Policies and Procedures
Preamble: According to guidelines passed by the Faculty Council, an annual review needs to be thorough, fair, and unbiased. An evaluation process designed to improve the performance of the Chair requires a two-way, ongoing exchange of information. The underlying purpose of the review process should be to improve administrative performance and assure accountability for the achievement of departmental goals. The results of the annual reviews should provide valuable input for the annual and three-year reappointment reviews conducted by the Dean of the College of Engineering.
I. Annual evaluations of Department Chairs should be conducted by the tenured members of the elected Departmental Review Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (DRC). In the event that a DRC does not have at least three tenured faculty members, the Department faculty shall elect the necessary additional members from the remaining tenured faculty members in the Department. Tenured faculty members who were deemed ineligible for the DRC because of either review for promotion or service on the College Review Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (CRC) will be eligible to serve on the Chair Department Review Committee (CDRC).
2. The annual review process will be initiated when the Chair submits to the CDRC and to the Department faculty a summary of his/her accomplishments for the current academic year and goals for the upcoming year. Although the evaluation is to be based on the list of responsibilities identified in the Job Description of Chairpersons in the William States Lee College of Engineering, the Chair may also report upon his/her teaching and professional activities. This summary should be provided to the committee on or before April I of the current academic year.
3. Members of the Department faculty shall be invited to send comments on the Chair’s performance to the CDRC. While the CDRC may simply ask for a general response, it could also guide these comments by asking for responses to questions such as “What did the Chair do well this year?” “What could this Chair do to improve his/her performance?” and “What other issues do you believe deserve the Chair’s attention in the coming year?” The Department may choose to develop a short questionnaire to aid in the feedback process. The CDRC may also wish to seek input from one or more Chairs of other departments in the College of Engineering. The CDRC must guarantee the confidentiality of all responses. The CDRC collects and analyzes these responses. However, in preparing its analysis of the Chair’s performance, the CDRC should not be limited solely to summarizing the evaluation responses but should also utilize its independent judgment to prepare an evaluation report and to make recommendations with the goal of improving the Chair’s effectiveness. The CDRC’s report should also include particular matters of faculty concern, if any.
4. The CDRC submits the draft copy of the evaluation report to the Chair for his/her review and comments. The CDRC and the Chair may choose to meet to discuss the evaluation, or the Chair may simply reply in writing to the CDRC if he/she has disagreements with statements in the evaluation. The final copy of the evaluation report shall be signed by the Chair indicating that he/she has read the report. The Chair’s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the report, but merely that he/she has read it. The signed final report, along with any letter of disagreement or explanation by the Chair and any minority reports from the CDRC, will be forwarded to the Dean of the College of Engineering by May 15.
5. After discussing the CDRC’s report with the Chair, the Dean prepares a summary of both the CDRC’s report and the actions mutually agreed upon by the Chair and the Dean with respect to any recommendations made by the CDRC. The Dean will meet with the CDRC at the beginning of the following academic year to discuss the Dean’s recommendations.
May 1998
Preamble: According to guidelines passed by the Faculty Council, an annual review needs to be thorough, fair, and unbiased. An evaluation process designed to improve the performance of the Dean requires a two-way, ongoing exchange of information. The underlying purpose of the review process should be to improve administrative performance and assure accountability for the achievement of college goals. The results of the annual reviews should provide valuable input for the annual and five- year reappointment reviews conducted by the Provost.
1. Annual evaluations of the Dean of the College of Engineering should be conducted by the Dean College Review Committee (DCRC) composed of the tenured members of the elected College Review Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (CRC). A department that is not represented on the CRC by a tenured faculty member shall elect a representative to the DCRC from the tenured faculty members of the Department.
2. The annual review process will be initiated when the Dean submits to the DCRC and to the College faculty a summary of his/her accomplishments for the current academic year and goals for the upcoming year. Although the evaluation is to be based on the list of responsibilities identified in the Job Description for the Dean in the William States Lee College of Engineering, if appropriate the Dean will also report upon his/her teaching and professional activities. This summary should be provided to the committee on or before April 1 of the current academic year.
3. Members of the College faculty shall be invited to send comments on the Dean’s performance to the DCRC. While the DCRC may simply ask for a general response, it could also guide these comments by asking for responses to questions such as “What did the Dean do well this year?” “What could this Dean do to improve his/her performance?” and “What other issues do you believe deserve the Dean’s attention in the coming year?” The College may choose to develop a short questionnaire to aid in the feedback process. The DCRC must guarantee the confidentiality of all responses. The DCRC collects and analyzes these responses. However, in preparing its analysis of the Dean’s performance, the DCRC should not be limited solely to summarizing the evaluation responses but should also utilize its independent judgment to prepare an evaluation report and to make recommendations with the goal of improving the Dean’s effectiveness. The DCRC’s report should also include particular matters of faculty concern, if any.
4. The DCRC submits the draft copy of the evaluation report to the Dean for his/her review and comments. The DCRC and the Dean may choose to meet to discuss the evaluation, or the Dean may simply reply in writing to the DCRC if he/she has disagreements with statements in the evaluation. The final copy of the evaluation report shall be signed by the Dean indicating that he/she has read the report. The Dean’s signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the report, but merely that he/she has read it. The signed final report, along with any letter of disagreement or explanation by the Dean and any minority reports from the DCRC, will be forwarded to the Provost by May 15.
5. After discussing the DCRC’s report with the Dean, the Provost prepares a summary of both the DCRC’s report and the actions mutually agreed upon by the Dean and the Provost with respect to any recommendations made by the DCRC. The Provost will be asked to meet with the DCRC at the beginning of the following academic year to discuss the Provost’s recommendations.
May 1998
The William States Lee College of Engineering University of North Carolina at Charlotte July 29, 2014
Background
The William States Lee College of Engineering may employ faculty who are not governed by the college’s Policies and Procedures for Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure. 1 Full-time non-tenure track faculty within the professorial rank are appointed with the expectation that they may be promoted to higher faculty ranks. This document sets forth the guidelines for classification, appointment, review, and promotion of non-tenure track professors.
Classification
Non-tenure track professorial rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor must have one of the following modifiers. • Teaching: a contract with a principal responsibility in teaching • Research: a contract with a principal responsibility in research.
Appointment and Qualifications
Hiring decisions for non-tenure track professors are made by the chair in consultation with the faculty. Non-tenure track professors generally receive multiyear contracts. For faculty engaged in teaching, departments must have documentation that each faculty member is qualified in the subjects assigned, either based on degrees attained or alternative credentials. Documentation must comply with ABET and SACS accreditation standards.
