faculty performance review d system - qu.edu.qa

FACULTY PERFORMANCE REVIEW &

DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM

—College of Engineering Specific Criteria—

June 2016

Note: This document complements the Qatar University “Faculty Performance Review and Development System (FPRDS) Guidelines & Policies” with College of Engineering Specific Criteria. It does not contradict any of the general guidelines and policies.

College of Engineering Faculty Performance Review and Development System (FPRDS)

June 2016


Evaluation components, evaluation activities and their weights range are as in the Qatar University “Faculty Performance Review and Development System (FPRDS) Guidelines & Policies” for regular faculty and lecturers. Teaching is weighted between 40 and 70 % of the total evaluation for Faculty (of different professorial ranks); for the Industrial chairs 20-40%; and for lecturers who are teaching on a full time basis in colleges, the weighting is 60-80%. The weight for the teaching component should be allocated in increments of 10-15% for each course taught, irrespective of the sections. The research faculty can be accommodated with the following ratings for teaching (15-30%) and research, scholarly and creative activities (50-70%); the weighting for Service and Continuous Faculty Development will remain as for regular faculty members.

The HoD is kindly requested, one month prior to the upcoming appraisal, to review and finalize the weights entered by the teaching staff in FPRDS in order to make sure that the weights are appropriate with this guideline and consistent with the proposed planning already reported by the teaching staff.

Evaluation Domain Weighting Range Evaluation Activities Weighting range

Teaching and Learning Faculty 40-70% Lecturer 60-80% Research Faculty 15-30% Industrial Chair 20-40%

Enhanced Course Portfolio and Teaching, Creativity and Assessment.

80%

Students Feedback on Course. Questionnaire.

20%

Research, Scholarly and Creative Activities

Faculty 10-45% Lecturer 0-25% Research Faculty/Industrial Chair 50-70%

Publications. 50-100%

Research Funding. 0-40%

Other Research Activities. 0-10% University, Professional, and Community Service

10-20% Service to QU. 20-100% Service to Profession. 0-40% Service to the Community. 0-40%

Continuous Faculty Development

5-10% Faculty Development in Teaching, Research and Services.

70%

Evidenced-based Reflection paper (Mandatory) on teaching, research, and service and action plan for improvement.

30%

1. Evaluation Criteria for Teaching

Tables 1 and 2 show the related performance indicators and rubrics. The total score for teaching can be cumulated using a combination of all of the categories to indicate the level of achievement of the faculty member under the overall “Teaching Creativity and Assessment” component.


June 2016

Table 1: Performance Indicators and Rubric for Teaching, Creativity, and Assessment (80%) Evidence of integration of active learning strategies, use of technology and effective student engagement in the course, Evidence of assessment methods to enhance student learning in the

course. (80%)*

Levels Score

Use of innovative learning activities to encourage student engagement (i.e. different interactive lectures strategies, project based learning, problem based learning, flipped classrooms, other) to enhance students’ critical thinking, communication skills and/or problem-solving skills showing compelling evidence on student engagement. (40%)

Excellent 4

Very Good 3

Good 2

Limited 1

Not at all 0

Integration of creative technology in teaching and learning (i.e. developed an e-learning environment, use of Blackboard, blended e-learning, and others…) (30%)

Excellent 4

Very Good 3

Good 2

Limited 1

Not at all 0

Course syllabus and contents coverage in course portfolio show alignment (10%) Excellent 4

Very Good 3

Good 2

Limited 1

Not at all 0

Student exam papers show various assessment methods are being effectively used to measure students’ performance improvements in the course.

All course learning outcomes (CLOs) are being assessed, with the depth and breadth needed to effectively evaluate the student s’ attainment of the course’s topics.

Use of appropriate tools for rating the assignments (for instance, well-designed rubrics are essential to rate report assignments).

If the course used in assessing SOs, embedded questions are effective and adequate to identify the student attainment to the assessed relative PIs. (20%)

Excellent 4

Very Good 3

Good 2

Limited 1

Not at all

0

Table 2: Performance Indicators and Rubric for Cumulative Student Feedback from the Student Course

Questionnaires

20% The cumulative student feedback rating achieved by the faculty member*

Points

Performance Rubric 3.0 – 4.0 points 2.0 -2.9 points 1.0- 1.9 points 0 points

Score: 85.0% or Higher Score: 75.0 - 84.9% Score: 67.0 -74.9 % Score: Below 67.0%

* This is the cumulative student feedback rating achieved by the faculty member on all courses taught during the

evaluation period.

