Current 9/16/98
Revised Fall Semester, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF MODERN LANGUAGES

CRITERIA FOR MERIT INCREASES
AND
PROMOTION AND TENURE

The Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics considers that its academic mission is threefold:  (a) to provide the foreign language competency and sensitivity to a foreign culture envisaged and mandated by the University and College degree requirements; (b) to provide advanced undergraduate foreign language and/or literature specialization suitable for the Major-Minor student and as required in support of related academic programs, and (c) to provide graduate degree programs of distinction at the M.A. and Ph.D. levels for the foreign language and/or literature specialist.

In each of these areas, the department strives constantly for excellence. In each of these areas, the degree to which departmental aspirations are attained is dependent upon the quality of its faculty. The department expects much from its faculty, and intends to recommend recognition of excellence by merit salary increases and promotion and tenure.

Although emphasis shall be on scholarship, scholarship without satisfactory teaching shall not be the basis for the award of merit increases.  Conversely, superior teaching must be accompanied by a satisfactory level of scholarship. After scholarship and teaching, service shall be considered.  Extraordinary service shall be recognized when accompanied by satisfactory scholarship and teaching. Consideration for merit shall be consistent with the assignment of duties for each faculty member.

In the case of the department chairman, and in the cases of such other individuals as may be assigned administrative responsibilities by the chairman or a university officer, administrative performance will be given that weight which would otherwise have been assigned to the teaching/research/service which the administrative service displaced.

To the extent possible, within budgetary constraints, award of merit increases shall not be based on a single year but averaged out over a longer period.

The chairman of the department (and for promotion and tenure the Promotion and Tenure Committee) shall be responsible for evaluating the faculty according to the following criteria, based on information and materials supplied by each faculty member on a timely basis and in the prescribed form:

I..            SCHOLARSHIP

To be measured in the following order of importance (i.e. A, B, C, D):

  1. Significant work in print (or for promotion and/or tenure manuscripts accepted) pertaining to language, literature, or the humanities, including publication of articles, reviews, monographs, books, editions, bibliographies, creative writing, media productions, and literary or scholarly translations.
  2. The presentation of previously unpublished scholarly and artistic work at professional meetings, conferences and symposia.
  3. Awards for scholarly or artistic achievement.
  4. Scholarly editing.

II.            TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS

To be measured by:

See under “Specific  Criteria” for “Teaching Effectiveness” in Merit Procedures.

III.            SERVICE

To be measured by:

  1. Participation in departmental, college, and university committees.

  2. Serving as an officer in scholarly organizations.

  3. Service to the public schools and the State educational system.

  4. Service to the community and to civic organizations.

Effective 1 May 1992

Merit Review Criteria and Procedures
Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics
Florida State University

Definition of Merit

Merit is defined as "performance above and beyond the call of duty." Every faculty member is expected, as part of his/her contractual agreement, to perform at a satisfactory level in all categories of duties assigned. Beyond this level of performance, one may perform meritoriously in our major responsibilities of teaching, scholarship/research and service.  Merit awards are reserved for persons who exceed normal expectations in at least two of these areas. Quality and excellence are to be the standards for judging merit, not merely quantity.

Departmental Merit Evaluation Committee

  1. The Merit Evaluation Committee will evaluate members of the department for effectiveness in teaching, in research and creative activity, and in service.

  2. A majority of the Committee will consist of tenured faculty. The Committee will include:

    1. the Chairperson of the department, who will serve as chairperson of the Committee, and

    2. elected members, one from each departmental division.

The elected members will serve one-year terms. No member except the chairperson may serve more than two consecutive years.

