Approved and adopted by the faculty by unanimous vote on 31
October 1984.
First revised version adopted by the faculty by
unanimous vote on 25 January 1986.
Second revised version adopted by the faculty by
unanimous vote on 21 January 1993.
Third revised version submitted to the faculty
for vote in September 1995.
Fourth revision, to modify structure of P & Committee
approved by vote of the faculty in September 1998.
These procedures are conceived as a guide to the department for the attainment of collective judgements on matters related to the evaluation of faculty and other teaching and research staff. It is clear and agreed as a premise that the faculty must make judgements, based on as much factual and pertinent information as is practically available, first as individuals and then as a body, on these matters. It is also clear and agreed that all details of this judgement process cannot be specified both because there may be legitimate variations in the way individuals make judgements and because it is impossible to anticipate all matters that may come before the faculty.
Evaluations and recommendations regarding promotion, tenure and termination are made by the Promotion and Tenure Committee. This committee is comprised of the tenure-track faculty of the department. Evaluations and recommendations regarding salary increases and doctoral directive status are made by the Faculty Evaluation Committee. This committee is elected by the department and functions in an advisory capacity to the chairperson. Evaluations are based on criteria and evidence as to degree of satisfaction of these criteria, relative to the mission of the University and the Department and the duties assigned the person being evaluated. The basic document containing evidence upon which an individual is to be judged is called the individual's Faculty Evaluation Committee Folder. This folder should contain minimally a current Curriculum Vitae and student, peer, and administrative evaluation data from the last three years if available, but may contain or reference many other items. It is the individual's responsibility and right to keep the contents of the folder up to date.
The primary distinction between an evaluation for promotion or tenure consideration and merit salary increase recommendation is the length of time of service to be considered in the evaluation. As a general guideline, evaluations for promotion or tenure cover the lifetime contributions of an individual while evaluations for merit salary increases cover recent contributions and current level of activity. The same criteria apply in either of these cases. Exact time spans for these evaluations are not specified. The department places its trust in its elected representatives on the Faculty Evaluation Committee and in the members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee to apply general principles in an equitable, appropriate, unbiased manner.
The remainder of this document contains details on the following subjects:
The Faculty Evaluation Comittee (FEC) is elected by the faculty. For the purposes of this document, ``faculty'' shall refer to the body of people who are subject ot evaluation by FEC. Election of a new FEC of four members will normally be done in the early fall semester, before annual evaluations are begun. Vacancies on the committee should be filled by special election as they occur. Elections should be conducted by the Department Secretary who is appointed by the Chairperson from the faculty. Voting may be done in a meeting of the faculty or by mail, but in any case should be by secret ballot and is not valid unless two thirds of the faculty casts a ballot. Selection of members of the FEC shall be one at a time in the following manner: The Secretary calls for nominations from the faculty. Once nominations are made, a vote is taken to select one member of the FEC from those nominated. A member of the FEC must be elected by a majority vote of the faculty present at the meeting. This process is repeated sequentially for each of the four FEC membership slots. In case no nominee obtains a majority, a runoff is held between the nominees with the highest two vote counts (not necessarily distinct) on the previous ballot. If, after repeated ballots, the tie still holds, the tie is resolved as follows: The person who has served most recently on FEC loses (i.e., is not selected for membership); secondarily, the person of lower academic rank loses; tertiarily, the person with fewer years of employment at FSU loses. In cases where these rules do not resolve a tie, the Secretary may attempt to select committee members by unanimous agreement among himself or herself and the faculty members involved in the tie.
The Promotion and Tenure Committee (P & T) is comprised of the tenured faculty. For ballots involving tenure, the tenured faculty vote. For ballots involving promotion to Associate Professor, the Associate Professors and Full Professors vote. For ballots involving promotion to Full Professor, only the Full Professors vote.
The Curriculum Vitae (Vitae) is the most important source of information relevant to evaluation of faculty. The Vitae Format therefore is a definition of the types of information that are considered important in an evaluation; as such, the Vitae Format becomes an integral part of the statement of criteria for promotion, tenure, and salary increase recommendations. The Vitae Format occupies the remainder of this section.
