Faculty members’ (Instructional, Professional Practice, Extension) performance for merit shall be evaluated annually by the department head. Performance evaluation will be based on letter of hire, role statements, annual assignments, self-assessment, and a review of the individual’s performance. In the three-tier model outlined below (approved May 2020), faculty members will be evaluated as: unacceptable performance, below expectations, acceptable performance, strong performance, and exemplary performance (see University Description of Performance Standards below). Consequently, faculty will receive one overall weighted score that summarizes performance based on their workload appointment.

There is diversity in disciplines within this department and it is possible that there are additional relevant performance related activities that are not explicitly represented. Faculty members should provide evidence for these activities that may be considered relevant to their review.Faculty need to include ~2 paragraphs with their annual review, providing a summary of their performance for teaching, research, service, and the integration of these areas.

University Description of Performance Standards

Unacceptable Performance		 Below Expectations  
Acceptable Performance		 Strong Performance  
Exemplary Performance
Unacceptable performance in an Area of Responsibility. Performance is inadequate. The specific areas that are deficient will be addressed in the narrative. Requires a Performance Involvement Plan for the next academic year. Performance in an Area of Responsibility is below expectations. Performance is frequently less than satisfactory and fails to meet expectations. The narrative must address specific areas that need improvement. Requires a Performance Involvement Plan for the next academic year. Performance of assigned responsibilities consistently meets expectations and contributes to the success of the department’s mission. Performance of assigned responsibilities consistently exceeds expectations and contributes significantly to the success of the department’s mission. Supporting evidence will be provided in the narrative. Performance is superior and merits special recognition for unequivocally superior performance (e.g., worthy of national, international, or professional award nomination, or is clearly outstanding in his/her field). Supporting evidence will be presented in the narrative.
0-0.9 1-2.9 3-4.9 5-7.9 8
Teaching Performance Standards
Unacceptable Performance Below Expectations Acceptable Performance Strong Performance Exemplary Performance

Quantitative: Student perceptions (including Extension participants) of teaching effectiveness that report a mean of 1.0 or above on a 5.0-point scale (average across all individual items for all courses in a review year) on the university teaching evaluation form or comparable scores on a departmentally approved form.

AND

Level 1: (0-1+ evidences)
- Chairing masters/PhD committees
-Overseeing graduate/undergraduate formalized research, including student-led applications/grant proposals (e.g., TRIO; INBRE; McNair; Moebus Fellows; Undergraduate Scholars Program; Hilleman)
-University level or professional/national awards
-Teaching grants (e.g., college, university, or professional; including initial and ongoing funding)

OR

Level 2: (0-1
evidences)
-Overseeing independent study courses
-Teaching a new course or in a new modality
-University teaching-enhancement trainings (e.g., Center for Faculty Excellence; Academic Technology & Outreach; or similar)
-Attendance at a teaching or Extension conference
-Committee membership for masters/PhD -Overseeing graduate/undergraduate research lab or team members (e.g., GRAs; paid or unpaid research assistants; or similar)
-Departmental award(s)
-Extension related community courses, teaching presentations, and professional development.

Quantitative: Student perceptions (including Extension participants) of teaching effectiveness that report a mean of 3.0 or above on a 5.0-point scale (average across all individual items for all courses in a review year) on the university teaching evaluation or comparable scores on a departmentally approved form.

AND

Level 1: (0-1+ evidences)
-Chairing masters/PhD committees
-Overseeing graduate/undergraduate formalized research, including student-led applications/grant proposals (e.g., TRIO; INBRE; McNair; Moebus Fellows; Undergraduate Scholars Program; Hilleman)
-University level or professional/national awards
-Teaching grants (e.g., college, university, or professional; including initial and ongoing funding)

OR

Level 2: (0-1
evidences)
-Overseeing independent study courses
-Teaching a new course or in a new modality
-University teaching-enhancement trainings (e.g., Center for Faculty Excellence; Academic Technology & Outreach; or similar)
-Attendance at a teaching or Extension conference
-Committee membership for masters/PhD
-Overseeing graduate/undergraduate research lab or team members (e.g., GRAs; paid or unpaid research assistants; or similar)
-Departmental award(s)
-Extension related community courses, teaching presentations, and professional development.

