IST_AC-06: Annual Performance and Faculty Activity Report (FAR) Review of Faculty

1. Purpose and Criteria

To conduct annual performance evaluations of faculty (both tenure-line and non-tenure-line) that serve both formative (developmental feedback) and summative (performance assessment) roles, and outlining our IST process for completing the Faculty Activity Reporting (FAR) process. This review process applies to all individuals with full-time faculty appointments. Oversight for this process will be by the IST Office of Faculty Affairs in collaboration with the Department Heads.

Exceptions where no FAR is required:

1. Current academic year promotion and tenure reviews (early, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and promotion to professor for tenure-line faculty)
2. Current academic year non-tenure-line promotion review
3. Current academic year AC40 Extended Review
4. Retirements, terminations or resignations effective the last day of the current academic year
5. Unpaid leave for the full academic year
6. New faculty starting January 1 of the current academic year (the professor was not employed by IST during the calendar years being reviewed).

Instances in which FAR is required but may be brief:

1. Full academic year sabbatical or leave
2. Phased retirement effective July 1, at the end of the current academic year
3. Current phased retirements
4. Retirements, terminations, or resignations effective December 31, in the middle of the current academic year (for example, a departure in December 2032 when 2031 and 2030 calendar year pair is being reviewed)

2. Evaluation Components

Faculty will submit a comprehensive FAR each year, generated through Activity Insight, that includes these areas of activity:

• Teaching: summary of courses taught, student evaluations (SEEQs), graduate student advising, course development, teaching innovations.
• Research/Scholarly Activity: publications, grants and contracts, conference presentations, lists of proposals submitted/funded, impacts in government and industry.
• Service/Outreach: administrative leadership, committee work, mentoring, professional service.
• Goals: accomplishments since last review and objectives for the upcoming year.

Additionally, the faculty member will submit a narrative statement with their FAR materials offering additional information they believe would be helpful. The narrative statement should provide context while highlighting the impacts of their work and relationships among the faculty member’s activities and/or between the activities and strategic initiatives of the college or university. The reporting period for the FAR is a rolling two-year period: from 1 January to 31 December for two years (or fewer if new to IST).

3. Primary Reviewers

• Department Head reviews full-time faculty appointed in their department.
• Dean (or Dean’s designee) reviews the Department Heads via Workday, separate from this process. Department heads are also subject to AC14 reviews.
• Dean reviews the Associate/Assistant Deans via Workday, separate from this process. Associate/Assistant Deans are also subject to AC14 reviews.

4. Review Timeline

• Last two weeks of January: Faculty member submits their FAR to the Department Head.
• February - March: Department Head reviews FARs, conducts in-person discussions, and distributes written performance evaluation letters to faculty
• April: FAR letters submitted to the dean’s office; individual meetings with the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs or the Dean are scheduled, if needed, for faculty who receive an “needs improvement” performance rating

5. Review Process

1. Submission: The faculty member will generate their FAR using Activity Insight, edit the document, and submit it to the department head assistant by deadline. Department head assistant assembles additional materials.
2. Reading & Assessment: Department Head reviews FAR materials and assigns ratings based on our IST rubrics.
3. Review Meeting: Department Head meets with faculty to discuss their progress, any challenges they should address, and faculty members’ plans for future years.
4. Evaluation Letter: Department Head writes a summary evaluation, including commendations, areas for improvement, and recommended development goals.
5. Faculty Response: Faculty may submit brief written comments within 10 working days, added to the evaluation file.
6. Forwarding: Final evaluation, faculty response (if any), and FAR are forwarded to the College-level Faculty Affairs office for record-keeping. The Office of Faculty Affairs confirms with the university’s Office for Faculty Affairs that all faculty have been reviewed in that academic year.

6. Feedback & Follow-up

Department Head schedules additional follow-up meetings or recommends mentoring for faculty whose performance failed to meet expectations. High-performing faculty may be recommended for internal awards or resources, university-level awards, or discipline specific awards.

7. Records & Confidentiality

All evaluation documents—letters and faculty responses—are archived confidentially by the IST Office of Faculty Affairs. Access is limited to the Department Head, faculty (access to their own materials only), and authorized College/University officials. All information generated by faculty members and the Department Head should remain confidential, but general process and criteria information can be discussed more widely.