Teaching or Research Assistant Professor • Ability or definite promise in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility. • Potential for directing activities in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility. • Ability and willingness to participate in department, college and university affairs. • Assistant Professors should have a doctor’s degree, an equivalent degree, or a minimum of five years of professional experience and a master’s degree.
Teaching or Research Associate Professor • Recognized ability and potential for distinction in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility. • Demonstrated ability to direct activities in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility. • Demonstrated ability and willingness to participate in department, college and university affairs. • Associate Professors should have a doctor’s degree, an equivalent degree, or a minimum of eight years of professional experience and a master’s degree.
Teaching or Research Professor • Distinguished achievement in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility. • Demonstrated ability to direct activities in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility. • Established reputation in the individual’s profession or field of scholarly activity. • Demonstrated ability and willingness to participate in department, college and university affairs. • Professors should have a doctor’s degree, an equivalent degree, or a minimum of ten years of professional experience and a master’s degree.
Evaluation and Reappointment Non-tenure track professors at any rank, are subject to evaluation by the department chair. The term of an appointment is negotiated between the department chair and the faculty member. Extension of the contract at current rank is by the chair’s recommendation and based on annual written evaluations of the candidate’s performance as well as availability of funds and the department’s current needs and priorities.
Promotion Non-tenure track professors are eligible to be considered for promotion in rank at their first contract renewal or any time thereafter. Chairs consider initiating promotion reviews that are appropriate based on the criteria below. The department chair shall form an ad hoc committee of faculty to evaluate a case being considered for promotion. Department chairs recommend promotion of nontenure track faculty to the dean, and the dean makes the final decision.
Documentation The chair’s recommendation to the Office of the Dean for appointment, reappointment and promotion of non-tenure track professors, should include the following documentation and be limited to 10 pages: • Current curriculum vita. • The department chair’s recommendation and written annual evaluations of the faculty member’s activities since the last previous appointment or promotion. • The written recommendation of the ad hoc review committee. • Material directly relevant to the contract assignment, e.g., student evaluations, recommendations from research collaborators, publications, industry recommendations, etc.
The following common guidelines are suggested for promotion to the higher ranks:
Criteria for promotion to the rank of Teaching or Research Associate Professor • Evidence of distinction in the realms of responsibility. • Leadership in collaborative activities that advance the mission of the department, the college, and/or the university. • A minimum of six years of full-time service to the department.
Additional criteria for promotion to the rank of Teaching or Research Professor • Outstanding performance in the realm of responsibility. • Leadership of major department or college efforts to enhance and expand the mission of the college. • A minimum of twelve years of full-time service to the department.
Classification:
Senior Lecturers
(September 17, 2017)
Senior Lecturers are non-tenure track faculty appointments. The primary role of lecturers is to support the educational mission of a unit, and often involves teaching in courses and laboratories as well as educational responsibilities beyond classroom instruction and advising. Lecturers bring unique backgrounds and experiences that enhance the student experience and the quality of the college’s degree programs. A lecturer’s industry experience often enriches the student’s education and helps prepare students for an engineering career.
Credentials – Departments can recommend lecturers for the title of Senior Lecturer if one of the following credentials is met.
- Lecturers with a Ph.D. in an engineering or closely related discipline, and a combination of 5 years of teaching and/or industry experience.
- Lecturers with a MS in an engineering or closely related discipline, and a combination of 8 years of teaching and/or industry experience.
- Lecturers with a BS in an engineering discipline, and a minimum of 15 years of industry experience working in a professional engineering environment.
Review and Recommendation Process
- Department chair reviews lecturer’s credentials and relevant experience.
- Department submits a justification letter to the dean for consideration.
The William States Lee College of Engineering University of North Carolina at Charlotte August 3, 2015
Background
The William States Lee College of Engineering may employ faculty who are not governed by the university’s Policies and Procedures for Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure.1
Full-time non-tenure track faculty within the professorial rank are appointed with the expectation that they may be promoted to higher faculty ranks. This document sets forth the guidelines for classification, appointment, review, and promotion of professors of practice.
Classification
The college engages individuals with extensive industrial experience in the teaching mission of the college. These individuals are non-tenured faculty who may hold the rank of Assistant Professor of Practice, Associate Professor of Practice or Professor of Practice.
Appointment and Qualifications
Hiring decisions for professors of practice are made by the unit supervisor, chair, or dean in consultation with the faculty. Non-tenure track professors may receive multiyear contracts. Professors of practice have extensive industrial experience, are licensed professional engineers or hold similar certifications or credentials, and have documentation of their engineering experience that demonstrates that each faculty member is qualified in the subjects assigned. Documentation must comply with ABET and SACS accreditation standards.
Assistant Professor of Practice
- Extensive practical engineering experience in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility.
- Potential for directing activities in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility.
- Ability and willingness to participate in unit, department, college and university affairs.
- Assistant professors should have a Master’s degree in an engineering field and a minimum of ten years of professional experience in their realm of assigned responsibility.
- Are licensed professional engineers in a state in the US, or hold similar certifications or credentials.
Associate Professor of Practice
- Recognized ability and distinction in engineering practice in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility.
- Demonstrated ability to direct activities in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility.
- Demonstrated ability and willingness to participate in unit, department, college and university affairs.
- Associate professors should have a Master’s degree in an engineering field and a minimum of fifteen years of professional experience in their realm of assigned responsibility
- Are licensed professional engineers in a state in the US, or hold similar certifications or credentials.
Professor of Practice
- Distinguished achievement as a practicing engineer in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility.
- Demonstrated ability to direct activities in the mutually agreed upon realms of responsibility.
- Established reputation in the field of engineering.
- Demonstrated ability and willingness to participate in unit, department, college and university affairs.
- Professors should have a Master’s degree in an engineering field, a minimum of twenty years of professional experience and substantial management experience in engineering.
- Are licensed professional engineers in a state in the US, or hold similar certifications or credentials.
In some rare cases, professors of practice maybe appointed who hold a Bachelor’s degree in engineering, a minimum of twenty years of engineering practice, and extensive documented experience as a senior manager or senior engineer leading an engineering organization. These faculty would generally be employed to support entrepreneurship, design, or leadership and professional development portions of the degree programs.
Evaluation and Reappointment
Professors of practice at any rank, are subject to evaluation by the unit supervisor, department chair or appropriate dean. The term of an appointment is negotiated between the department or college and the faculty member. Extension of the contract at current rank is by recommendation of their supervisor and based on annual written evaluations of the candidate’s performance as well as availability of funds and the unit’s current needs and priorities.
Promotion
Non-tenure track professors of practice are eligible to be considered for promotion in rank at their first contract renewal or at any time thereafter. Supervisors consider initiating promotion reviews that are appropriate based on the criteria below. The unit supervisor or department chair shall form an ad hoc committee of faculty in consultation with the dean to evaluate a case being considered for promotion. The ad hoc committee forwards its recommendation to the unit supervisor or department chair. Supervisors forward the committee’s recommendation together with their recommendation for promotion of non-tenure track faculty to the dean, and the dean makes the final decision.