The FEC shall have on file a folder for each faculty member called his or her Faculty Evaluation Committee Folder (FEC Folder). This folder must contain a current Curriculum Vitae, Chairperson evaluations from the last three years, and all SIRS and SUSAI (and whatever other instrument may be chosen to replace SIRS, should a replacement for SIRS be chosen) teaching evaluation data available for the faculty member from the last three years. Copies of major articles and successful external grant or contract proposals from the previous three years should be included. Copies of the syllabi from courses taught during the last three years should be included.
Many other items may be considered a logical part of the folder, including copies of significant software, patents and inventions, and noteworthy teaching materials. Any item not actually in the folder must be referenced with directions as to location of the item. (Simply mentioning an item in the Vitae does not give it folder status.) It is the faculty member's right and responsibility to maintain this FEC Folder in a timely manner.
The Faculty of the Department of Computer Science has numerous duties and responsibilities to the students and faculty of the University and the people of the State and Nation. The major examples are as follows:
It is recognized that an individual faculty member may not excel in all these areas. It is also recognized that the faculty as a whole must excel in all of these areas. A faculty member who contributes little to some areas is expected to contribute more to others.
The areas of faculty responsibility listed above have considerable overlap (as do the categories listed in the Vitae Format). For example, research and creative activity are important for good teaching, the more so as the academic level increases. As another example, an essential activity such as academic counseling has aspects of both teaching and service. As still another example, certain activities such as reviewing manuscripts for journals or conferences and proposals for granting agencies often represent both scholarly activity and service.
Criteria for effective performance.The following descriptions are to be used as a guide in recognizing effective performance in the areas of responsibility listed above.
Research and creative activity are required for good teaching, at least above the basic studies level. In addition, research must be regarded as a highly desirable activity in itself. The advancement of knowledge through research and creative activity is a primary mission of the Department and the University. The faculty member is expected to maintain a current knowledge and understanding of scientific advances, to contribute to these advances, and to disseminate results in reports, meetings, conferences, and publications.
The basic objectives in teaching at this level include: (a) to help students prepare for their inevitable encounters with computing devices and the influence of these devices on their lives; (b) to provide background for basic science teachers in primary and secondary schools; (c) to promote awareness of computers and computer science as they affect other professions and careers; and (d) to provide understanding of basic computing principles and methodologies.
The faculty member assigned to teach a course at the basic studies level is expected to make every reasonable effort to present basic and relevant material appropriate for non-science majors in such a way as to stimulate student interest and understanding.
The objectives are: (a) to educate professional computer scientists to fill B.S. level government and private sector positions; (b) to prepare interested students for graduate work in computer science or related fields; and (c) to provide students from related disciplines with necessary background in computing.
Faculty members assigned to teach courses at this level are expected to present organized and current material consistent with related courses and the departmental curriculum. Effective classroom teaching must be combined with a willingness to assist students who require special attention. Classroom presentations should challenge students to critically examine and question the issues before them.
The objectives include: (a) to educate M.S.-level professional computer scientists for careers in the public and private sectors; (b) to prepare interested students for advanced graduate work in computer science and related fields; and (c) to provide appropriate background in computer science for students from related fields of science.
At this level, classroom teaching of the type described under 2 is expected but with more emphasis on the quality and timeliness of course content. What is taught one year may be superseded the next year by newer research results. The successful teacher must at least keep abreast of developments and preferably participate in them.
Also at this level, the emphasis on working with students individually becomes greater. The good teacher works with M.S. students in preparing papers, projects, seminars, and theses, either as a member of the student's committee or as a helpful advisor when appropriate.
There is one principal objective: to educate future national and international leaders in computer science and related disciplines.
The successful teacher at the doctoral level must understand intimately and critically the latest developments in a chosen specialized field and encourage and assist doctoral students to do the same. Doctoral students are to be taught means of establishing new ideas and concepts, as well as established ones, through active supervision of their study and dissertation research.
