HHD Faculty Annual Review Guidelines

General Information

Per Policy AC40, full-time faculty members must be reviewed annually by the appropriate administrator. The annual review is informed by information provided by the faculty member, includes a thorough one-on-one discussion and a written summary of the review provided to the faculty member.  Reviews are expected to cover teaching, research, and service activity completed during the course of the review year, including a discussion of the integration of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging into these activities. 

Reviews should also focus on progress made during the review year towards individual professional goals (including, but not necessarily limited to, promotion and/or tenure) and how these connect to the larger goals of the academic unit, college and University.  In light of this reflection on the year past, plans for the upcoming year should also be covered.  However, it is recognized that details of teaching and service assignments, which per workload guidelines need to be conveyed annually in writing, might be conveyed through other separate processes in the academic unit.

Responsible Administrators

Academic unit heads or, in the case of research faculty appointed primarily in college research centers, the college research center director, are responsible for the completion of faculty annual reviews for faculty with majority appointments in their academic unit.  For faculty members with secondary appointments in other units, feedback should be sought from the appropriate administrator of the unit where the faculty members’ secondary appointment is based.  When secondary appointments come with co-funding, feedback from the appropriate co-funding unit head (typically other department heads or University Research Institute directors) is required to be solicited and, if received, incorporated into the review.   

For faculty members with secondary appointments in academic unit head’s own academic unit (i.e., primary appointments elsewhere), academic unit heads are encouraged to proactively provide feedback to the academic administrator responsible for that faculty members’ review.  

Reporting to Inform Annual Reviews

Activity Insight (AI)

All faculty must complete the data entry needed in Activity Insight (AI) for the annual review process. The period covered by an annual review is a single calendar year, January 1 through December 31. The reports provide a comprehensive record of scholarly and professional contributions.  Faculty members should include only activity from this period in their report.

This report includes the following sections.

1. Courses Taught: Detailed records of courses taught, including course titles, levels, and student evaluations.
2. Grants: Information on grants applied for, awarded, and completed, including the funding amount, role in the grant (PI, Co-PI), and grant duration.
3. Publications and Papers: A list of scholarly articles, book chapters, conference presentations, and other publications, including co-authors, publication dates, and citation metrics if relevant.
4. Research: Description of ongoing or completed research projects, collaborations, and outcomes.
5. Service: Documentation of service to the university, professional organizations, and the community, including committee work and leadership roles.
6. Professional Development: Information on conferences, workshops, and other activities aimed at professional growth.
7. Awards and Honors: Recognition for academic, teaching, or service achievements.
8. Narrative Statement for Annual Review: This section of the report provides an opportunity for the faculty member to describe their accomplishments in each of the key areas of their work. Faculty are encouraged to organize the narrative around the main reporting areas (teaching and advising, research, and service, as relevant to their assignment, with attention to DEIB contributions) and to highlight their major accomplishments for the year. Faculty members may also complete a self-evaluation of their work in each area, as a way to begin the conversation about the year’s work.
9. Self-Reflection on Teaching: Faculty members are required to complete the AI annual review section on teaching self-reflection. Self-reflections should be 250-1000 words and should incorporate the Elements of Effective Teaching. 
   • Online resources for developing faculty teaching self-reflections are available from the Schreyer Institute.   Faculty members may also wish to consult the guidance provided in the appendix of the University Faculty Senate report, Faculty Self-Reflection within the Teaching Assessment Framework.
10. Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, and Belonging: HHD faculty have the opportunity to comment in this section on how they attend to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belongingness across all three areas of teaching/advising, research, and service.
11. Goal Assessment and Planning: This screen of Activity Insight includes College-specific questions (in both Goals and Plans) that invite faculty to reflect on how they are making progress towards their own professional objectives and goals and how they plan to approach these moving forward.

Faculty members can get assistance in the completion of relevant AI reports from the following resources:

• The University’s Faculty Affairs website.
• Trainings and workshops offered by the University’s Activity Insight Office throughout the year. 
• Workshops offered by HHD OFADEI 

• Individual questions can be directed to HHD Office for Faculty Affairs. 

Student Assessments of Teaching Effectiveness

A standard report documenting student feedback from all courses assigned in the evaluation year should be part of the material reviewed during the annual assessment. Effective fall 2023, the Student Educational Experience Questionnaire (SEEQ) will be administered to students during weeks 12-14 of the semester to collect student feedback.

Summer Work Plans

For tenured or tenure-line faculty who have approved work plans for a summer term the under the college’s Allocating Effort/Salary Release/Summer Salary guideline falling within the calendar year of the review, these plans should be reviewed in the context of the annual review. 

Sabbatical Reports

For faculty members who were on sabbatical during the spring of the evaluation calendar year, the written progress report on file should be part of the materials considered during the annual review.  For faculty members on sabbatical during the fall term of the evaluation calendar year, although a written report will not yet be on file at the time of the review, discussion of progress made during fall sabbatical term should be part of the review. 

Assembly of Materials for the Annual Review

Academic units can establish their own process for assembling materials informing annual reviews. Faculty members can be asked to assemble materials or academic unit leaders can have central unit staff compile materials.    Materials must be compiled and reviewed by the individual conducting the review prior to the Annual Review meeting.

