Department of Computer Science Faculty Annual Review Criteria for Merit Evaluation

Preamble

“IU Indianapolis observes a mandated annual review policy for all faculty. This review is normally conducted by the principal administrative officer of the department or school in which the faculty member holds an appointment. The purpose of the annual review is to provide input on the faculty member’s progress in the areas of teaching, research, and service, leading to the tenure review year (or, for non-tenure track faculty, to reappointment on a long-term contract) and to promotion. Annual reviews also provide information for use in salary recommendations and other assessments.” (“Indiana University Indianapolis Supplement to the IU Academic Handbook,” p. 69).

Per Indiana University policy, merit forms the basis of all salary increases. Each year, the IU Board of Trustees establishes a target average raise that a department or school can offer its faculty, although actual adjustments may vary based on individual contributions to the academic mission of the department and school.

Review Form

All faculty members should be familiar with the annual review form, available upon request from the Department Chair.

Review Process

Faculty members are required to submit their annual review data in the Elements system, covering activities from January 1 to December 31. The Department Chair will review each faculty member’s submission and will provide a written summary of the review.

The Department Chair will meet individually with each faculty member to discuss the annual review, provide constructive feedback, and discuss plans for improvement. The faculty member will sign the review document. All documents associated with the review will be maintained together in the employee’s record. This document outlines the Chair’s expectations for the different rating values (1-10) associated with each academic area of activity (Teaching, Research and Service for tenure-track and tenured faculty; Teaching and Service for teaching track faculty members). As indicated in the Annual Review Form, the annual review process will result in an overall finding that the faculty member’s performance has either been satisfactory or unsatisfactory during the prior year.

Indicators of Annual Performance

Each area (teaching, research and service) outlines the “important items” that must be documented in the existing online faculty annual report documentation system to achieve satisfactory performance. The criteria indicated for each score level in this document should be considered as examples, but not the only possible examples, of performance indicators. In the FAR, a faculty member should include evidence of performance appropriate to the indicators of different score levels. The chair may request, or the faculty member may submit, whatever additional materials they believe will inform the annual review and salary decision.

The Chair’s evaluation will consider overall performance based on the achievements on the important items indicated for each area and level. Although the FAR is the main vehicle to document faculty achievement, the review process is open to innovative approaches to document performance for each important item or to document achievements that demonstrate integration among areas.

To account for the complex flow of the academic activity, the merit evaluation within a calendar year (January-December) will use a 2-year moving window (when applicable) to assess more holistically the work of the individual faculty. For example, if a faculty has just secured a large external grant in the previous year, faculty can focus more on working intensely on the research project (e.g., towards peer-reviewed publications) and less on immediately applying for large external grants. The 2-year window can also account for the turn-around time of grant review and approval or journal publications (e.g., publications and grants currently under review are an indicator of effort).

Teaching and Instructional Activity (Rating Scale: 0-10)

Essential items in this category include:

• T1. Classroom performance: quality and rigor of classroom instruction
• T2. Curriculum development: contributions to course or curriculum innovation and teaching enhancement. Participation in program, curriculum, track, course, lab redesign and improvement; proposals for teaching enhancement and environments; breadth of instructional activities.
• T3. Student advising and mentoring: When the opportunity arises, guiding students to graduation through capstone/final graduation projects; guiding students to grow as successful professionals in the discipline. Both quantity and quality of the student mentoring are valued.

Additional items that are recognized and rewarded:

• T4. Scholarship of teaching: Creation and dissemination of peer-reviewed, novel ideas about the theory or practice of teaching and learning to peers; and securing external grants in support of teaching. Creative activities of lecturer-track faculty are evaluated in this category, as long as they have a documented, positive impact on the teaching and learning
• T5. All faculty members must accommodate intellectual diversity in their classroom.

Faculty annual performance is evaluated as follows:

• [0,2] Unsatisfactory: Serious problems in classroom teaching performance. Pattern of absenteeism.
• [3,4] Weak: Pattern of negative feedback on classroom teaching performance from students[4]and peers; sub-par rigor in the classes; signs of absenteeism; little or no involvement in course/curriculum design/improvement.
• [5,6] Satisfactory: There is evidence that the faculty member teaches adequately, and provides appropriate supporting material and processes. Feedback and grading is timely. Course syllabi and material are complete and well-organized. There are positive scores and feedback from students (and, where appropriate, peers outside the department) about the instructional activity; there is involvement in curriculum development; evidence of student mentoring.
• [7,8] Very good: examples include: The faculty gets a pattern of very good comments from students and peers about the instructional activity; enhances the rigor of the courses; helps connect students to careers and further develop their skillset beyond classroom activity; contributes with novel ideas to curriculum development; proactively advises and mentors students; engagement in substantive DEI activities related to teaching which do not necessarily raise to the level of scholarship.
• [9,10] Excellent: besides performing at very good levels in activities T1-T3, the faculty shows clear evidence of scholarship of teaching: publications and presentations on teaching and educational activity; documented dissemination of teaching-related creative activities and teaching knowledge through peer-reviewed publications; documented evidence that his/her teaching methods are adopted by others; documented invitation to make presentations on teaching scholarship; external grants in support of teaching related activities.

