311.01 Annual Review

Each faculty member at Georgia State University shall be evaluated at least once annually in writing by the immediate supervisor on the basis of scholarly attainment and professional growth as evidenced by (a) teaching activity and effectiveness; (b) research, publication, creative scholarly activity, or artistic performance; and (c) institutional and professional service activities.

To ensure a measure of procedural uniformity within the University System, the Chancellor has directed that the following steps be part of all evaluation systems:

A. the immediate supervisor will discuss with the faculty member in a scheduled conference the content of that faculty member's annual evaluation;

B. the faculty member will sign a statement to the effect that he/she has been apprised of the content of the annual evaluation;

C. the faculty member will be given the opportunity to respond in writing to the annual evaluation, with this response to be attached to the evaluation; and

D. the immediate supervisor will acknowledge in writing his/her receipt of this response, noting changes, if any, in the annual evaluation made as a result of either the conference or the faculty member's written response. This acknowledgment will also become a part of the record.

311.02 Student Evaluation of Faculty

Board of Regents' policy calls for a written system of faculty evaluations by students with the improvement of teaching effectiveness as a major main focus (BOR Policy, Section 803.07).

A. Form
Questions applicable University-wide may be developed by the deans of the colleges, the Senate Academic Affairs Committee, and the Senate Faculty Affairs Committee, and shall be approved by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Questions applicable to a college may be developed by the dean, the departmental chair and the appropriate college-wide faculty committee, and are subject to the approval of the college faculty, the dean, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Questions applicable to a department shall be developed by the departmental chair and faculty of the department and are subject to the approval of the faculty of the department, the departmental chair and the dean of the college.

B. Frequency
Each faculty member (including part-time and graduate teaching assistants) shall be evaluated by students in all courses the faculty member is teaching unless the department or college/school designates that student evaluations are not appropriate for a specific course.

C. Use
The student evaluations are for purposes of self-improvement and information in the faculty evaluation process, as mandated in BOR Policy, Section 803.07. The aggregate data of student evaluation questionnaires shall be given to the instructor with a copy to the chairman or unit head. Comments by students shall be given to the instructor with copies to the departmental chair or unit head.

Any college/unit may require data from student evaluation questionnaires as one item in tenure and promotion materials, third-year review, and post-tenure review, provided that a majority of full-time faculty members within the college/unit approve of such an action.

D. Administration
The University shall use an online procedure for all student evaluations of instruction in all classes unless an online procedure isn't available for a particular course. The University shall provide technical support for only the online method of evaluation.

The procedure for the implementation of online evaluation shall be as follows:

A. In order for a student to access his/her grade for a particular course, the student must have either filled out an online course evaluation or actively selected a "do not wish to participate" option at the online evaluation site.

B. In no case will a student be allowed to fill out or alter an online evaluation after the grade is viewed.

C. The evaluation period for a regular semester (i.e., Spring and Fall) will begin two weeks before classes end and end two weeks after course grades become available to students. The evaluation period for all other terms will begin one week before classes end and end two weeks after course grades become available to students. After the evaluation period the course evaluation ratings will be tabulated and no further evaluations will be included in the overall evaluation of the course. The students, however, will still be required to fill out an evaluation to view their grade, but the evaluation will not count. After the two week period any comments received would be for the enrichment of the instructor only.

Approved by the University Senate | 4/29/04

PRODUCTION OF STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR FORMS
Each college or each department within a college, depending on college policy (hereafter college/department), is responsible for designing student evaluation of instructor (SEI) forms in compliance with the 1985 Senate resolution that established this procedure and for using these forms to evaluate courses taught by that college/department.

ANALYSIS AND RETURN OF SEI DATA
Colleges/departments are responsible for the subsequent analysis or statistical summary of the SEI results and providing that summary (along with copies of any analysis and student comments) to the instructor and department chair on a timely basis. The SEI summaries are to be retained by the department chair and a copy of the written student comments (if any) is to be provided to the instructor in a timely manner.

RETENTION OF SEI DATA BY DEPARTMENTS
The SEI results and any related analysis (hereafter SEI materials) are to be retained as follows:

Courses taught by tenure track faculty.

• 1. Faculty without tenure: retained until the tenure decision is made and, in the case of an unfavorable tenure decision, for the appeal period specified by the University.
• 2. Tenured faculty: retained until the cumulative review that is conducted every five years is completed.
• 3. Faculty making an appeal of decisions rendered regarding teaching performance: retained until all appeals are exhausted or until the appeal is dropped;
• 4. Teaching performance under special review by chair of the department in which the faculty member is budgeted and/or holds faculty rank: retained as long as the department chair deems necessary.

Courses taught by full-time, non-tenure track faculty. Except as specified here, the SEI materials pertaining to courses taught by full-time , non-tenure track faculty will be kept by the department chair for three years beyond the academic term in which the course was offered. Exceptions to this retention policy are as follows:

• 1. Faculty making an appeal of decisions rendered regarding teaching performance: retained until all appeals are exhausted or until the appeal is dropped.
• 2. Teaching performance under special review by chair of department in which the faculty member is budgeted and/or holds faculty rank: retained as long as the department chair deems necessary.