8. Appeals

If a faculty member feels the evaluation does not accurately reflect their performance, and they have submitted their response to the evaluation, they may appeal an evaluation verbally or in writing to the Dean of the College of IST within 15 business days. The Dean reviews the materials and issues a final response to the faculty member and Department Head.

9. Ratings and Calibration

Ratings for each area of activity and for an overall assessment will range from 1 to 3:

• A rating of 1 corresponds to unsatisfactory performance or performance that falls below acceptable standards in the area being evaluated and will be noted as “Needs Improvement”.
• A rating of 2 corresponds to meeting or exceeding expectations for their rank and role and will be noted as “Meets or Exceeds Expectations”.
• A rating of 3 corresponds to performance that significantly exceeds expectations and is consistently above the performance expected for their rank and role and will be noted as “Significantly Exceeds Expectations”.

While there is no required distribution, a majority of faculty members are typically rated as meeting or exceeding expectations. Significantly exceeding expectations is the next most common rating, but it is typically reserved for the top 20% of faculty in each department. Needs improvement is used the least frequently and is chosen to indicate serious concerns in one or more areas of activity.

The Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs (ADFA) will meet with the Department Heads individually or in a group to discuss annual reviews and provide calibration for the ratings, to ensure ratings are consistently applied across the college. The goal is to help calibrate expectations across the three departments to ensure that comparable thresholds are in operation for minimum requirements for meeting expectations as well as minimum requirements for significantly exceeding expectations. Department Heads will be able to adjust their ratings for individuals as they deem appropriate prior to forwarding finalized materials to the ADFA.

10. FAR Rubrics by Activity Area

Teaching

Teaching is evaluated based on the quality of the learning experience as assessed using the materials available such as SEEQs and peer reviews, as well as the significance and impact of the courses; supervision of independent studies, theses, and dissertations; new courses developed or existing courses that were revised; and related activities. Teaching is not evaluated based on the number of courses taught. This area may also include pursuit of funding for activities that are most appropriately described as teaching (e.g., redesigning a course or advancing innovative learning methods) as well as additional activities related to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Peer reviews of teaching are not used in the annual review process.

Criteria:

• Instructional quality and effectiveness

• Student feedback and course evaluations

• Course update, development, and innovation

• Advising and mentoring students

• Responsiveness to teaching responsibilities

Research

Research is evaluated based on the significance and impact of the outcomes produced and the fora in which the outcomes were presented, engagement in the pursuit of funding as well as the execution of externally funded research activities, and related research activities.

Criteria:

• Peer-reviewed publications or creative work

• Grants and funding activity

• Book published with recognized professional press (typically a product by faculty in senior ranks)

• Presentations or external recognition

• Research mentorship and collaboration

• Impacts in work with government and industry, such as technology transfer

Service

Service is evaluated based on an individual’s engagement with department, college, and university service, as well as service to the profession including engagement in the pursuit of funding for activities that are most appropriately described as service (e.g., funding for student scholarships) as well as the execution of related activities.

Criteria:

• Participation in department, college, or university committees

• Leadership roles in service activities

• Professional service (e.g., editorial boards, reviews, conference organization)

• Community, government, or industry engagement aligned with faculty expertise

11. Additional Notes

• Non-tenure line responsibilities beyond teaching will be clearly documented and provided to the Department Head by the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs for their review/discussion.
• The department head assistant will coordinate with the IST Finance and Research Offices prior to the end of the fall semester to request the following information for the Department Head:
• Number of IST students paid by each faculty member on a research grant
• IST Faculty serving as a Co-PI on grants and supervising students
• Post docs, RAs, or wage pay roll students funded using external funds by each faculty member
• Research Report (obtained from the Sponsored Research Office) that includes a list of proposals submitted for external support during the year pair, as well as any proposals that were funded during the year pair.
• SEEQ Information: Provide SEEQ information for all courses taught and provide a summary list of all courses taught with enrollments and mode of instruction. This data will automatically be included in the FAR report that is downloaded from Activity Insight.
• FAR Charge Meeting with Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs, Department Heads and administrative staff should be scheduled in October to prepare the start of the FAR process. Faculty are reminded shortly thereafter of upcoming deadlines.
• Debrief Meeting between the Department Heads and the Deans should be scheduled in May to review the FAR process and suggest any improvements/changes to the process.

Revisions approved by Dean Tapia 7/22/2025. Revised to reflect the role of departments and department heads; former policies IST_AC-06 and IST_AC-07 combined into this single policy; period of review changed from one year to two years; rubric added.