Documentation
The units recommendation to the Office of the Dean for appointment, reappointment and promotion of professors of practice, should include the following documentation and be limited to 10 pages:
- Current curriculum vitae or professional resume.
- The unit’s recommendation and written annual evaluations of the faculty member’s activities since the last previous appointment or promotion.
- The written recommendation of the ad hoc review committee.
- Material directly relevant to the contract assignment including student evaluations, recommendations from other faculty and colleague collaborators, industry recommendations and other items as appropriate.
The following common guidelines are suggested for promotion to the higher ranks:
Criteria for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor of Practice
- Evidence of distinction in the realms of responsibility.
- Leadership in collaborative activities that advance the mission of the department, the college, and/or the university.
- A minimum of six years of full-time service to the college.
Additional criteria for promotion to the rank of Professor of Practice
- Outstanding performance in the realm of responsibility.
- Leadership of major unit, department or college efforts to enhance and expand the mission of the college.
- A minimum of twelve years of full-time service to the college.
The William States Lee College of Engineering is committed to teaching excellence in every phase of teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The college recognizes that teaching can take on many form and includes classroom teaching, advising senior project groups, directing graduate theses, and other forms of teaching which all contribute to the enrichment of our students and faculty. This document delineates guidelines and procedures directed at enhancing classroom teaching and teaching related to classroom teaching but conducted external to the classroom environment such as meeting with students during office hours, etc. These guidelines and procedures are consistent with the vision statement of our college, which considers student education and learning as being paramount and central to its mission. This document on guidelines and procedures is augmented with another document, which comprises suggested instruments for implementing these guidelines. The instrument document also includes sample questionnaires for students, faculty, alumni, and employers.
There are three major components to teaching enhancement:
- Education and Training -this refers to the education and training of our faculty in the art of teaching.
- Teaching/Learning Evaluation -this refers to a mechanism for evaluating the teaching effectiveness of our faculty.
- Assessment of the Teaching Evaluation Process -this refers to a set of measurements that can be used to assess the progress of our College faculty in meeting our goal of continuous quality improvement in teaching.
I. Education and Training
There are two major components to education and training.
- Mentoring of Probationary Faculty -this refers to mentoring of probationary faculty by senior faculty.
- Continuing Education of All Faculty – this refers to faculty attending seminars/presentations, reviewing articles, etc., on teaching effectiveness and enhancement and deepening their understanding and remaining current in the subject matter they teach.
I.1 Mentoring of Probationary Faculty
Although it is primarily intended to help junior faculty members in matters pertaining to teaching enhancement, the mentoring program can be utilized to help junior faculty in other areas such as faculty governance, laboratory facilities, and so forth. Participation in the mentoring program is optional on the part of the junior faculty member, but it shall be made available to every junior faculty member by each Department.
Herein, we will refer to the faculty member being mentored as the faculty member.
I.l.1 Duties of the Mentor
The duties of a mentor may include, but are not limited to the following.
- Meeting with the faculty member on a regular basis.
- Reviewing class handout material, course goals, and plan for meeting course goals.
- Visiting classroom.
- Counseling the faculty member on ways to improve teaching scholarship.
The mentor’s duties may not be limited to the area of teaching, but may include offering counsel on professional development and scholarship.
I.1.2 Selection of the Mentor
The mentor may be selected from either within or external to the Department of the faculty member in consultation with the faculty member. The following delineates the selection procedure.
- The Chair initially appoints a mentor who would normally (see next bullet) serve in that capacity until the time of the award of tenure.
- In the year subsequent to that of the initial appointment, the faculty member may request from the Chair a change of mentor who would continue to serve in this capacity until the time of the award of tenure.
I.2 Continuing Education or All Faculty
The College of Engineering will make available to its faculty a library of videotaped presentations and published articles on teaching effectiveness, evaluation, and enhancement.
Probationary faculty are required to attend at least one workshop/seminar/presentation, or review at least one article, on teaching per annum. This activity is to be documented by the probationary faculty member in his/her annual activities report, which is submitted to the department chair.
All faculty are strongly encouraged to be well educated on the subject of teaching by attending seminars/presentations, and/or reviewing articles on teaching.
II. Teaching Evaluation
Evaluation of faculty teaching includes the following components.
- Student Evaluation -this refers to evaluation of faculty teaching by their students.
- Self-Evaluation- this refers to a self-evaluation by the faculty member.
- Peer Evaluation of Probationary Faculty – this refers to faculty evaluation of probationary faculty.
- The evaluation criteria.
Each of the above elements encompasses a feedback process that can be used by the faculty member as a measure of his/her teaching effectiveness for the purpose of teaching enhancement. The suggested teaching evaluation criteria for all faculty isgiven in section II.3.2.
II.1 Student Evaluation
Formal student evaluation of faculty teaching will be conducted for each lecture and laboratory section of each course that is taught. Student evaluations must be conducted in the absence of the faculty member teaching the course. The evaluations will be conducted in class by a designate student or faculty/staff member. The students must be given sufficient time to perform a thorough evaluation. These evaluations will be forwarded by the designate to the chair via the department secretary and maintained in the faculty member’s permanent file.
The evaluation instrument includes number of questions selected by the College from sources such as the CAFETERIA dictionary to provide some measure of consistency among the various departments. Each department may augment the instrument with additional items.
It is also recommended that informal student evaluations be conducted at various points in time during the semester so that the faculty member can obtain feedback that he/she can utilize during the rest of the semester.
(See the Implementation Procedure Attachment for specific details.)
II.2 Self Evaluation
At least once per annum, each faculty member is required to submit to his/her department chair a written assessment of his/her teaching. The assessment should include at least the following components:
- Goals of course.
- Assessment of faculty’s effectiveness in helping students achieve the course goals.
- Identification of ways to improve his/her teaching.
II.3 Peer Review of Teaching for Probationary Faculty
In recognition of the importance of teaching to the mission of The William States Lee College of Engineering, a formal peer review process for assessing the teaching effectiveness of probationary faculty in the College is hereby adopted. The objectives of the peer review process are (1) to provide probationary faculty with regular feedback regarding their teaching effectiveness and (2) to provide input concerning the assessment of their teaching competency during tenure decisions.
II.3.1 Peer Review Procedures
Minimal procedures for carrying out the peer review process are listed below:
1. Each probationary faculty member (hereafter referred to as “instructor”) will host at least one classroom visit per year, preferably to an undergraduate course, by at least one member of the tenured faculty (hereafter referred to as “observer”). This visit is for the purpose of evaluating the instructor’s presentation and classroom skills and should take place in the fall semester to provide timely feedback in the event that a follow-up review is recommended for the spring semester. The choice of observer shall be made by the chair, in consultation with, and with the approval of, the instructor.
