Policy 2108 – Evaluation of Faculty

Revision Date: 9/28/2021

Last Review: 9/28/2021

Original Effective Date: 5/20/2003

Responsible Office: Provost

Reference: University of Louisiana Board of Supervisors PPM FS-III.X.D-1 (Effective January 10, 2003); Louisiana Tech University Policy 1414; Council of Academic Deans


All personnel having full-time or part-time faculty rank must be evaluated each year, including those with temporary appointments. The primary uses of the evaluation will be to assess performance, to determine opportunities for improvement, and to provide the basis for employment decisions such as merit increases, promotion, tenure, and continuation.

Faculty have the responsibility to remain current in their disciplines so that they can fulfill the duties assigned to them at the graduate and undergraduate levels. Failure to do so impedes the efficiency of the University and its ability to fulfill its role, scope, and mission.

Each person with faculty rank is expected to be engaged in the University’s main functions of instruction, research, service, and collegiality.  The level of emphasis among these three areas may vary by academic discipline and level of degree program(s) offered in the discipline.  Also, the percentage of effort to be allocated by each faculty member in each of these three areas may vary because of such functions as administrative responsibilities and the level at which the person is teaching. Part-time and temporary faculty will be evaluated using criteria consistent with stated employment obligations and period of employment.

Unsatisfactory performance or non-performance by a faculty member occurring and/or arising, in whole or in part, prior to the effective date of this policy, may be considered in connection with a decision to seek removal for cause.


Instruction and Advising

Every faculty member is expected to provide quality instruction for all classes assigned. Quality instruction includes the use of a variety of teaching strategies, the development and implementation of course syllabi, organization and management of courses and laboratories, and the evaluation of student achievement. Each Department will establish a mechanism to develop and maintain the teaching skills of its faculty.

Relevant new technologies, innovative methodologies, and library resources should be used as appropriate with the goal of improving the quality and quantity of the learning experience. It is expected that students will be treated with respect, tact, and friendliness so that the faculty member can function as an effective guide, mentor, and counselor.

Professional growth is required and may be evidenced by the attainment of, or progress toward, higher degrees, formal post-degree study, research and writing in the teaching field, meaningful participation in relevant professional societies, professional enhancement activities such as a structured self-study program, and participation in professional seminars.

Advising students is an important responsibility of the faculty. Advising consists of more than assigning students to classes, signing drop and add forms, or solving scheduling problems. To advise students properly, faculty should:

  • post and maintain suitable office hours, including times other than during pre-registration;
  • become familiar with program and curriculum requirements within the University, College, and Department;
  • become familiar with University and Departmental regulations and requirements; and
  • become acquainted with Student Advancement and Service resources on campus.


Research is an essential dimension of the faculty member’s role in the University. Currency of knowledge is obtained through continuing professional growth and development programs, including research activities.

It is recognized that the nature of research may vary by discipline. It is also recognized that the commitment to research normally increases at higher levels of instruction and academic rank.

The results of research activities may be shared and validated via a variety of media. For example, research findings may be disseminated in books, refereed and non-refereed journal articles (with refereed journal articles being preferred), proceedings of learned societies, presentations at meetings of professional societies, working papers, and collegial seminars. In some fields, research may be expressed via appropriate media such as performance or displays of a creative nature. In some fields, research may be expressed via competitive grant proposals and subsequent reports of findings. The overriding consideration is that excellence in a field is best demonstrated by favorable peer review of research activities.


It is appropriate and important that faculty provide services to support and develop their University, state, and nation. Meritorious service activities are those activities directly related to a faculty member’s area of professional expertise or University position.

University service includes acting as faculty advisor for student organizations, participation on standing or ad hoc committees at various levels, and participation in other recognized University activities.

Non-University service includes service to governmental agencies at various levels through participation on advisory panels and special study groups; service to the profession through participation in regional and national societies devoted, at least in part, to the betterment of education in the faculty member’s discipline; and service to the private sector through the provision of expert services to the faculty member’s discipline.


Faculty are to conduct themselves in a professional and collegiate manner consistent with being a productive citizen of the department, college, and University community.


