Instructions for Preparing 2011 Faculty Review Materials

May 4, 2011


Due in Dean’s Office no later than June 30, 2011. Please send your materials electronically to Carolyn Loether.

As was the case last year, the annual faculty performance review will include the parametric faculty model as a foundation.  The attached form is provided as a guide to the specific information that is needed. You may either enter your data directly on the form or provide the data in a form you find more convenient (e.g., spreadsheet or text). The data should include only completed work (e.g., published research and submitted proposals) between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011.  Clarifying questions regarding the information needed should be sent to Martin Weiss with a copy to Ron Larsen and Carolyn Loether.

In addition to the data, we ask you to provide supporting backup materials, including, for example, the titles of the proposals and their disposition. 

This year we will be retrieving the records of your publications from D-Scholarship, Pitt’s institutional repository at http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/ . Rather than providing citations to your publications in your annual performance review submission, therefore, you should enter them into the D-Scholarship system, thereby contributing to a School database of scholarly publications.

There is no need for you to submit your OMET summaries this year, as these are provided electronically to the Dean’s Office by OMET.

Over the past few years, our academic programs have introduced disciplinary concentrations to build on signature strengths of the School and to provide clearer curricular alternatives for our students. You are encouraged to include in your annual report a discussion of curricular concentrations in which you have taken a leadership role and the level of effort this has required.

As you may recall, the Provost takes a major interest in setting individual and organizational goals and in assessing progress toward those goals. Therefore, it is important that you go beyond the data collection and reflect on your goals and progress during the year.  In particular, I encourage you to consider the following questions:

  • How did your results and activities match the goals that you set out a year ago for yourself?
  • Where there was a deviation, what was the motivation and what was the outcome?

The Provost also expects that personal goals will be informed by (and supportive of) School goals, which, likewise, support University goals. The 2012 plan is available for your reference on the SIS Council wiki (http://scouncil.pbworks.com/f/School+of+Information+Sciences+Annual+Plan+FY2012.pdf ) along with the plan narrative (http://scouncil.pbworks.com/f/School+of+Information+Sciences+FY+2012+Plan+Narrative+and+Appendix.pdf ). As you prepare your annual review materials, please address the following questions:

  • What are your goals for the coming year?  What resources do you think you need in order to achieve these goals?
  • To which of the SIS objectives do you see your planned activities making the greatest contribution?
  • How do your plans support or differ from those identified in the SIS Strategic Plan?

As you review the plan and the matrices, please feel free to suggest ways these could be improved.  Are there elements that you would suggest adding or changing in the FY 2012 plan?

As you prepare your annual review materials, it would be helpful if you could reflect on those achievements, activities, or events that you would like to see in an annual report, and to identify them as such. Picking the top three or so, and providing a sentence or two about each of them, will go a long way toward supporting my ability to communicate your accomplishments to the Provost and our partners as the need arises.

In filling out the following templates, the following guidelines apply:

  • Teaching
    • Online:   Students taking the course are doing so over the web; they are not normally in the classroom
    • Blended:  The course includes both students in the classroom and online students
    • Major revision:  At least 1/3 of the course content has changed since the last time you taught the course
    • New prep:  This is the first time you have taught this course
    • New course:  This is an entirely new course that you are developing from scratch
    • Curriculum advising:  The number of students’ course plans that you sign off on.
  • Research
    • “Tier 1” venues are those held in highest regard among scholars in your discipline.
    • “Tier 2” are mainstream, peer-reviewed venues for scholarly publication
    • “Other” venues are those that do not require rigorous peer review
    • Supported, Advised, and Committee –
      • “Supported” means you provide tuition and/or stipend from external resources supporting your research
      • “Supported” normally implies “Advised”. Do not double count.
      • “Advised” normally implies “Committee”.  Do not double count.


Required forms are attached here.

 

Top