2. Prior to the visit, the instructor shall provide the observer with relevant classroom materials (e.g., text selection, syllabus, class notes for the day of the visit, homework and/or project assignments, and exams) to assess their appropriateness. If the observer does not have expertise in the area of the course subject, he or she can elect to have the material reviewed for this purpose by a tenured colleague with appropriate expertise.
3. After the classroom visit, the observer shall provide a timely written report of the results of the review prior to the end of the semester based on the assessment criteria listed below to the department chair and the instructor. This report shall be provided prior to the end of the semester. Upon review of the report, the instructor shall have the opportunity to meet with the observer and/or the chair for the purpose of discussing the results of the classroom visit. It is the right of the instructor to respond in writing if she or he feels that the observer’s report is imbalanced, inaccurate, or unfair. If required by the chair or if requested by the instructor, a second review will take place during the spring semester.
II.3.2 Review Criteria
During the classroom visit, the observer must note the following:
1. Is the instructor prepared and organized?
2. Does the instructor display enthusiasm for the subject?
3. Is the instructor’s written and oral communication clear?
4. Does the instructor complement and supplement material in the text?
5. Is the instructor in control of his or her class?
6. Is student participation encouraged?
7. Is the physical classroom environment conducive to learning?
II.4 The Evaluation Criteria
The following evaluation criteria are applicable to all faculty teaching and are to be regarded as general guidelines.
There exists no single set of criteria that can effectively measure the teaching effectiveness of every faculty member for every course in every discipline of engineering, engineering technology, and computer science. Of distinct significance is the course pedagogy and goals appropriate for each individual course.
Nonetheless, any teaching evaluation criteria should include the following three principal components:
- Instructional style, delivery mechanics, and teaching integrity.
- Level and quantity of learning
- Quality of learning
Il.4.1 Instructional Style Delivery Mechanics and Teaching Integrity
This is concerned with: the style of communication, the tools and techniques of delivery, and with factors such as punctuality (arriving to class on time) of the faculty member under evaluation and his/her availability and willingness to help students external to the classroom environment.
II. 4.2 Level and quantity of learning
This criterion focuses on the receiving end rather than the delivery end of teaching. Here the central question is: to what degree have the students learned the course material in relation to the course goals? However, this should be tempered by the recognition that the intrinsic learning abilities of the students are legitimate variables that will influence the level of learning.
II.4.3 Quality of learning
This criterion focuses on the scope as well as the long-term and ancillary effects of the learning experience. It also includes course content. This includes issues such as: the faculty member’s enthusiasm for teaching the subject matter, and the degree to which he/she motivates and inspires the students.
III. Assessment of the Teaching Evaluation Process
The College of Engineering has set up a mechanism for assessing the teaching progress of its faculty on a continuous basis.
A college-level committee on teaching enhancement is to be formed. The committee will consist of five tenured members of the faculty. There shall be a representative from each department. In addition, the committee will include at least one student representative who will serve as a non-voting member of the committee. The committee is to work with the departments and the college faculty to continuously assess the effectiveness of the teaching evaluation process and recommend improvements.
The assessment shall include the following components.
Assessment of the education and training program.
- Assessment of the student evaluation process.
- Assessment of the self-evaluation process.
- Assessment of the peer evaluation process for probationary.
III.1 Assessment of the Education and Training program
This comprises an assessment of the education and training program for all faculty. It includes assessment of the education and training opportunities as well as the mentoring program.
III.2 Assessment of the Student Evaluation Process
This can include the building and analysis of a database on faculty teaching evaluations for each course. Such a database will show the degree to which faculty evaluations improve from year to year. It can also include analysis of the performance of our students on standard examinations such as the EIT (Engineer In Training) and PE (professional Engineer) exams. In addition, it is recommended that the departments conduct interviews with graduating seniors, alumni, and employers of their students.
III.3 Assessment of the Self-Evaluation Process
This can include assessment of dossiers that are developed by faculty for each course and how each faculty member perceives his/her teaching effectiveness and improvement from year to year.
III.4 Assessment of the Peer Evaluation Process for Probationary Faculty
This comprises an assessment of the peer evaluation procedures including the visitation team, the documentation, the pre-observation conference, and the feedback supplied to the faculty member.
(February 21,1995)
(Amended November 1996)
(Revised August 1998)
Attachment: Implementation Procedure for End-of-the-Semester Teaching Evaluation
(November 1996)
The William States Lee College of Engineering
MEASURING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT USING
END-OF-SEMESTER TEACHING EVALUATIONS
Implementation Procedure Attachment to the
Guidelines and Procedures for Teaching Enhancement
(November 1996)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. End-of-Semester Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness
III. Measuring the Learning Environment
I. INTRODUCTION
The learning environment should be one that fosters personal and interpersonal growth and development. A fertile learning environment produces a climate, which actively cultivates receptive minds with the goal of having individuals, groups and even organizations reach their full potential.
The curriculum revisions that have recently been approved and are currently being implemented in The William States Lee College of Engineering are the beginning of what is likely to result in profound change in the way we develop and deliver a competitive, comprehensive educational experience to our students. Research done by National Training Laboratories (NTL) of Bethel, Maine, for example, indicates that students only retain an average of 5% of what is presented through lecture format. If lectures are combined with reading, audio-visuals and demonstration of material, the average retention by students increases to 30%. According to NTL, the remaining 70% of the material “missed” by the students represents a learning gap, which must be overcome using discussion groups, practice sessions and peer-to-peer teaching. Thus, it is important that we monitor the impact these curriculum changes are having on the learning environment and what, if any, new pedagogical techniques are facilitating student learning.
II. END-OF-SEMESTER STUDENT EVALUATION OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS
End-of-semester evaluations will be conducted for each lecture and laboratory section taught. The evaluation will be done in the absence of the instructor at the beginning or end of class by a student or faculty/staff member. A cafeteria-style survey will be used for all end-of-semester evaluations so that both qualitative and quantitative feedback may be obtained. Results of the evaluation will be provided directly to the faculty member under review and his/her department chair to identify opportunities for improvement as well as used as input into all promotion, tenure and salary reviews.
II.1 Procedure for Conducting End-of-Semester Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness
(1) The department chair notifies all faculty members that end-of-semester evaluations are due by a specified date.
(2) Two weeks prior to the deadline for conducting the evaluations, the chair delivers a package to / the faculty member which includes the cafeteria questionnaires, “bubble” (op scan) sheets and a suggested “script” which may be used as a communication tool/reference (see pages 4-5, respectively.)