Quantitative: Student perceptions (including Extension participants) of teaching effectiveness that report a mean of 3.5 or above on a 5.0-point scale (average across all individual items for all courses in a review year) on the university teaching evaluation or comparable scores on a departmentally approved form. In addition, student comments will be taken into consideration.

AND

Level 1: (1-2+ evidences)
-Chairing masters/PhD committees
-Overseeing graduate/undergraduate formalized research, including student-led applications/grant proposals (e.g., TRIO; INBRE; McNair; Moebus Fellows; Undergraduate Scholars Program; Hilleman)
-University level or professional/national awards
-Teaching grants (e.g., college, university, or professional; including initial and ongoing funding)

OR

Level 2: (1-2 evidences)
-Overseeing independent study courses
-Teaching a new course or in a new modality
-University teaching-enhancement trainings (e.g., Center for Faculty Excellence; Academic Technology & Outreach; or similar)
-Attendance at a teaching or Extension conference
-Committee membership for masters/PhD -Overseeing graduate/undergraduate research lab or team members (e.g., GRAs; paid or unpaid research assistants; or similar)
-Departmental award(s)
-Extension related community courses, teaching presentations, and professional development.

Quantitative: Student perceptions (including Extension participants) of teaching effectiveness that report a mean of 4.0 or above on a 5.0-point scale (average across all individual items for all courses in a review year) on the university teaching evaluation or comparable scores on a departmentally approved form.

AND

Level 1: (2-4+ evidences)
-Chairing masters/PhD committees
-Overseeing graduate/undergraduate formalized research, including student-led applications/grant proposals (e.g., TRIO; INBRE; McNair; Moebus Fellows; Undergraduate Scholars Program; Hilleman)
-University level or professional/national awards
-Teaching grants (e.g., college, university, or professional; including initial and ongoing funding)

OR

Level 2: (2-4
evidences)
-Overseeing independent study courses
-Teaching a new course or in a new modality
-University teaching-enhancement trainings (e.g., Center for Faculty Excellence; Academic Technology & Outreach; or similar)
-Attendance at a teaching or Extension conference
-Committee membership for masters/PhD
-Overseeing graduate/undergraduate research lab or team members (e.g., GRAs; paid or unpaid research assistants; or similar)
-Departmental award(s)
-Extension related community courses, teaching presentations, and professional development.

AND

Evidence of integration of teaching with at least one other area (i.e., scholarship or outreach/service).

Quantitative: Student perceptions (including Extension participants) of teaching effectiveness that report a mean of 4.5 or above on a 5.0-point scale (average across all individual items for all courses in a review year) on the university teaching evaluation or comparable scores on a departmentally approved form.

AND

Level 1: (3-4+ evidences)
-Chairing masters/PhD committees
-Overseeing graduate/undergraduate formalized research, including student-led applications/grant proposals (e.g., TRIO; INBRE; McNair; Moebus Fellows; Undergraduate Scholars Program; Hilleman)
-University level or professional/national awards
-Teaching grants (e.g., college, university, or professional; including initial and ongoing funding)

AND

Level 2: (3-4 evidences)
-Overseeing independent study courses
-Teaching a new course or in a new modality
-University teaching-enhancement trainings (e.g., Center for Faculty Excellence; Academic Technology & Outreach; or similar)
-Attendance at a teaching or Extension conference
-Committee membership for masters/PhD
-Overseeing graduate/undergraduate research lab or team members (e.g., GRAs; paid or unpaid research assistants; or similar)
-Departmental award(s)
-Extension related community courses, teaching presentations, and professional development.