Research Activities (Rating Scale: 0-10)

(Note: This category applies only to tenure-track faculty.)

Essential elements include:

• R1. Peer-reviewed publications: publishing research findings in reputable venues.
• R2. External research grant activities: applying for and securing peer-reviewed research grants, contracts and other types of external support.
• R3. Research advising: advising students through research projects; graduating PhD students.

Faculty annual performance is evaluated as follows:

• [0, 2] Unsatisfactory: no or minimal activity documented for R1, R2 or R3.
• [3, 4] Weak: some activity in R1, R2 and R3, but with no substantial effort or results.
• [5, 6] Satisfactory: the faculty member is making an effort in meeting the expectations of an average research and scholarly output. There is effort in publishing peer- reviewed articles and applying for external funding to sustain the research program.
• [7, 8] Very good: faculty publishes peer-reviewed publications in high-impact venues by demonstrating a leading role (e.g., as first author, corresponding author, or with mentored students as first authors); at least one external grant active; very good involvement in research advising and mentoring students toward graduation; additional activities that may elevate performance to very good include: production of intellectual property (e.g., filed patents or disclosures when applicable); incorporation of DEI into research activities through one or more activities from R4.
• [9, 10] Excellent: research output is exceptional; examples include: published multiple high-impact peer-reviewed publications; recipient of at least one respectable external grant; several students supported on grants; recipient of major paper award, or prestigious research-related award; DEI activities related to research that result in publications or awards or grants.

Service Activities (Rating Scale: 0-10)

Essential elements include:

• S1. Institutional service: participating, contributing, leading or chairing committees or task forces for the Department, School, Campus, and University.
• S2: Service to the discipline or profession: examples may include (but are not limited to) contributing time and expertise to further the work of a professional society or organization connected to the discipline; participating, contributing, leading peer- review and editorial activities for publication venues in the discipline; organizing professional or academic conferences in the discipline.

Additional elements recognized and rewarded:

• S3. Efforts to support a more inclusive campus and professional environment.
• S4. Service to students: Examples may include (but are not limited to) providing students with letters of referral or recommendation, advising student chapter or organization, providing seminars to students on ways to improve study habits, contributing to career events for students, escorting students on a visit to a professional venue outside the formal instructional activity.S5: Community service—using expertise to benefit local organizations or communities.
• S5. Service to the Community: Examples may include (but are not limited to): consulting with private and public, profit and not-for-profit organizations by applying expertise to enhance the efficiency or effectiveness of the organizations served; assisting the public through the activities of a laboratory or center; participating in governmental meetings or on federal review panels; participating in collaborative endeavors and outreach activities with schools, industry/civic agencies; testing concepts/ processes in real-world situations that benefit community members; communicating in popular/ non-academic media and press.

Faculty performance is evaluated as follows:

• [0,2] Unsatisfactory: no service effort; no demonstrated academic citizenship in service activities in any of the S1-S2 items.
• [3,4] Weak: some activity in any area (S1-S5), but with no substantial effort or documented contribution.
• [5,6] Satisfactory: the faculty member is taking the service component seriously. For example:
  • Volunteers for departmental, school, and university-wide needs.
  • Participates in department committees.
  • Assists the department/School in various outreach events.
  • Represents program/department on campus committees or events; provides department visibility to the general university community.
  • For tenured and tenure track faculty: some level of activity in peer-reviewing papers for conference and journals.
• [7,8] Very good: the faculty is involved in service activity spanning S1-S5 beyond the minimum (satisfactory level). For example: advising/tutoring students club or group as faculty advisor; active in journal review board / editorial boards, program committees, grant proposal reviewing for state or federal agencies; serving on several department, school, campus committee with documented important contribution; assuming leading roles (as committee chair) in several internal and external committees; integrating service into teaching and/or research (e.g., service courses); advancing efforts to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion on the IUI campus and the larger Indianapolis community.
• [9,10] Excellent: the faculty develops a body of scholarship of service (e.g., peer-reviewed publications generating novel ideas on service activities disseminated to peers), secured grants related to service activities; dissemination of DEI service efforts through scholarship.