigned or elected leadership positions, committee chair, etc.) in professional
organizations at local, state, regional, or national (or international) levels; are expected to seek and to
serve on community advisory boards related to the faculty member’s professional expertise; and, are
expected to play a more significant role in the development of community/industry partnerships,
when applicable.

4. Administrative Expectations. Faculty within the College may be asked to assume administrative
responsibilities as part of their annual workload. Each of the academic Units must have fully
developed position descriptions or a detailed scope of work for these administrative assignments
which will inform individual goals for these faculty in this domain of annual assessment. Most
administrative assignments provide either an additional stipend for the administrative work or, an
adjustment (reduction from the 5 course section average) in teaching assignment, depending on the
scope of responsibilities.

Relationship between Annual Review and Annual Goal-Setting

In addition to the annual review of performance during the previous calendar year in teaching,
research, service/community engagement, and/or administration, an assessment of the faculty
member’s performance will be conducted in relation to personal teaching, research, service, and
administrative goals set in the previous year (as per the FAR/WPD, Part VIII). These discussions
should lead to measurable goals for the upcoming calendar year in each area of activity.

Teaching and Advising Goals. The progressive achievement of excellence in teaching should be
every faculty member’s overall goal. Specific strategies may evolve from year to year but should
articulate how excellence will be achieved through action on the part of the faculty. These actions
should be “new” and should reflect feedback from student evaluations of teaching, peer evaluation
of teaching, and self-reflection. The need for or desire to participate in professional development
activities (such as through the Center for Teaching and Learning- active learning, Quality
Matters/improved distance learning, instructional consultation or other teaching enhancement
activities) designed to strengthen teaching can be discussed with faculty supervisors, leading to a
clear sense of what specific strategies will be put in play during the upcoming calendar year.

Service and Community Engagement Goals. Service is expected of all CHHS faculty.
Contribution to service is an essential part of participating in and strengthening faculty governance
within Units, the College and the University. Service to UNC Charlotte can take the form of
committee or task force work, participation in pilot projects (e.g. CXC) or, an individual opportunity
such as a fellowship dedicated to a new initiative. All faculty should discuss UNCC service
opportunities and priorities with their Chairs/Directors so that they can most strategically engage in
activities where they can leverage their unique skills set and/or, to develop new skills and
relationships. Service opportunities outside of the University should also be discussed with direct
supervisors; faculty are encouraged to discuss interest in service on grants panels or within the
broader community with their supervisors, the several Research Academy Directors, and the CHHS
Associate Dean for Research. Importantly, faculty should be prepared to upon evaluation, articulate
the intensity and success of the service they engaged in (role, number of hours, outcomes specifically
as a result of the faculty member’s participation, etc.).

Research Goals. Particular emphasis should be placed on a discussion between tenured and pre-
tenure faculty members and their supervisor regarding the research agenda and plans to advance that
agenda. All faculty with research workload expectations need to develop, grow and sustain a well-
articulated and focused research agenda, which demonstrates the following:

• An articulated theme and set of questions that is significant, sustainable, and contributes to the
  knowledge base in the field
• A balanced portfolio of scholarship including publishing, funding, external recognition,