AND

Evidence of integration of teaching with at least one other area (i.e., scholarship or outreach/service).
Research Performance Standards
Unacceptable Performance Below Expectations Acceptable Performance Strong Performance Exemplary Performance

Level 1: (0-1+ evidences)
-Refereed journal articles, monographs, book chapters, and textbooks (i.e., final acceptance for publication or published)
-Edited Books (candidate as editor)
-External grants funded as PI or Co-PI (i.e., including initial and ongoing funding)
-Invited professional plenary or keynote presentations for state, national, or international research conferences
-Receptions of national competitive awards for scholarship

OR

Level 2: (0-1+ evidences)
-Refereed journal articles, monographs, book chapters, and textbooks that have been submitted (i.e., under review, rejection, under revision)
-Refereed proceedings published in connection with professional meetings
-Extension publications (Montguide/Fact Sheets)
-Invited papers or presentations at professional meetings (international, national, regional, state, or local)
-Refereed papers or presentations at professional meetings (international, national, regional, state)
-Grant proposals submitted (external and internal) as PI or Co-PI
-Internal grants funded as PI or Co-PI (i.e., including initial and ongoing funding)
-Non-refereed publications (e.g., non- refereed proceedings and technical reports; trade journals)
-Development and publication of scholarly products (e.g., software or curriculum materials)

Level 1: (0-1+ evidences)
-Refereed journal articles, monographs, book chapters, and textbooks (i.e., final acceptance for publication or published)
-Edited Books (candidate as editor)
-External grants funded as PI or Co-PI (i.e., including initial and ongoing funding)
-Invited professional plenary or keynote presentations for state, national, or international research conferences
-Receptions of national competitive awards for scholarship

OR

Level 2: (2+ evidences)
-Refereed journal articles, monographs, book chapters, and textbooks that have been submitted (i.e., under review, rejection, under revision)
-Refereed proceedings published in connection with professional meetings
-Extension publications (Montguide/Fact Sheets)
-Invited papers or presentations at professional meetings (international, national, regional, state, or local)
-Refereed papers or presentations at professional meetings (international, national, regional, state)
-Grant proposals submitted (external and internal) as PI or Co-PI
-Internal grants funded as PI or Co-PI (i.e., including initial and ongoing funding)
-Non-refereed publications (e.g., non- refereed proceedings and technical reports; trade journals)
-Development and publication of scholarly products (e.g., software or curriculum materials)

Level 1: (1 evidences)
-Refereed journal articles, monographs, book chapters, and textbooks (i.e., final acceptance for publication or published)
-Edited Books (candidate as editor)
-External grants funded as PI or Co-PI (i.e., including initial and ongoing funding)
-Invited professional plenary or keynote presentations for state, national, or international research conferences
-Receptions of national competitive awards for scholarship

OR

Level 2: (3+ evidences)
-Refereed journal articles, monographs, book chapters, and textbooks that have been submitted (i.e., under review, rejection, under revision)
-Refereed proceedings published in connection with professional meetings
-Extension publications (Montguide/Fact Sheets)
-Invited papers or presentations at professional meetings (international, national, regional, state)
-Refereed papers or presentations at professional meetings (international, national, regional, state, or local)
-Grant proposals submitted (external and internal) as PI or Co-PI
-Internal grants funded as PI or Co-PI (i.e., including initial and ongoing funding)
-Non-refereed publications (e.g., non- refereed proceedings and technical reports; trade journals)
-Development and publication of scholarly products (e.g., software or curriculum materials)

Level 1: (1-2+ evidences)
-Refereed journal articles, monographs, book chapters, and textbooks (i.e., final acceptance for publication or published)
-Edited Books (candidate as editor)
-External grants funded as PI or Co-PI (i.e., including initial and ongoing funding)
-Invited professional plenary or keynote presentations for state, national, or international research conferences
-Receptions of national competitive awards for scholarship

AND

 

Level 2: (2-3+ evidences)
-Refereed journal articles, monographs, book chapters, and textbooks that have been submitted (i.e., under review, rejection, under revision)
-Refereed proceedings published in connection with professional meetings
-Extension publications (Montguide/Fact Sheets)
-Invited papers or presentations at professional meetings (international, national, regional, state, or local)
-Refereed papers or presentations at professional meetings (international, national, regional, state)
-Grant proposals submitted (external and internal) as PI or Co-PI
-Internal grants funded as PI or Co-PI (i.e., including initial and ongoing funding)
-Non-refereed publications (e.g., non- refereed proceedings and technical reports; trade journals)
-Development and publication of scholarly products (e.g., software or curriculum materials)

AND

Evidence of integration of scholarship with at least one other area (i.e., teaching or outreach/service).