2. Evaluation Criteria for Research, Scholarly and Creative Activities

Tables 3-5 show the rubrics for three major categories of research productivity indicators (publications, research funding, and other research, scholarly and creative activities) based on the quality and quantity of the reported research activities. The total score can be cumulated using a combination of the three categories to indicate the level of achievement of the faculty member under the overall “Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activities” component. If the calculated total is higher than 4, then it is set to 4.


June 2016

Table 3: Performance Indicators and Rubric for Publications Publications (50-100%) Unit Scores

Top Tier* Second Tier*

Full Professor Others Full Professor Others

Senior**

Author

Non-Senior Author

Senior** Author

Non-Senior Author

Senior** Author

Non-Senior Author

Senior** Author

Non-Senior Author

Journal Paper*** 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.4 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.7

Book 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.4 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.7

Book Chapter/ Edited Book

0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1

Conference Paper (Maximum 2)

0.9 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4

Granted Patent 1.5 1.1 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6

Filed Patent 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4

Standards 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4

Other (Specify/Justify)

* See the Appendix for definitions of Top and Second Tiers categories. ** As specified in the CENG promotion criteria. *** To encourage high quality scholarship, the top tier journal publications shall be granted full credit in two

successive evaluation periods.

Table 4: Performance Indicators and Rubric for Research Funding Research Funding* (0-40%) Unit Scores

Received Running

LPI & Co-LPI PI LPI & Co-LPI PI

Exceptional Grants 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0

Grants 2.0 1.0 1.5 0.7

Industrial Contracts 2.0 1.0 1.5 0.7


*Note that all research grants and contract must be conducted through Qatar University.

Table 5: Performance Indicators and Rubric for Other Research Activities

Other Research Activities (0-10%) Sub-Category Score*

Research Excellence Award International 4.0

Regional/Local 2.0

Engagement in external competitive proposal written and submitted during the evaluation year but no funded

LPI/PI 1.0

Supervision of Student Projects/Theses PhD 1.5

MSc 1.0

Received/Ongoing external or internal grants for students or postdoc research supervision

1.5

Other scholarly activity under contract that is ongoing but not yet published Book 1.0

Edited Book 0.5

Recognized/impact bearing creative work other than publications (as applicable in the field and with evidence of such a work)

Internationally 1.0

Regionally 0.5


* Maximum scores (not unit scores), and are based on the activities


June 2016

3. Evaluation Criteria for Service

The evaluation criteria and the performance indicators and rubric for service are as in the Qatar University FPRDS Guidelines and Policies.

4. Evaluation Criteria for Continuous Faculty Development

The evaluation criteria and the performance indicators and rubric for continuous faculty development are as in the Qatar University FPRDS Guidelines and Policies.


June 2016

APPENDIX Definitions of Top and Second Tiers’ Publications


June 2016

JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS

Top Tier: ISI Quartile Ranking Category Q1 & Q2 Second Tier: ISI Quartile Ranking Category Q3 & Q4

Based on Impact Factor (IF) data, the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) published by Thomson Reuters provides yearly rankings of journals, in the subject categories relevant for the journal. Quartile rankings in a given year are derived for each journal in each of its subject categories according to which quartile of the IF distribution the journal occupies for that subject category. The quartile ranking categories are defined as follows:

Q1 denotes the top 25% of the IF distribution, Q2 for middle-high position (between top 50% and top 25%), Q3 middle-low position (top 75% to top 50%), and Q4 the lowest position (bottom 25% of the IF distribution).

To know the Quartile ranking of any ISI indexed journal for any specific year, you need to use the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR). You can access the JCR website from the QU Library Website by searching for JCR as shown below:

You will get the following screen:


June 2016

By clicking on the Journal Citation Report (JCR) link you will be forwarded to ISI Web of Knowledge website as shown below:

You then select the year and click on SUBMIT button and you get a menu from which you can select the category of the Journal you’re searching for its Quartile rankings as shown below:


June 2016

You search for the specific Journal and click on it to get the detailed information about the specific journal as shown in the following screen:


June 2016

You click on “JOURNAL RANKING” and you can automatically see the Quartile Ranking of this Journal as seen in the example below.

BOOKS AND BOOK CHAPTERS

Top Tier: Well recognized international publishers (e.g. Pearson, Wiley, McGraw-Hill, …) Second Tier: Well recognized regional publishers

Note: Books and Book Chapters published from PhD Dissertations should not be counted.

CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

Top Tier: Conferences indexed in Web of Science Second Tier: Conferences indexed in Scopus.

Note: Sometimes, conference indexing takes time. In this case, it is possible to refer to previous years’ history of the conference.

PATENTS & STANDARDS

Top Tier: International Second Tier: Regional & National

faculty performance review d system - qu.edu.qa

Documents