Service activity most often falls into the category of helping others (or organizations of others that may include the contributor as a member) in ways that do not directly benefit the contributor. Examples include committee work at all levels, counseling undergraduate students, administrative assignments, and certain types of editing and reviewing. Each faculty member is expected to spend some time and resources on service activity.
Effectively carrying out the Faculty Duties and Responsibilities, as discussed above, is expected of the faculty and does not necessarily imply meritorious performance, right to tenure, or right to promotion. Generally speaking, these rights are earned by performance of duties at a higher than adequate level. This section concludes with guidelines for recognition of these higher levels of performance.
Criteria for promotion to Associate Professor.A candidate must normally have taught satisfactorily at both the undergraduate and graduate level. He or she must have maintained an up-to-date knowledge of his or her field and be able to communicate this knowledge. The Department will particularly value the candidate who has not merely carried out assigned duties effectively but who has made innovative contributions where appropriate, including work done on his or her own initiative. If the candidate has not already worked with graduate students on research topics, he or she should be judged capable and willing to do so. The FEC will look for evidence that the candidate is capable of generating student interest in his or her research specialty.
Research work of high quality is essential. It should have already received some recognition at the national level, as evidenced by citations, invited presentations, grant support and/or letters of evaluation from distinguished experts outside the University. There must be concrete evidence that the candidate will eventually achieve distinction in his or her field.
Criteria for promotion to Professor.Promotion to Full Professor is warranted when the promise implicit in the promotion or appointment to Associate Professor has been fulfilled. The candidate must have made substantial contributions to the teaching program of the department. He or she should have worked successfully with graduate students on research topics in his or her field. The candidate's research work should have achieved at least national recognition by objective standards, have breadth of interest, and be judged of considerable importance to his or her field. The candidate's scholarly work should also have contributed to the graduate programs of the department.
Criteria for awarding of Doctoral Directive Status.The candidate must have taught successfully at the graduate level and be judged willing and capable of working individually with graduate students. The candidate's research should have matured well beyond the work of his or her dissertation, so that it may be considered a research program of the candidate's own making.
Criteria for awarding Tenure.The technical criteria for awarding of tenure are the same as those for promotion to Associate Professor. The awarding of tenure must be considered more than a reward for excellent performance, however. The goals and mission of the department, and the degree with which the candidate contributes to these, are an important consideration. The awarding of tenure is the means by which the department controls its long term growth and direction.
Criteria for merit salary increase.As a general principle, meritorious performance should be rewarded with merit salary increases. Meritorious performance is defined as performance of assigned duties at a substantially higher than satisfactory level. The time span for evaluation for meritorious performance is relatively short: recent activity as well as current level of activity should be considered.
It is recognized that there is an element of relativity in the making of recommendations for salary increases that is not present in promotion and tenure considerations. In making salary increase recommendations, the FEC should take into consideration the current salaries of candidates as well as the size of their salary increases over the last few years, especially when the raise money available to the department varies erratically over time. A candidate must take a similar view: his or her current salary, and the sum of the increases in the last few years, are a better measure of the department's consideration of the candidate's worth than the exact value of his or her latest salary increase.
The Faculty Evaluation Committee is responsible for all recommendations for salary increases and doctoral directive status for all members of the department. These recommendations must be based on evaluations of performance of assigned duties and faculty responsibilities as discussed in the previous section of these procedures. Such evaluations must of necessity be accomplished in two steps: individual evaluations by each member of the FEC, followed by a consensus evaluation by the Committee itself. The form of expression of the consensus evaluation may be simply an action by the committee on the matter under consideration (salary increase recommendation, etc.). It is the duty of each FEC member, before participating in any such consensus evaluation by the FEC, to carefully review all evidence available to the committee that is relevant to the question at hand, including in all cases the current FEC Folder of the faculty member being evaluated, and to form a carefully considered evaluation of the performance of the faculty member under consideration. If any evidence is considered that is external to the FEC Folder, in cases of negative outcome at least, the faculty member being evaluated should be informed as to the nature of this evidence and given opportunity to respond to, refute, or interpret said evidence.
