University of Maine at Machias
\nPolicy & Procedures Manual
\nSUBJECT: FACULTY PERSONNEL POLICIES SECTION III
\nDATE: 05\/02, 04\/07, 02\/11
\nSECTION: Environmental & Biological Sciences \u2013 Peer Evaluations<\/p>\n
1. \u00a0Peer Evaluation \u00a0A. Composition of Peer Committees
\n\u00a7 Peer review committees for the Division will be composed of four or more division
\nmembers. (5\/29\/96 and 11\/15\/00)
\n\u00a7\u00a0 Peer review for untenured faculty in the Division will be conducted by a committee-of-
\nthe-whole for the fifth-year reappointment, the sixth-year appointment, and the
\ntenure application. (5\/29\/96 and 5\/22\/02)
\n\u00a7\u00a0 In its review of an untenured faculty member, the peer review committee can
\nrecommend, in the review letter, that the next year\u2019s reappointment peer review
\ncommittee be a committee-of-the whole. (5\/29\/96)
\n\u00a7\u00a0 For years when the committee is not a committee-of-the-whole, the chair of the peer
\ncommittee and two of the other three members will be chosen randomly from the
\npeer group; however the fourth member will be assigned by the chair of the
\ndivision. (11\/15\/00)
\n\u00a7\u00a0 The committee size for post-tenure evaluation will be four except peer review for
\npromotion requires a review committee of the whole division. \u00a0(9\/30\/96)
\n\u00a7\u00a0 All full-time, fixed-length faculty will be peer evaluated according to the same schedule
\nas tenure-track faculty. (5\/17\/99)
\nB. \u00a0 Selection of Peer Committee Chairs (9\/30\/96 and 9\/10\/97)
\nThe following conditions apply to the chairs of peer committees:
\n\u00b7\u00a0 People in their first three semesters of employment at UMM shall not be chairs of peer
\ncommittees.
\n\u00b7\u00a0 Chairs shall be selected from a random process (with those not serving as chair the
\nprevious year being first to fill the slots).
\n\u00b7\u00a0 No person shall serve as chair of a peer committee for the same person in two
\nconsecutive peer review periods.
\n\u00b7\u00a0 No member shall be the chair of two peer committees during any one peer review period.
\n\u00b7\u00a0 For promotion and tenure applications, the chair must be a tenured faculty member.
\n(9\/9\/98)
\nC.\u00a0 Criteria for Peer Evaluation (04\/07)
\nFull time teaching faculty being evaluated will provide information to the Chair of the
\nDivision Peer Committee that addresses the following criteria and fits the
\nfollowing outline:
\n1. Supporting evidence of performance in instruction, scholarly activity and service.
\nThis does not imply that activity will be required in each subcategory.
\nExcellence in instruction is of paramount importance.
\na. Instruction
\n1. Classroom Teaching (including summaries of those portions of
\nstudent evaluations as requested by the committee and
\nthe collection of all signed student comments)
\n2. Student Advising
\n3. Independent Study, Guided Study, and Direction of Student
\nResearch
\n4. New Course Development and Existing Course Revision
\n5. Other
\nb. Scholarly Activity
\n1. Research Activity, Publications, Editing and Reviewing
\nManuscripts
\n2. Presentations or Attendance at Conferences and Workshops
\n3. Memberships and Service to Professional Organizations
\n4. Coursework
\n5. General Creative Activity
\n6. Other
\nc. Service
\n1. Service to Division
\n2. Service to UMM
\n3. Service to UMS
\n4. Service in Discipline (community, state, and beyond)
\n5. Non-disciplinary Service (community, state, and beyond)
\n6. Other
\n2. A summary of activities associated with any reassigned time during the period of
\nthe review.
\n3. A summary of how previous recommendations from the peer committee were
\naddressed and\/or how the individual met the goals and objectives stated
\nin their previous evaluation.
\n4. A synopsis of major goals and objectives planned for the period before the next
\nevaluation.
\nAdjunct faculty will submit a letter notifying the Division Chair of their intent to
\napply for promotion.\u00a0 In that letter, the adjunct faculty member will include the
\nsections of supporting evidence (in Instruction, Scholarly Activity, and Service) to
\nbe used in the application.\u00a0 The adjunct faculty member will choose those sections
\nmost appropriate to their position.\u00a0 The Peer Committee will review the sections of
\nproposed supporting evidence in the letter, and within two weeks will advise the
\nadjunct faculty member on any changes.\u00a0 The application format for an adjunct
\nfaculty member will be the same as is used by fulltime faculty when applying for
\npromotion. (2\/9\/11)
\nFaculty with split teaching and research appointments being evaluated will provide
\ninformation to the Chair of the Division Peer Committee that addresses the
\nfollowing criteria and fits the following outline:
\n1. Supporting evidence of performance in instruction, scholarly activity and service.
\nThis does not imply that activity will be required in each subcategory.