(3) The faculty member reserves some time at the beginning or end of a class to conduct the evaluation.
(4) The faculty member explains the purpose of the evaluation and how it will be conducted. (Reference the suggested script.)
(5) The faculty member asks for a volunteer {or selects a student) to collect the results. During normal office hours (8:00 AM – 5:00 PM) the student delivers the completed bubble sheets and written comments in a sealed envelope to the department secretary. If the evaluations are completed after 5:00 PM, the student delivers them in a sealed envelope to the Central Office (open until 7:00 PM) or to a lock box if available.
(6) The department forwards the bubble sheets to Academic Assessment to be scanned and summarized.
(7) All written comments are typed by the department secretary in order to maintain confidentiality.
(8) The results of the evaluation are provided to the faculty member under review and his/her chair and a record is kept in the department office.
(9) After reviewing the results, the faculty member and/or the department chair may use the feedback to develop a personal plan for improvement.
End-of-semester evaluations must be conducted in the absence of the faculty member under review. Results are used as input into promotion, tenure and salary reviews.
The William States Lee College of Engineering Survey of Teaching Effectiveness includes:
15 questions (#1 – #15) chosen by the College’s task force on teaching enhancement (CAFETERIA catalog)
10 optional questions (#16 – #25) selected by the department
4 standard questions (#26 – #29) required by the University
——-
29 total questions
III. MEASURING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT THROUGH END-OF-SEMESTER TEACHING EVALUATIONS
SPART recommends that question #10 on the Study Survey of Teaching Effectiveness, i.e. “The climate of this classroom is conducive to learning”, be used as an indicator to assess the learning environment in the College of Engineering. In addition, in an effort to more fully understand what other factors influence and facilitate learning as well as create a positive learning environment, SPART will also track the following:
- class size
- time of day the class is taught
- day of week the class is taught
- format of the class (i.e., lecture, lab, etc.) required vs. elective course
- classroom (location, facilities, etc.)
As SPART uncovers the factors that most influence student learning this information will be shared with the college faculty for the purpose of discussion, feedback and improvement.
The process for conducting end-of-semester course evaluations as outlined by the University requires that all bubble sheets be forwarded to Academic Assessment so that department-specific, college- specific and university-wide results may be collected and analyzed.
THE WILLIAM STATES LEE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
“SUGGESTED SCRIPT”
for
Cafeteria-Style Survey for End-of-Semester Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness
Instructor to Students:
“Please take some time today/tonight to evaluate this course and my performance as an instructor. I have a questionnaire and bubble sheets for you to respond on. If you have any additional comments you would like to make, feel free to write them on the questionnaire or your own paper and be sure to turn them in with the completed survey. If you need a #2 pencil have some here that I can let you use. All feedback from the questionnaire will be confidential -that is, I won’t know who filled out the op scan sheet because I will leave the room while you complete it. Your comments will be typed by a secretary so that I will never see the original written comments. Can I have a volunteer to collect the surveys and comments and deliver them in a sealed envelope to the department? After I have turned in the final grades for this particular course, the department chair and I will review the results of the questionnaire. I’ll use your feedback to make appropriate improvements for the next time I teach this course. Thank you for your help.”
THE WILLIAM STATES LEE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Student Survey of Teaching Effectiveness
(Revised June 2001)
Please rate your responses to the following using the following scale:
1 2 3 4 5
strongly agree somewhat agree strongly disagree
1. My instructor displays a clear understanding of course topics.
2. My instructor has an effective style of presentation.
3. My instructor seems well prepared for class.
4. My instructor displays enthusiasm when teaching.
5. This course has effectively challenged me to think.
6. My instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
7. My instructor is readily available for consultation.
8. My instructor returns papers quickly enough to benefit me.
9. I feel free to ask questions in this class.
10. The climate of this class is conducive to learning.
11. Lecture information is highly relevant to course objectives.
12. There is sufficient time in class for questions and discussion.
13. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
14. I am generally pleased with the text(s) required for this course.
15. Course topics are dealt with in sufficient depth.
(Optional: Insert 10 questions selected by the department.)
26. Overall, this course is among the best I have ever taken.
27. Overall, this instructor is among the best teachers I have known.
28. Overall, this instructor was effective
29. Overall, I learned a lot in this course.
Additional Comments:
Shop Manual
Reference: Univ. Policy Statement #74
Who May Drive
The North Carolina State insurance carrier, Travelers Insurance Company, requires that drivers of university owned vehicles fulfill several requirements.
1. Drivers must be current, active, employees of the university.
2. Drivers must hold a current valid driving license from any state.
3. Drivers must pass a supplemental writing and practical driving test.
a. This will qualify the driver for a University driving license.
b. License is issued by University Safety Office
4. Present the university license when checking out the keys to the vehicle.
Check Out Guidelines
FACULTY and STAFF:
1. Faculty and staff of all departments, who hold a valid university driving license, may use the pickup truck to conduct College of Engineering business.
2. Valid University driving license must be presented for check out.
3. The keys may be checked out at the Mechanical Shop room #130 A.
4. Advance notice should be given to insure availability of the vehicle.
5. A departmental account number must be provided to allow the fuel to be replenished, when the truck is returned, at the Facilities Management pump.
STUDENTS:
1. Student employees may operate the College of Engineering vehicle.
2. Faculty approval (Signature) is required.
3. Student’s use must be in support of a sanctioned College of Engineering activity.
4. The student must obtain a university driving license in compliance with university policy.
5. Advance notice should be given to insure availability of the vehicle.
6. A departmental account number must be provided to allow the fuel to be replenished, when the truck is returned, at the Facilities Management pump.
General Guidelines
1. Before driving away, inspect the vehicle for damage. Make the shop technician aware of any damage you find.
2. Notify the shop technician as soon as possible of malfunctions or damage so that arrangements for correction can be made.
3. All trash and personal items must be removed prior to returning the truck.
4. If the truck is very dirty there are wash racks at the Facilities Management compound. If time does not allow washing, Facilities Management will wash and clean out the truck for an additional charge of $15.00.
5. The truck should be returned with a full tank of gas:
a. WHILE ON THE ROAD: Buy gas using your personal cash or your credit card and submit a check request for reimbursement.
b. OR UPON YOUR RETURN: Fill tank at Facilities Management pump. Using the same account number as on the checkout sheet. Go to the service counter at Facilities Management and fill out a fuel voucher. The staff at the service counter will direct you to the proper pump to fill up. Once the truck is filled it can be returned to COE.
6. If a trailer will be pulled with the truck, it must be connected using all equipment included with the hitching mechanism. This includes, anti-sway bars, equalization bars, breakaway chains, and safety chains.
a. Keys for the trailer should be turned in at the same time as returning the truck.
b. The same guidelines for the truck control trailers where applicable to trailers.