Merit Evaluation Assumptions

The validity and reliability of the evaluation conducted by the Departmental Merit Evaluation Committee are based on the following assumptions:

  1. That committee review, when conducted in an honest, thorough and consistent manner, is the most appropriate method for evaluating faculty merit.
  2. That committee members will apply that merit criteria in a consistent manner from year to year.
  3. That committee members evaluate the categories of teaching, scholarship/research, and service in relation to the full range of potential accomplishments and activities, as opposed to evaluating faculty merit on the basis of "general impressions."
  4. That committee members openly discuss individual evaluations in order that any evaluator may have the opportunity to modify the rating based on points raised by colleagues.
  5. That committee members evaluate merit applications in relation to the percentages for actual faculty assignments.

Duties of the Merit Evaluation Committee

Annually, the committee will evaluate each member of the faculty for the purpose of awarding pay raises for merit. The committee will also consider written appeals pertaining to the merit recommendations for which it was responsible. (See section on appeals)

Procedures for Evaluation

In order to facilitate the work of the Merit Evaluation Committee, each faculty member will submit a merit portfolio detailing his/her contributions to the department and the university.  An update “Vitae” must be included in the portfolio.  This portfolio should be turned in to the committee by April 1st of each year, so that the evaluation process may be completed by the end of April.  The evaluations should be principally of the faculty member's performance ("quantity and quality") during the evaluation period (1 April to 31 March); however, it shall be deemed appropriate to give weight also to the performance of the preceding two years. Each faculty member will be evaluated on the basis of teaching performance, research and creative accomplishments, and service to the department and the university. Items included for evaluation should be documented (copies of articles, books, etc. should be submitted). Any item used in the merit evaluation process must be in writing. In the evaluation process the committee will consider the following aspects of Teaching, Research, and Service.

Specific Criteria

1. Teaching Effectiveness

Evidence of teaching effectiveness will include the following:

  1. Statement of assigned teaching responsibilities
  2. Course syllabi
  3. SIRS & SUSSAI Forms
  4. Special teaching responsibilities and related assignments: DIS courses (approved and assigned by Divisional Coordinator), supervised research course, honors course, Gordon Rule courses, etc.
  5. Evidence of effort and creativity in developing instruction or programs within the sphere of the faculty member's teaching responsibilities.
  6. Awards or other recognition, for example, University teaching awards and others.
  7. Advising
  8. Number of honor's candidates, master's and/or doctoral recipients for which faculty member served as major or directing professor.
  9. Number of honor's candidates, master's and/or doctoral recipients for which faculty member served as a committee member.
  10. Unsolicited letters, memoranda, or other documents describing incidents in which capabilities learned as a result of the faculty member's teaching have been put to use in productive ways.

2. Research and Creative Accomplishments

Research and creative accomplishments will include the following:

A. Publications in print and accepted (suggested ranking).

  1. Books
    Scholarly books; monographs; creative works; textbooks; bibliographies; scholarly editions; book-length translations.
  2. Journal editing
  3. Articles in refereed journals, proceedings of conferences or symposia, poems, short stories.
  4. Encyclopedia and dictionary entries.
  5. Editing collections (e.g. anthologies)
  6. Book reviews

B. Presentations (suggested ranking)

  1. Papers read or readings at international professional meetings.
  2. Papers read or readings at national professional meetings.
  3. Papers read or readings at regional or local professional meetings.

C. Other Related Scholarship (no ranking)

  1. Professional awards for scholarship.
  2. Visiting appointments reflecting scholarship.
  3. Invited lectures.
  4. Grants and funded research.
  5. Referee for journal or conference proceedings.
  6. Textbook reviews

Criteria to be used to assess productive scholarship are as follows:

(1) The extent to which the faculty member has contributed to the publication, paper, or other document, and the nature of this contribution, as originator, co-author, writer, etc.

(2) The breadth and amount of scholarly effort.

(3) The originality and quality of scholarly products, as indicated by such criteria as publication in journals employing referees, or working with publishers who submit manuscripts for editorial review, etc.

(4) The influence of the members' scholarly work, as indicated by such criteria as frequency of reference by other scholars and writers, reprinting, translations, and use in course reading material.

