Guidelines for Preparation and Review of Annual Faculty reviews


Prepared by PT as C&I Chair, Dec 06-Jan 07 (last update 1/20/07)

AFR preparation

1. AFRs must be trustworthy accounts of the faculty member's work.
  • No-one should ever need to go back and check what is in the AFR against the record. If discrepancies were to be exposed, that would be a serious violation of professional integrity.
  • Although it is not required to reflect on your courses and course evaluations, if you choose to do so, you must address the range of student comments -- It is misleading to reviewers if you quote selectively the student comments.

2. AFRs should facilitate reviewers and the faculty member taking stock of what was done well and where there is room for improvement.
  • In that vein, figures should be precise (e.g., instead of "I advised several students," state the actual number) (as well as accurate, see #1).
  • Be succint in any reflection on teaching or other discursive passages -- you want to help reviewers see the key points in your AFR without having to work really hard.
  • Minimize "excuse" mode and focus on a) any factor that reviewers need to know to appreciate the significance of a negative student comment or other problem; and b) what steps you took to address this.
  • Steps planned for your future teaching could, by the logic of AFRs, be left to the following year's AFR and included under "major changes in your teaching approach or responsibilities".
  • Because the numerical items on course evaluations are diagnostic first and evaluative only if the item is relevant for your course (e.g., issues of inclusion are not pertinent to some courses), averages over all items are often not appropriate. Even if all items were evaluative, a simple average of over all items suggest that each item is of equal weight for your course.

3. AFRs should focus on documentable facts about your own personal record.
  • Although you may chose to document some contributions in greater detail because you consider that they might be discounted or misinterpreted by certain reviewers (see #2), it is not appropriate to use the AFR to rehearse your side of an argument or interpretation about some issue or dispute among colleagues that arose during the year. (That's something to do through meetings or, if you chose, a memo to your personnel file.)
  • Section V on "Other activities and accomplishments" is a place to include detail about "activities and accomplishments" that do not fit under the headings in sections I-IV.

AFR submission

Faculty members should submit their AFRs electronically to the Department Chair, who forwards them to the AFR subcommittee chair.

New idea, subject to endorsement Faculty members are welcome to submit supporting documentation that will be kept on file in the Department (i.e., not forwarded to the Dean or Provost). This can be retrieved by the faculty member for use in major personnel reviews.

New idea, subject to endorsement Faculty members are welcome to submit an objective summary of their AFR in section VI (“Other activities and accomplishments”). Recommended limit: 500 words

Faculty member can submit additional note/documentation in response to final copy of AFR sub-committee’s reports and/or Chair’s comments.


AFR sub-committee reports

should have three parts:
1. Objective summary (no interpretation)
2. Assessment/interpretation (incl. acknowledgement of improvements since last AFR and recommendations for areas that could be improved) -- Criteria as for GCE reviews
3. Merit Rating for each of the categories: Research and Writing; Teaching & Advising; Service & Institutional Development

The language used in #2 and #3 should not be the same as in major personnel reviews or in other ways provide grounds for the faculty member to claim the equivalent of, "My annual reviews indicated I would get excellent in all three categories when I came up for tenure."

Draft of sub-committee's report will be sent to each faculty member to allow them to identify factual errors.

Merit Rating

0, 1, 2, 3 in three categories: Research and Writing; Teaching & Advising; Service & Institutional Development

Criteria as for GCE reviews. (See appendix for criteria that are beyond the scope or expectations of documentation for annual reviews and merit ratings.) The rubric for using these criteria for merit ratings has not yet been agreed on. (Perhaps no rubric can capture the range of ways we pursue our work in each of the three categories.) New idea, subject to endorsement In the meantime, the AFR sub-committee looks at the full suite of AFR summaries and comes to a consensus about the rating. The work of superstars should not drive down the rating of the mortals.

3 Outstanding (or super-outstanding)
2 Very Good
1 Satisfactory
0 Not rated

The ratings for all benefited faculty members are compiled into a single file, which is sent to the Department Chair and Office Manager for storage until needed.

Preparation of Merit Recommendations

Include all eligible for that round of merit awards
Add each person’s merit ratings into a total score from 0 to 9
Multiply by 50% if working under a 50% appointment or away on unpaid leave for 50% of the year in question
Sum the total scores
Divide the $ amount for pool A by that sum to get a $ amount per unit score
Multiple that amount by each person’s total score to get their pool A recommendation
Make that the pool B recommendation as well.

Submission of Merit Recommendations
Submit both pool A & B recommendations to Chair
Monitor next steps to ensure that contract is followed, especially the point about Chairs and Deans given written explanations if they depart from the Pool B recommendations.



College Personnel Review Criteria that are beyond the scope or expectations of documentation for annual reviews and Merit ratings


1. Teaching and Advising
g. evidence from personal statement of reflective practice in teaching and advising, including a grounded understanding of what students need to learn within their field and program, of personal teaching goals within that context, of the efforts made to accomplish those goals, and of one’s own learning from those efforts;
h. evidence from personal statement, if appropriate, of ways in which teaching and advising are integrated with, contributing to, or informed by one’s scholarship and service;
i. additional supporting documentation such as portfolios, web pages, examples of student work, (with consent forms filled out by students); examples of mentoring and peer coaching with colleagues, etc.

Evaluation of advisement contributions should include:
b. Quality of advisement based on an evaluation of both advisor and advising.

Note: Book manuscripts in development may represent significant scholarly work during a year. New idea, subject to endorsement This might need to be documented to be given its due weight in an AFR. In a major personnel review, the situation is simpler -- the manuscript is given weight if it has been accepted for publication or published.