7. The truck must be turned in as soon as you are finished with it, so that it will be available for others in the college that may need to use it. After hours the keys should be dropped in the night slot on the door to room #130 B.
Issue date: 12/14/2023
Approved: 12/14/2023
Posted by Dean Robert Keynton, Associate Dean Brigid Mullany
Given the increase in multidisciplinary research within the Willam States Lee College of Engineering (LCoE), and across the UNC Charlotte campus, existing UNC Charlotte graduate faculty (regular and emeritus) may apply to departments within the LCoE for affiliated faculty status.
- Criteria to gain affiliated faculty status:
Criteria for affiliated faculty status are defined by each unit and are consistent with that used to determine graduate faculty status for a program, with the one exception that the faculty member must already hold regular graduate faculty status within their home department. Common criteria include:
- The faculty member must hold a PhD degree aligned with the program disciplines, or conduct research that aligns with the program’s research areas.
- The faculty member must show evidence of past and current, regular and consistent creative scholarly contributions that are widely disseminated in respected peer reviewed contexts in professionally recognized venues.
- The faculty member should ideally have a track record of interactions with the program of interest. The level of expected interactions will depend on the faculty members duration at UNC Charlotte. Examples of interactions include, but are not limited to:
- Attending program activities such as colloquium talks and discussion groups.
- Working with students on research related activities or serving on graduate committees.
- Collaborating with a department/program member on grant-related activities.
- Teaching cross listed courses.
If affiliated status is approved (see section 2 for the procedural steps), the nature and duration of the affiliation shall be specified in writing. Affiliated faculty will be listed as affiliated faculty on the departmental/program’s webpage along with their home department. The initial appointment will be for three years. At the end of three years the affiliated status will be reviewed, and upon departmental approval, subsequent affiliated appointments may be up to five years in duration. Review will be based on the same criteria as used to initially grant affiliated faculty status.
- Procedure to obtain Affiliated Faculty Status
The affiliated faculty appointment shall be made upon the recommendation of the faculty of the program where affiliation is sought, and with the consent of the requestor’s home department chair. The following outlines the general procedural steps for obtaining affiliated status with LCoE departments.
- The faculty member discusses with their department chair their desire to seek affiliate faculty status with a department/program outside of their home department.
- If the home department’s chair agrees, the chair notifies the departmental/program chair in question of the affiliated faculty status request. This written communication also includes the faculty member’s resume, and a paragraph outlining how their affiliate status could contribute to the research and educational mission of the department’s graduate programs.
- The departmental faculty (or subcommittee as selected by the program) reviews the application, and either approves or declines the request within 40 working days (within the regular 9-month academic calendar).
- If it is approved, the nature and duration of the affiliation shall be specified in writing, and the faculty member is listed on the departmental website as an affiliated faculty member. Their home department will also be listed.
- If declined, the program must provide a written explanation to the faculty member as to why the application was declined. The faculty member has the right to submit a written rebuttal within 10 working days. The program reviews the rebuttal, and provides the faculty member a written explanation of the final decision within 10 working days. The Associate Dean of Research for the College must be copied on all correspondence (reason for declination, rebuttal, and final decision) to ensure the appropriate procedures are followed.
- Rights of Affiliated faculty
- Affiliated faculty may be the primary graduate advisor for graduate students within the affiliated departmental graduate programs; that is they may be the chair of student dissertation and thesis committees.
- Affiliated faculty may attend departmental meetings, but they do not have any voting rights in matters pertaining to the day-to-day running of the departments, i.e. curriculum development, reappointment-promotion-tenure discussions, search committees, etc. Affiliated faculty are not included in departmental faculty quorum calculations.
- Unless permitted by the program in question, affiliated faculty may not have voting rights regarding program level structure of graduate qualifying exams. They may be involved in the execution of the PhD Qualify exams.
- All resources for affiliated faculty (e.g. salary, benefits, and/or research support) are provided by the faculty member’s home department.
- All annual faculty evaluations or promotion decisions remain firmly with the faculty member’s home department.
- Logistical considerations, and expectations when an affiliated faculty member is a student’s graduate advisor.
- If an affiliated faculty member is the chair of a student’s dissertation or thesis committee, i.e. their graduate advisor, they are responsible for advising the student regarding academic activities consistent with their program such as, but not limited to; research methodologies and best practices, submission of peer reviewed publications, etc. Affiliated faculty are strongly encouraged to engage with the program director and other regular faculty members within the department to understand program expectations.
- The student’s graduate program director will continue to advise and monitor the student’s progress towards fulfilling course credit hours and advancement to PhD or MSc Candidacy.
- As per normal expectations, an affiliated faculty member must keep the graduate program director informed of any significant student related issues that may delay graduation, i.e. under performance, planned extended absences, internships, etc.
- An affiliated faculty member must liaise with the graduate program director in all aspects of graduate student recruitment and hiring. The graduate program director can provide assistance with determining if a pre-identified, not yet enrolled student meets program admission requirements, enrolling new students to a program, and identifying currently enrolled students who may be interested in working with the affiliated faculty.
- If an affiliated faculty member wants a specific student to enroll in the department’s program with the specific intent of this student working with them, then the faculty member must either have external funding or teaching assistant (TA) support from their home department to financially support the student.
- If an affiliated faculty member is supporting a student as a research assistant (RA) on a grant and the funding expires prior to the student’s graduation, the faculty member must first approach their home department/unit for additional student support, i.e. a TA funding etc., before approaching the student’s home program.
Introduction
The totality of the professional responsibilities of full-time faculty members in the William States Lee College of Engineering are evaluated according to the broad categories of teaching, scholarship or creative activity, and service. These responsibilities require that faculty members teach students, colleagues, and members of the broader community. Thus, faculty members bring their own and others’ scholarship and creations to their institutions, professions and communities. Over their careers, faculty members may emphasize these broad categories differently. Early in their careers, faculty members may stress research or creative activity to establish themselves in a field; in later stages of their careers, faculty may stress classroom teaching or service to the institution and the community in order to pass their wisdom to the next generation.
The instructional activities of faculty members can take the form of contact inside or outside
classrooms, offices, studios, and laboratories in both on- and off-campus settings. In-class
instruction may be large group, small group, or one-on-one. Faculty members teach in defined
university settings; in the evenings or on weekends, they may also teach in workshops, institutes, and short courses for public school teachers and students in professional applied areas and with internship agencies. Out-of-class teaching involves mentoring, counseling, directing of theses and dissertations, supervising student projects, overseeing educational field experiences, and supervising performances in clinical settings and industrial sites. Both in-class and out-of-class teaching requires additional time and effort for preparation, reflection, and improvement; a one-hour contact in a classroom typically takes more than one hour of preparation and many follow-up hours in advising and evaluating papers and projects; the use of educational technology can consume many hours of development time.