Annual Review Meeting

A one-on-one meeting with the faculty member must be part of the academic review and should include discussions about:

• teaching, research, and service (as relevant to the faculty member’s assignments);
• diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) activities as integrated into the areas of teaching, research, and service as well as in other areas;
• progress towards professional goals (including, but not necessarily limited to, promotion and/or tenure if applicable) and how these connect to the larger goals of the academic unit, college and University. 
• plans for the upcoming year (in light of reflection on the year past and, recognizing that details of teaching and service assignments might also be conveyed through other separate processes in the academic unit).

Academic unit heads will conduct the one-on-one discussions with all tenure-line and tenured faculty in their departments.  Annual review responsibilities for non-tenure track faculty with primary appointments in an academic unit may be delegated (e.g., to PICs or program directors or faculty PIs) but all faculty members should be made aware of who will be conducting their meeting at the time those meetings are scheduled. 

Center directors will conduct the one-on-one discussions with all non-tenure-line research faculty with primary appointments in their unit.

Written Annual Review Summary

All faculty members are to be provided a written summary of their annual review following standard templates provided by the college.  In addition to narrative description, the summary includes an overall summary performance rating using standard categories. 

The extent of responsibilities for individual faculty members can vary across the domains of research, teaching and service.   When necessary, the narrative summary should provide some indication of how responsibilities across domains are weighted in determining the overall performance rating. 

If annual review responsibilities for non-tenure track faculty are delegated (e.g., to PICs or program directors or faculty PIs), the department head must review the final written review before it is distributed to the faculty member. It is up to the discretion of the local academic unit whether written summaries are provided before or after the annual review meeting.

The final written summary should be signed by the individual conducting the annual review meeting and provided to the faculty member for review.   Faculty members should have at least 5 days to review, sign, and return the summary to the unit.  All faculty members also have an opportunity to provide, at their discretion, a written comment (up to one written page) on the final review summary with the signed summary that is returned to the unit.

A copy of the signed review summaries with any faculty member comments are to be retained at the local academic unit and a copy is to be forwarded to the OFADEI.

Annual Review Timelines & Deadlines

In January of each year, OFADEI will send an email to all faculty members reminding them to update their information in Activity Insight (AI) for the annual review, explaining any changes to AI or annual review processes at the University or College Level, and telling faculty members to be alert for instructions from their local academic unit about deadlines related to the annual review. At that time OFADEI will also provide guidance to administrators/supervisors regarding college or University deadlines and any important changes in procedures or guidelines at the University or College level.

Local academic units can establish their own timelines for completing the review process, including providing a deadline for when faculty member data entry into AI must be completed, how, when and with whom meetings are scheduled however the following college and University deadlines must be adhered to:

May 15       All annual review meetings with faculty members are to be completed

June 1         Copies of the signed review summaries with any faculty member comments are to provided to the OFADEI.

Faculty Concerns About Reviews

As noted above, faculty members have the opportunity to attach a comment (up to one written page) to their annual review and can use this to provide additional perspective on that year’s review process or report content.

If substantial concerns about an annual review arise, attempts should be made to resolve the issues at the unit level before involving any other parties.   

If a faculty member feels their concerns are not being addressed at the unit level and want to consider further action, the next point of contact in the college would be the College’s Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion or the College Ombudsperson.

Special Considerations

Faculty Members with Joint or Co-funded Appointments

Input from secondary unit heads is required to be incorporated into the annual review of jointly appointed faculty members (joint appointments refer to formal secondary appointments where positions are partially funded through another unit’s budget).

Formal input from Institute Directors is not required for faculty on Institute co-funded appointments, but effort should be sought by the academic unit heads to receive some level of feedback in the form of a letter or email.

Faculty Members on Sabbatical Leave During the Spring Term

Faculty members who are on sabbatical leave during the spring semester are still required to complete the annual evaluation process for the previous calendar year, including participating in the annual review meeting.  A remote meeting is permissible.

Faculty Members on Personal Leave During the Spring Term

Faculty members who are on personal leave (e.g., parental, medical, etc.) during the spring semester should be offered the opportunity to complete the annual evaluation process if they wish and are able. They should be informed that the annual review can be delayed until after the leave ends. Some personal leave situations may be quite complex. Administrator/supervisor should contact the ADFADEI prior to April 1 about situations that may benefit from individualized attention. Such situations will be handled on a case-by-case basis with the assistance of Human Resources.

Faculty Members Undergoing Promotion and/or Tenure and 2nd/ 4th-Year Reviews

Faculty members who are undergoing, or who are scheduled to receive a formal promotion and/or tenure review during the current academic year, regardless of review year or track, are required to update Activity Insight fields for scholarship (papers, grants, etc.) and teaching through the end of the calendar year (this will require little data entry as these faculty members will have updated their AI data the previous summer in preparation for the promotion or promotion and tenure review).

However, these faculty members are NOT required to complete the Activity Insight Narrative Statement for Annual Review on Teaching: Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, and Belonging, or Goal Assessment and Planning AI sections, but may do so at their discretion.

In addition, these faculty members are NOT required to have an annual review meeting separate from the meeting required with the academic unit head at the conclusion of the promotion or promotion and tenure review process (the timetable for these promotion and tenure reviews dictates that these will occur prior to the deadline for the conduct of the annual review meeting). In the event a separate annual review meeting is NOT scheduled, there are then expectations that: (1) the promotion or tenure and promotion meeting will also include some separate discussion of performance in the previous calendar year and plans for the upcoming year as required in an annual review meeting; and (2) that academic unit heads and faculty members still complete an annual review report as described above.

Annual Review Timeline Summary

To ensure the following College deadlines are met, department heads will set their own department-specific deadlines for completion and submission of materials.

PDF File for Download