In many instances each division's elected representative is expected to provide expertise to assist other committee members in evaluating the quality of scholarship of an specific area.

3. Service

Service to the department and university.

  1. Departmental administrative duties (e.g. Divisional Coordinator, Basic Language Coordinator).
  2. Membership on committees
  3. Director of special university programs
  4. Participation in university study abroad programs.
  5. Faculty Senate
  6. Efforts to give the department greater visibility within the region, nation, and the international community of scholars.  Such efforts will include:
    1. The organization of symposia, panels, and sections at regional, national, and international professional meetings.
    2. The organization of lecture series, guest lectures, and workshops.
    3. Holding office in professional and scholarly organizations, including chairmanships, regional representatives, and memberships on boards and committees.
    4. Service as editor, consulting or reviewing editor for professional journals.
  7. Out of classroom contact with students (advisors for student organizations, language tables, language clubs, and honor societies.).
  8. Educational service to national, state, and local school systems or to private organizations in a professional capacity.
  9. Criteria for assessment of service in all categories include:

    10.             extent and variety of activities;
                estimated effectiveness, in accordance with evidence available;
                degree of importance of the activity, in terms of its probable influence.

Committee Deliberations

Each member of the Merit Evaluation Committee will review the information provided by each faculty member and then tender a rating of performance for teaching, research and creative activity, and service on a scale of one to ten with the following qualifications: 10 - 9= outstanding, 8 - 7= very good, 6 - 5= good, 4 - 3= satisfactory, 2 - 1= needs improvement.

Committee members will be excluded from reviewing and rating their own information.  Final evaluations will be given to the departmental chairperson for tabulation. After all faculty have been evaluated in this manner, the results shall be tabulated as follows:

  1. The rating in each category will be weighed with the rating in teaching being multiplied by .4, that in research and creative activity by .4, and that in service by .2; however, the above rating will be modified in order to be consistent with the individual faculty member’s assignment of responsibilities (for example, in the case of the assistant-in positions who have responsibilities only in the area of teaching and service, each category will be multiplied by .5).
  2. After the evaluation process is completed each faculty member is assigned a numerical score- a composite of teaching, research, service ratings (see “1” above for variations to this composite on the basis of assignment of responsibilities).  These scores are placed in rank order.  The Evaluation Committee then divides the scores (no names should be attached) into quarters and awards merit in the following proportions: 2X, 1.5X, X, 0 (the value of X depends on the amount of money available).  Proportions of the division of money will depend on the Dean’s approval.
  3. In any evaluation period any faculty may petition the department to weigh his/her rankings in accordance with his/her assignment.  The administrative performance of the department chairperson and any other individuals as may be assigned administrative responsibilities by the chairperson or by a university officer will be given that weight which otherwise would have been assigned to the teaching/research/service which the administrative service displaced.  Final recommendation for merit increases will be made by the chairperson.  Recommendations will be guided strongly by the composite rankings of the faculty, although deviations may occur under special circumstances.

Appeals Procedure

Each member of the faculty has the right to discuss the results of the merit evaluation with the Chairperson at the time the faculty member is informed of the results of the evaluation.  The composite score is available to the faculty member upon request.  If the faculty member does not agree with the results of the evaluation she or he may initiate an appeal procedure on the departmental level.  An official appeal must be initiated in writing within one week after receiving notification of merit results and follow the procedures outlined below.

  1. The faculty member will write a letter addressed to the Merit Evaluation Committee. The statement should include the reason for the appeal, e.g. incorrect weighing of responsibilities in the tabulation process, perceived inconsistencies in merit evaluation process, mathematical errors, etc.
  2. The Committee will meet to review the letter from the faculty member and will invite the faculty member to state his or her views to the Committee.
  3. The Committee will make a recommendation to the Chairperson of the Department to resolve the appeal.
  4. The Chairperson will make the final decision at the departmental level.  In making the decision the Chairperson will take into consideration both the recommendation of the Committee and the faculty member's written statement.