While the category of scholarship or creative activity of faculty members is sometimes considered separate from teaching, the two are closely linked. University instruction requires a level of knowledge and mastery of material that can only be attained and maintained by continuous scholarship. Such scholarship takes the form of original research or creative endeavors, integrative scholarship, and the use and representation of knowledge with peers in the profession. It involves attending professional conferences and presenting papers at them, writing books, articles, or book reviews, and seeking and managing external funding to support their own scholarship or programs at their institutions.
The service activities of faculty members involve the use of their expertise in their departments, college, institutions, professions, and communities. Service activities include academic and other advising, sponsoring of student and other organizations, laboratory and studio management, involvement in departmental, college and university committees, participation in faculty governance bodies, administrative assignments, and fundraising. Outside the university setting, it often involves service in professional organizations; editorship of professional journals, lectures, performances, and readings at local, regional, or state clubs and organizations; reviewing research proposals and articles for publication in professional journals or conferences; sponsorship or organization of conferences; consulting at local and regional businesses and social agencies; and other service to community groups or organizations.
The way in which a faculty member’s activities are combined to define the individual faculty
member’s total workload depends on the mission of the institution, the college and the
department. In major research institutions, faculty members spend relatively more time on
graduate student teaching and research activities than on undergraduate student teaching
because the mission of the institution is to deliver that mix of services; and faculty responsibilities reflect that obligation. By contrast, in baccalaureate institutions, faculty members spend most of their time on undergraduate student teaching because the overriding mission of the institution is to deliver baccalaureate-level courses and degrees. Between these two extremes are comprehensive institutions whose responsibilities for graduate-Ievel instruction and research vary from heavy to light and where classroom-teaching responsibilities may show considerable variation. Consequently, the Board of Governors has established a system for monitoring teaching course loads at UNC institutions that generally calls for standard annual three (3) credit hour course loads no lower than the following:
| Research Universities I: | four three-hour courses per year |
| Doctoral Universities I: | five three-hour courses per year |
| Masters (Comprehensive) I: | six three-hour courses per year |
| Baccalaureate (liberal arts) I and II: | eight three-hour courses per year |
A potential direct implication of this system of standard course loads for departments within the William States Lee College of Engineering is that departments with doctoral programs would have “standard” annual course loads of five (5), those with master’s programs would have six (6), and those with only baccalaureate programs would have eight (8). However, UNC Charlotte is now classified as a doctoral university I with a standard faculty teaching course load of five three-hour courses per year.
Teaching Course Load Assignments
University funding from both state appropriations and student tuition for faculty positions is based upon the concept of a “full-time equivalent student as an” undergraduate student who takes 12 or more course credit hours, or a graduate student who takes at least nine (9) course credit hours.”
Part-time students are considered as an appropriate fractional FTE. The present instructional
funding formula for UNC Charlotte provides for one full-time faculty position for approximately
every 15 FTE’s.
The University (and the departments and colleges therein) assume the responsibility to provide each enrolled student with the courses, academic and career advising, consultation, and other services appropriate to the student’s chosen major. Thus, the instructional activities for each full-time faculty member is ordinarily composed of classroom or laboratory teaching, academic advising, course-related consultation, thesis, dissertation and project supervision, course development, and the other activities described in the introduction. The formal teaching course load assignment for a faculty member may vary from semester to semester and from faculty member to faculty member depending upon the other components in the faculty member’s total workload within the department and/or college. A faculty member can be assigned more or less than the “standard” teaching course load commensurate with other responsibilities. Also, such factors as class size, number of preparations, lecture vs. lab, project supervision, student contact hours, etc. must be taken into consideration. In addition, the following definitions are very important in describing and reporting a faculty member’s workload:
Release time – A portion of a faculty member’s time is “bought” from the department by
some source of “real dollars” for working on some specific project. The corresponding
“released instructional funds” are available to the department for hiring of replacement
teaching faculty. Example: research grant funds enable a faculty member to be “released”
from some classroom instructional duties to work on the research project. The “release
funds” could then be used to hire part-time instructional faculty or graduate teaching
assistants.
Reduced Workload – A faculty member can be given a reduced workload only if it is
accompanied by a commensurate reduction in salary. Examples: educational leave
without pay or reduced load and pay due to prolonged illness.
Reduced Course Load – A faculty member is assigned a course load less than the
“standard” for justifiable reasons related to total workload. Examples: newly hired faculty
might be assigned only one or two courses to “get started”; faculty “released” by means
of “release time” funding, etc.
Course Overload – A faculty member is assigned a course load greater than the “standard”
for justifiable reasons related to total workload. Examples: non-tenure track faculty hired
primarily to “teach”; faculty might be assigned an “overload’ in fall in exchange for a
“reduction” in the spring, etc.
Assignment of Faculty Workloads and Annual Performance Evaluations
The assignment of faculty duties and course loads is the fundamental responsibility of the
department chair in consultation with individual faculty members and subject to review by the
dean. For an individual faculty member, such assignment would normally include some
combination of a formal teaching course load and other instructional activities such as academic advising, thesis, dissertation and project supervision, curriculum development, etc.; scholarly and creative activities such as conducting research, the writing of papers and books, seeking and managing externally-funded projects, etc.; and service activities internal and external to the university such as committee assignments, administrative duties, recruiting of students, and service to the professional and industrial community.
While the instructional activities form the fundamental basis for the performance evaluation of a faculty member, all of the faculty member’s activities – instructional, scholarly, and service–and the results emanating there from – are weighed in an appropriate manner in the annual
performance evaluation process for each faculty member. The annual evaluation is done within the context of “performance expectations” through which the chair attempts to guide the faculty member on how he/she might direct or redirect their energy or modify the emphases of their activities. When appropriate, such expectations may include “targets” for short and/or long-term accomplishments. For a new faculty member, these expectations are developed by the department chair shortly after initial employment with input from the faculty member and are subsequently reviewed and/or modified at the time of the annual performance evaluation with the participation of the faculty member. (For present faculty, their performance expectations have been “evolving,” albeit to different degrees, as part of the existing annual performance evaluation process.)
The annual performance evaluation process begins in late spring and is concluded by the start of the fall semester. It is composed of the following elements: the gathering and assimilation of
appropriate information; the preparation by the chair of a formal document (the evaluation
including appropriate performance expectations); an opportunity for discussion and/or rebuttal; and a final document, a copy (including any rebuttal) of which is forwarded to the dean. The faculty member is expected to sign the annual performance evaluation document merely acknowledging his/her receipt of the document and an opportunity for discussion and/or rebuttal.