The evaluation cycle for faculty at Louisiana Tech University begins April 1 of each year and concludes with the following March 31.  By April 15, the performance of each faculty member for the past year must have been evaluated and goals set for the upcoming evaluation cycle.  Annual evaluation should be done in the following three areas:

Self-Evaluation. At the beginning of each evaluation cycle, each faculty member shall state goals for that year in the appropriate performance categories. The self-evaluation process should emphasize establishment of goals and objectives that are compatible with the individual’s expertise and the academic unit’s needs. These objectives must be approved by the Department or area head. For a faculty member, these goals should address in particular the three areas of instruction, research, and service. In the spring, each faculty member shall evaluate his/her progress in achieving the goals that had been established for that academic year for discussion in the annual meeting with the Department or area head.

Student Evaluation of Faculty Teaching Effectiveness. Written evaluation of faculty teaching effectiveness is to be carried out in the Fall, Winter, and Spring Quarters of each academic year in each class, with the tabulated results of those evaluations made available to the faculty member and his/her Department or area head before the annual evaluation meeting. The University online student evaluation system is to be used across campus; evaluation procedures must ensure that the anonymity of the student is preserved. (See Policy 2221, Student Evaluation of Faculty.)

Administrative Evaluation of Faculty. Annually and not later than April 15, each Department or area head must discuss in a formal manner with each faculty member the status and performance of that faculty member relative to the “Criteria for Evaluation of Faculty.”  The annual evaluation of faculty must include substantive statements on the progress of that faculty member toward tenure and/or promotion.  The self-evaluation and student evaluations should be included in this discussion; other evaluation techniques such as classroom visits or peer evaluation may also be used as additional bases for discussion.

The department/area head will assign one of the following summative evaluation ratings to each faculty evaluation:

  • Meets expectations (for rank and assignment)
  • Needs improvement (for rank and assignment)
  • Unsatisfactory performance (for rank and assignment)

The total evaluation of the faculty member must be summarized in writing, signed by the Department/area head and faculty member, and placed in the appropriate personnel files. A copy will be given to the faculty member and to the College Dean.

The signing of the form confirms that the evaluation has been completed and that the faculty member has been informed of the rating.  The faculty member may submit a rebuttal of the evaluation to the unit head. Copies of the rebuttal will be placed in the faculty personnel file with a copy to the dean.

  • Meets expectations (for rank and assignment)
  • Needs improvement (for rank and assignment)
  • Unsatisfactory performance (for rank and assignment)

A tenured faculty member whose performance is rated “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory performance” is required to meet with his unit head to develop and implement a written plan to improve his/her faculty performance. The plan will be developed by the end of the current academic year.  

University policy provides for mandatory remediation once there have been multiple unsatisfactory reviews by the department or area head. After two (2) consecutive unsatisfactory regular reviews or three (3) unsatisfactory reviews in a five (5) year period, tenured faculty shall be subject to mandatory remediation.

The plan for remediation should be developed by the department or area head in conjunction with the faculty member and dean.

If the faculty member does not agree with the plan of remediation proposed by the department or area head, tenured faculty in the department will develop an alternate plan or remediation.

In those cases where the faculty member, department or area head, and dean cannot agree on the plan of remediation, the Chief Academic Officer shall determine the final provisions of the plan based on the recommendations by the department or area head and tenured faculty in the department.

If the faculty member has not achieved significant improvement in performance after a minimum of two (2) years of remediation under the plan, a recommendation for dismissal may be made.

A recommendation for dismissal automatically will trigger a review by tenured faculty in the department or area.  Based on all recommendations, including that of the tenured faculty in the department or area, the Chief Academic Officer may recommend that the university president or his/her designee institute proceedings for removal for cause including proper due process.

For any provisions of this policy that require participation by a group or committee of tenured faculty in the department or area, and the number of departmental faculty is insufficient, tenured faculty from outside the department or area shall be selected to participate in the process. Appointments of faculty from outside the department or area require the approval of the Chief Academic Officer.

In certain cases, the University president must exercise discretion as to whether to refer the matter to the performance review policy developed under this policy or to the separate dismissal for cause policy (Review of Faculty Rank.) This action may be taken without reference to or at any time during the procedures described in this policy.