Courses taught by other than full-time faculty. The SEI materials pertaining to courses taught by instructors who are not full-time faculty will be kept by the department chair for a minimum of one year beyond the academic term in which the course was offered, except if an appeal is pending that raises questions about the teaching performance of the instructor. In this case the SEI materials shall be retained until all appeals are exhausted or until the appeal is dropped.

RESEARCH ON SEI INSTRUMENT
To assure that SEI instruments are valid (i.e., the SEI instrument appropriately captures pertinent attributes of teaching effectiveness) and reliable (i.e., similar results are obtained during different administrations of the SEI instrument), colleges may conduct statistical research using SEI data as long as such data are not identified by instructor.

REQUESTS UNDER GEORGIA OPEN RECORDS ACT
In a letter of January 20, 1988, the Attorney General of the State of Georgia ruled that student evaluations of academic courses are subject to disclosure under the Georgia Open Records Act. Accordingly, through the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, SEI data are provided at cost to the Student Government Association at its request. Any other requests for access to the data under the Georgia Open Records Act are to be referred to the University's Office of Legal Affairs.

Source: Associate Deans' Group, approved by the Senate Faculty Affairs Committee, May, 1996.

311.02.01 Student Evaluation Report to SGA

The Faculty Affairs Committee recommends approval for a second response report to the Student Evaluations for each college to be sent to the SGA Office in printed or electronic form that will answer the six common questions in the order that the students requested:

The Instructor:

1. Follows the plan for the course as established in the syllabus.
2. Explains the grading system clearly.
3. Is well prepared.
4. communicates effectively.
5. Is accessible to students.
6. Considering all limitations and possibilities of the subject matter and course, how would you rate the overall effectiveness of this instructor?

Source: University Senate, approved by the University Senate, March 23, 2000.

311.03 Evaluation of Chairs

The chairs of departments shall be evaluated formally every three years in accordance with the provisions of the University Statutes. The main purpose will be to evaluate, maintain, and improve the performance of the chairs. The procedures for evaluation will be developed by the dean in consultation with the appropriate elected faculty committees, and approved by the faculty of the college. In addition, the dean shall conduct an annual review of the chairs. Findings of either review may lead to a recommendation for re-affirmation and suggestions for improvement or for a non-reappointment (University Senate Resolution, October 27, 1988).

311.04 Evaluation of Deans

The Deans of the colleges and University Librarian, are to be evaluated formally every three years in accordance with the University Statutes. The main purpose will be to evaluate, maintain, and improve the performance of the Dean and Librarian. Detailed procedures for the evaluation will be developed by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Faculty Affairs Committee of the University Senate, and adopted by the University Senate. In addition, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall conduct an annual review of the deans and the University Librarian. The findings of either review may lead to a recommendation for re-affirmation and suggestions for improvement or for non-reappointment (University Senate Resolution, October 27, 1988).

311.05 Evaluation of Vice Presidents

The vice presidents of the university are to be evaluated formally every three years in accordance with the University Statutes. The main purpose will be to evaluate and improve performance of the vice presidents. Detailed procedures for the evaluation will be developed by the provost and vice president for academic affairs in consultation with the Faculty Affairs Committee of the University Senate and adopted by the University Senate. In addition, the provost and vice president for academic affairs shall conduct an annual review of the vice presidents. The findings of either review may lead to a recommendation for reaffirmation and suggestions for improvement or for non-reappointment (University Senate: 2-27-92).

311.06 Evaluation of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

The provost and vice president for academic affairs is to be evaluated formally every three years in accordance with the University Statutes. The main purpose will be to evaluate and improve performance of the provost and vice president for academic affairs. Detailed procedures for the evaluation will be developed by the president of the university in consultation with the Faculty Affairs Committee of the University Senate and adopted by the University Senate. In addition, the president shall conduct an annual review of the provost and vice president for academic affairs. The findings of either review may lead to a recommendation for reaffirmation and suggestions for improvement or for non-reappointment (University Senate: 2-27-92).

311.07 Evaluation of the President

The president of the university is to be evaluated formally every three years in accordance with the University Statutes. The main purpose will be to evaluate and improve performance of the president. Detailed procedures for the evaluation will be developed by the Executive Committee of the University Senate in consultation with the Faculty Affairs Committee of the University Senate and adopted by the University Senate. The Executive Committee shall deliver a report of the evaluation to the President (University Senate: 2-27-92).

311.08 Evaluation of the Associate Provosts

The associate provosts of the university are to be evaluated formally every three years in accordance with the University Statutes. The main purpose will be to evaluate and improve performance of the associate provosts. Detailed procedures for the evaluation will be developed by the provost and vice president for academic affairs in consultation with the Faculty Affairs Committee of the University Senate and adopted by the University Senate. In addition, the provost and vice president for academic affairs shall conduct an annual review of the associate provosts. The findings of either review may lead to a recommendation for reaffirmation and suggestions for improvement or for non-reappointment. (University Senate: 3-22-01).