The faculty member may submit a document to be attached to the annual performance evaluation indicating any disagreement or rebuttal to the evaluation and/or performance expectations. The annual performance evaluation with any appended document is part of the formal personnel record of the faculty member (with a copy forwarded to the dean) and is included in appropriate personnel actions related to reappointment, promotion, tenure, and salary increase.
A. Full-time Faculty
A.1 Rights and Responsibilities
Members of the graduate faculty shall have full voting rights within the graduate faculty of the College on matters pertaining to graduate education, may serve on graduate committees, and may participate in graduate education through the teaching of graduate courses, advising of graduate students, serving on thesis or dissertation committees, supervising special projects, and directing thesis or dissertation research.
A.2 Initial appointment
New faculty may be recommended for an initial three-year appointment to the graduate faculty if they hold the Ph.D. or equivalent terminal degree in engineering or a closely related discipline. In some cases, an individual with a Master’s degree and exceptional research and/or industrial credentials may be recommended.
Research and industrial credentials are established by a resume or curriculum vitae containing patents, peer-reviewed journal and conference publications, presentations in national and international meetings, funded research, service to professional organizations and/or technical standards committees, and/or other evidence of superior standing in his/her profession.
A.3 Reappointment
Faculty will be recommended for reappointment to the graduate faculty for a new five-year term upon demonstrated evidence of sustained involvement in the graduate program and commensurate growth in his/her profession. Such evidence will include several of the following activities:
(1) Participating in graduate-level instruction.
Graduate teaching effectiveness may be assessed through course and/or peer evaluations.
(2) Active involvement with graduate education through service on advisory committees as well as being thesis or dissertation advisor.
(3) Continued appropriate scholarship and/or involvement in research.
Such involvement is evidenced by presentations at national and international meetings, peer-reviewed journal and conference publications, reviewer of manuscripts submitted to conferences or journals, reviewer of proposals submitted to state and national agencies, submission of research proposals (Funding is desirable.) to national, state and/or local granting agencies, consulting with industry or government, and/or service on technical committees of professional societies.
B. Adjunct and Visiting Faculty
Persons holding visiting or adjunct faculty appointments may be recommended for up to a three-year Associate Graduate Faculty appointment upon presentation of appropriate credentials. Generally, the criteria established for initial appointment for full-time faculty are applicable to adjunct faculty evaluation.
Adjunct graduate faculty are permitted to teach graduate courses, serve on thesis or dissertation committees, and co-direct thesis or dissertation research.
C. Procedure
All recommendations for appointments and reappointments will be made by the department chair or his/her designee after consultation with the graduate faculty in the department. The recommendations, accompanied by an up-to-date resume or curriculum vitae, will be submitted to the Dean of the Graduate School.
2/3/1986
Reviewed 5/1988
Revised 09/25/2018 Approved
1. Reassignment of duties is for one semester at full salary or one academic year at half salary. Payment includes fringe benefits fully paid by UNC Charlotte for its contribution. At the option of the faculty member, if a person is away for one year at half salary, UNC Charlotte will pick up the University share of TIAA or the state retirement for the full salary and the faculty member must pay his/her contribution.
2. The intention of this program is general faculty development, but preference will be given for the scholarly activities which have strong prospects for the leading to extramural funding, journal publication, and those activities which generally enhance the faculty member’s and UNC Charlotte engineering’s standing in the national and international professional community. The program is not intended for course development, which is viewed as a normal activity for any faculty member. Major curricular developments or professional upgrading of a faculty member is viewed as an appropriate activity for this program. If such activities are shown to be critical to a department’s achievement of its long-range goals in education. It is not required that the reassignment period is spent off-campus but such relocation is encouraged.
3. The major criterion for selection of this award is the “technical” merit of the program as described in a short proposal. For proposals of equal merit, preference will be given to those faculty members who have obtained outside support to allow for an academic year of reassignment at another institution or laboratory. This program is not intended to enhance a faculty member’s normal full-time salary and, therefore, a faculty member who obtains temporary full employment at an industry, educational or government laboratory at a salary equivalent to or greater than the UNC Charlotte salary is ineligible for the program.
4. Supplemental funds for equipment, supplies, travel, and relocation – A faculty member may request additional money beyond the salary stipend to support expenses associated with the travel to professional meetings, equipment and supplies necessary for conducting the program, and help in relocation expenses when such expenses are not covered by another institution or laboratory.
5. Faculty members planning to submit a proposal for a reassignment of duties should attempt to obtain extramural funding from foundations or other sources. Evidence that such effort has been made will be a positive factor in the evaluation of a proposal.
6. Eligibility – All engineering faculty members holding regular tenure-track appointments at the rank of assistant professor or above are eligible for this program. While no time in grade requirement exists, preference will be given to the faculty member with the longer UNC Charlotte tenure in the event of equal “technical” merit. Lecturers and visiting faculty members are not eligible.
7. Evaluation procedures – Proposals for the reassignment of duties program will be evaluated by a committee consisting of four eligible members of the Engineering faculty. The chairman of the committee will be elected at large by all voting members of the College while the other three will subsequently be elected by the individual departments. Election is to take place in early September and no member of the committee may submit a proposal to the committee. Terms of service are for one year but a member may stand for re-election without limit. The committee serves as a recommending body to the Dean of Engineering who makes the final decision on awards.
8. Deadlines – All proposals for the reassignment of duties program must be submitted to the Dean of Engineering in the fall of the year preceding the reassignment period. Announcement of awards will generally be made by the start of the spring semester. Check with the dean’s office for the specific deadline schedule.
9. Proposal Content – The proposal should contain the following:
a) Cover page which gives name, rank, original appointment date, place of reassignment, dates of reassignment, and signature of the department chairman.
b) Abstract which briefly describes the proposed reassignment.
c) Narrative which describes the reassignment in greater detail with special emphasis on benefits to be accrued to the faculty member, his/her department and the College. The proposal should describe the impact which the applicant’s reassignment would have upon the department and what steps would need to be taken to satisfactorily accommodate the proposed reassignment.
d) Up-to-date curriculum vita.
e) Supporting documentation if the reassignment is at another institution, laboratory, or industry.
f) Evidence that outside funding has been sought.
g) Supporting letter from the department chairman (optional).
h) Stipend request for expenses supplies, equipment, travel, etc., if any.
10. Report – Within the first six months upon return* from the reassignment, a formal report describing activities of the reassignment with pertinent accomplishments is due in the Dean’s office. This report should contain reprints of publications, abstracts, manuscripts submitted, proposals, etc., which resulted from the reassignment.
* A minimum of one year of service in residence at UNC Charlotte following any reassignment of duties leave is required.