Level 1: (3+ evidences)
-Refereed journal articles, monographs, book chapters, and textbooks (i.e., final acceptance for publication or published)
-Edited Books (candidate as editor)
-External grants funded as PI or Co-PI (i.e., including initial and ongoing funding)
-Invited professional plenary or keynote presentations for state, national, or international research conferences
-Receptions of national competitive awards for scholarship

AND

 

Level 2: (4+ evidences)
-Refereed journal articles, monographs, book chapters, and textbooks that have been submitted (i.e., under review, rejection, under revision)
-Refereed proceedings published in connection with professional meetings
-Extension publications (Montguide/Fact Sheets)
-Invited papers or presentations at professional meetings (international, national, regional, state, or local)
-Refereed papers or presentations at professional meetings (international, national, regional, state)
-Grant proposals submitted (external and internal) as PI or Co-PI
-Internal grants funded as PI or Co-PI (i.e., including initial and ongoing funding)
-Non-refereed publications (e.g., non- refereed proceedings and technical reports; trade journals)
-Development and publication of scholarly products (e.g., software or curriculum materials)

AND

Evidence of integration of scholarship with at least one other area (i.e., teaching or outreach/service).
Service Performance Standards
Unacceptable Performance Below Expectations Acceptable Performance Strong Performance Exemplary Performance
No evidences.

A minimum of 1 evidence related of serving on a department, college, or university committee.

OR

A minimum of 1 evidence related to service to the profession OR outreach:
-Professional service in local, state, national, or international organizations in professional disciplines (e.g., conference abstract reviewer; accreditation; leadership roles)
-Outreach to local, state, national, or international communities
-Reviewer or editor for professional journals, monographs, books, or grant applications
-Professional consultations that may or may not result in a co-authored publication

A minimum of 1 evidence related of serving on a department, college, or university committee.

AND

A minimum of 1 evidence related to service to the profession OR outreach:
-Professional service in local, state, national, or international organizations in professional disciplines (e.g., conference abstract reviewer; accreditation; leadership roles)
-Outreach to local, state, national, or international communities
-Reviewer or editor for professional journals, monographs, books, or grant applications
-Professional consultations that may or may not result in a co-authored publication

A minimum of 1 evidence related of serving on a department, college, or university committee.

AND

A minimum of 2 evidences related to service to the profession OR outreach:
-Professional service in local, state, national, or international organizations in professional disciplines (e.g., conference abstract reviewer; accreditation; leadership roles)
-Outreach to local, state, national, or international communities
-Reviewer or editor for professional journals, monographs, books, or grant applications
-Professional consultations that may or may not result in a co-authored publication

AND

Evidence of integration of outreach/service with at least one other area (i.e., teaching or scholarship).

A minimum of 2 evidences related of serving on a department, college, or university committee.

AND

A minimum of 2 evidences related to service to the profession OR outreach:
-Professional service in local, state, national, or international organizations in professional disciplines (e.g., conference abstract reviewer; accreditation; leadership roles)
-Outreach to local, state, national, or international communities
-Reviewer or editor for professional journals, monographs, books, or grant applications
-Professional consultations that may or may not result in a co-authored publication

AND

Evidence of integration of outreach/service with at least one other area (i.e., teaching or scholarship).

 

MSU Faculty Handbook

MSU Policies and Procedures

EHHD Faculty Guide Book

Canvas

 

NetID and MyMSU

Schedule of Classes

Directory Profile

Syllabus Language

 

Grades

Academic Calendar

Center for Faculty Excellence

Campus Map

 

Access and Success

FERPA

Catalog

Finals