Research and Creative Activity.A faculty member elected to FEC is presumed to have the knowledge and ability to judge the quantity and quality of an individual's contribution in this category. All information in the FEC Folder related to research and scholarly and creative activity must be taken into account in evaluating an individual's performance in this category.
Teaching.The Department relies on the Florida State University Student Instructional Rating System (SIRS) for a reading on classroom aspects of the teaching function. The department recognizes that SIRS data represents opinions of non-experts who are non-objectively involved in the process being evaluated. The department also recognizes that there are many aspects of teaching, some of which are intimately tied to research and creative activity, that are not even addressed in SIRS questionnaires.
SIRS (SUSSAI) questionnaires will be distributed in each class of a faculty member during the Fall and Spring semester of each academic year. The results will be returned to the faculty member involved for information and guidance. A copy of the results should be placed by the faculty in his or her FEC Folder.
The FEC (or a teaching evaluation committee designated by FEC) will conduct classroom visitations during the Fall and/or early Spring semester for faculty members selected by the FEC. A faculty member whose classroom is visited will be evaluated by at least two faculty members designated by the FEC using visitation schedules which meet the guidelines of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Written evaluations of the classroom visitation will be made using a faculty-approved teaching evaluation instrument. These evaluations will be submitted to the faculty member, but are not required to be part of the FEC folder.
The department acknowledges that there are no effective means of quantifying some of the most important aspects of good teaching: those having to do with instillation of insight, imagination, mental discipline, and positive emotions in students. Accordingly, the SIRS data, along with all other information in the FEC folder related to teaching, any written evaluations of classroom visitations submitted by the faculty member, the complete summary (averages and distributions) of Exit Interview data, as well as the considered opinion of the members of FEC based on experience from direct observation (such as in seminar talks) and direct feedback from students, should be used in evaluating an individual faculty member's teaching performance.
Service.All information in the FEC Folder related to service must be taken into account in evaluating an individual's performance in this category.
Overall evaluation.In evaluating the overall performance of a faculty member, the person's performance in the three major categories and the person's assigned duties must be taken into account. Because of the non-mutually exclusive nature of these major categories, an overall evaluation is not necessarily a simple weighted average of evaluations in the categories. (Evaluations are not necessarily expressed in numerical form in any case.)
The Promotion and Tenure Committee is responsible for all recommendations for promotion, tenure, and termination for all members of the department. This committee will consider all faculty below the rank of tenured full professor for promotion or tenure, or both, if applicable, each year. The P & T Committee will use the FEC Folders for purposes of forming a recommendation decision. Upon being recommended by the P & T Committee, the preparation of the nomination binder is initiated as per Faculty Handook guidelines. This binder is reviewed by the P & T Committee before leaving the department.
The FEC is elected by the faculty. This election is conducted by the Department Secretary as described in Section 1 of these procedures.
FEC convenes and elects a chairperson and secretary. The Department Chairperson calls and conducts this first
meeting.The FEC begins the process of doing peer evaluation of teaching as described in Section Peer Evaluation of these procedures.
The FEC must elect a representative to the Science Area Promotion, Tenure, and Doctoral Directive Status Committee.
Doctoral directive status recommendations are made for the department.
The FEC continues its annual evaluation of faculty reminding the faculty to update FEC Folders. A period of time is then set aside for members of FEC to familiarize themselves with the FEC Folders of faculty members after which the FEC meets to form consensus evaluations.
The FEC may have other business of an evaluational or recommendational nature that does not fall into the normal flow of events as outlined here. This business may be brought before the FEC at any time by the Department Chairperson, but this slack period, using an experienced FEC, is the most appropriate time for such matters if time does not constrain otherwise.
n consultation with the Chairperson regarding external guidelines and funds available, the FEC makes salary increase recommendations based on its evaluations and other considerations and criteria mentioned elsewhere in these procedures. All salary increases over which the Department has discretionary or recommendational authority are to be covered by these recommendations.