\nEvaluation will place equal emphasis on the areas of instruction and
\nscholarly activity.
\na. Instruction
\n1. Classroom Teaching (including summaries of those portions of
\nstudent evaluations as requested by the committee and
\nthe collection of all signed student comments)
\n2. Student Advising
\n3. Independent Study, Guided Study, Direction of Student Research
\n(inclusion of students in the faculty\u2019s research projects is
\nparticularly important)
\n4. New Course Development and Existing Course Revision
\n5. Other
\nb. Scholarly Activity (evidence of activity in the first two subcategories is
\nparticularly important)
\n1. Research Activity, Publications, Grants Submitted and Funded,
\nEditing and Reviewing Manuscripts
\n2. Presentations or Attendance at Conferences and Workshops
\n3. Memberships and Service to Professional Organizations
\n4. Coursework
\n5. General Creative Activity
\n6. Other
\nc. Service
\n1. Service to Division
\n2. Service to UMM
\n3. Service to UMS
\n4. Service in Discipline (community, state, and beyond) (This
\nsubcategory is of higher importance if specified in the
\nindividuals initial appointment.)
\n5. Non-disciplinary Service (community, state, and beyond)
\n6. Other
\n2. A summary of activities associated with any reassigned time during the period of
\nreview.
\n3. A summary of how previous recommendations from the peer committee were
\naddressed and\/or how the individual met the goals and objectives stated
\nin their previous evaluation.
\n4. A synopsis of major goals and objectives planned for the period before the next
\nevaluation.
\nD. \u00a0 Peer Committee Process
\n\u00b7The committee chair will attempt to schedule meetings at times when all
\nmembers can attend.\u00a0 If a member can not meet at one or more of the
\nscheduled times, the member is responsible for meeting with the chair, or
\nsubmitting written material to the committee, prior to the meeting.
\n(5\/16\/98)
\n\u00b7\u00a0The peer committee may confer with any resource it needs to best complete
\nits evaluation, including soliciting information or assistance from other
\nprofessional colleagues within the institution. (5\/16\/98)
\n\u00b7\u00a0The peer committee will conduct a class observation with a written report.
\nPrior to conducting the observation, the observer will review the recent
\nstudent evaluations and last peer class observation. The report will become
\npart of the peer letter. If the adjunct faculty member applying for
\npromotion has a current teaching responsibility, the peer committee will
\nconduct a class observation with a written report that will become part
\nof the peer letter. (1\/31\/01, 5\/22\/02, and 2\/9\/11)
\n\u00b7The peer committee will review the most recent division chair and VPAA
\nevaluations. (5\/22\/02)
\n\u00b7\u00a0 The chair of each peer committee will complete the draft of the evaluation no
\nlater than 72 hours prior to the day it is due to the division chair. Further,
\neach committee member will have 48 hours to respond to the draft.
\nFurther, all peer committee members will initial the final evaluation prior
\nto its submission to the division chair. (9\/12\/94)
\n\u00b7 A committee member\u2019s initialing of the peer letter signifies that the member
\nwas a part of the process and that the letter reflects the general opinion of
\nthe committee. (5\/16\/98)
\nE. \u00a0Peer Voting at Professional Relations (11\/4\/91)
\nNo member of the peer committee shall cast more than one vote during the entire
\nprocess of peer review, chair\u2019s evaluation, and Professional Relations Committee
\nreview concerning either tenure or promotion or both. Where applicable, a
\nmember may choose whether to vote as part of the divisional peer committee or
\nas part of the Professional Relations Committee. That person must then abstain
\nfrom voting about a candidate\u2019s application for promotion and\/or tenure in any
\nother forum.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
University of Maine at Machias Policy & Procedures Manual SUBJECT: FACULTY PERSONNEL POLICIES SECTION III DATE: 05\/02, 04\/07, 02\/11 SECTION: Environmental & Biological Sciences \u2013 Peer Evaluations 1. \u00a0Peer Evaluation \u00a0A. Composition of Peer Committees \u00a7 Peer review committees for the Division will be composed of four or more division members. (5\/29\/96 and 11\/15\/00) \u00a7\u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":29,"featured_media":0,"parent":3916,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"templates\/page-withsidebar.php","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"0","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_kad_blocks_custom_css":"","_kad_blocks_head_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_body_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_footer_custom_js":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-4025","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"taxonomy_info":[],"featured_image_src_large":false,"author_info":{"display_name":"","author_link":"https:\/\/machias.edu\/academics\/author\/"},"comment_info":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/machias.edu\/academics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4025","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/machias.edu\/academics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/machias.edu\/academics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/machias.edu\/academics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/29"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/machias.edu\/academics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4025"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/machias.edu\/academics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4025\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7065,"href":"https:\/\/machias.edu\/academics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4025\/revisions\/7065"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/machias.edu\/academics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3916"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/machias.edu\/academics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}