University of Wisconsin Stout | Wisconsin's Polytechnic University
That’s how employers describe UW-Stout graduates. Our innovative, career-focused degrees combine applied learning and the liberal arts.
Revised (2/12; 04/11; 03/04; 03/96; 5/91; 12/86; 5/84; 7/76)
Each time a department member is reviewed, a portfolio will be compiled including the following evidence supplied by the Department Program Assistant.
All department members are required to submit an annual activity sheet of no more than one page describing how they are satisfying the Job Description.
All faculty and Academic Staff
All department members should provide evidence on their activity sheets demonstrating how they are satisfying Category II of the Job Description (e.g., list of department or university committees served on, etc.)
All faculty should provide evidence on their activity sheets demonstrating how they are satisfying Category III of the Job Description (e.g., list of publications, conference presentations, or work in progress, etc.)
Beginning with the fall retention and performance evaluation of a probationary faculty’s second year and for each retention and performance evaluation thereafter, the faculty member will maintain and make available to the Chair and Staff Committee a tenure portfolio documenting accomplishments within the four criteria for tenure (see the tenure policy). The tenure portfolio should contain any supporting materials that the candidate wishes to include addressing the areas of teaching, research, and service to the department, university, profession, or community. For example, the candidate may wish to include examples of her/his use of technology, interesting assignments, new course proposals, publications, manuscripts, conference programs, explanation of service activities provided to the department or university, notices of readings organized for the campus, etc. The portfolio need not contain activity sheets, peer observations, student evaluations, or syllabi since these should be available in the candidate’s department file.
According to University of Wisconsin Board of Regents policy (as circulated 24 September 1974):
Student evaluation of instruction as information used in actions on promotion, retention or the awarding of tenure.
Each Institution of the University Systems shall adopt such policies for instructional faculty as will insure (a) that evaluation of the instruction of each faculty member being considered for promotion or tenure shall be undertaken; (b) that the faculty body which initiates recommendations for promotion or tenure shall consider, in addition to independent peer judgment of teaching effectiveness, student evaluation data, taking into account existing limitations in validity and reliability of the evaluation methodology employed; and (c) that the faculty body initiating the recommendation shall include both its explicit evaluation of the teaching effectiveness of the person for whom the recommendation is made, and shall include a summary of information provided by student evaluation as part of the supporting evidence for its recommendation.
Each Institution shall develop systematic and firm procedure(s) for the manner and form of presenting student evaluation material for administrative purposes. Faculty members being evaluated should be informed of have the right to respond to any summaries of student evaluations to be submitted for administrative use.
Student evaluation of instruction as information used in actions on merit salary increase.
All faculty members being considered for merit salary increases shall be evaluated by their peers as to their instructional ability, using information from student evaluation of their instruction, as well as other information relevant to assessment, at least once every three years. The intent of this policy is to delegate to the Institutions and their faculties decision as to the minimal frequency with which full assessment of teaching performance should be undertaken and does not, however, imply that more frequent student evaluation might not be wise or desirable in order to provide the most substantial basis for the formal assessment of teaching performance.
Peer evaluation is the Staff Committee’s judgment after the Committee has carefully reviewed evidence submitted under Categories I, II, and III and evidence offered by Staff Committee members.
Each year, the Chair with advice form the Staff Committee, will determine on the basis of submitted evidence the rating (above, within, or below the job description) of each staff member.
The Chair of the department with advice from the Staff Committee will determine the ratings in these categories. No one may be rated below under Categories IIB and III.