Office of Academic Affairs
Office of Faculty Affairs

Annual Reviews

Why do we conduct annual reviews?

At Ohio State, faculty annual reviews have been required for all compensated faculty since the mid-1990s. The purpose of conducting annual reviews is to provide each compensated faculty member with feedback on their job performance, to set goals that will support the professional growth and development of each faculty member, and where necessary, to identify strategies for improving performance. For faculty assigned to a regional campus and/or those with joint appointments, the annual review should include all relevant perspectives, not just those of the campus or TIU.

It is the role of each unit’s leader to conduct annual reviews in a manner that is supportive, productive, and honest. Conducting annual reviews for faculty members who meet or exceed expectations serves as an opportunity to recognize and challenge faculty to reach further and reflects a shared understanding of the faculty member’s future professional goals. Providing annual reviews to faculty members who are not meeting expectations should work to achieve the same outcome as those meeting and exceeding expectations—reflecting a shared understanding of the steps necessary to achieve professional goals and meet expectations in the future. The annual review for these faculty also provides another opportunity to identify potential resources that could be provided and barriers to be addressed. Such steps should be described in the annual review. Alongside promotion, tenure, and reappointment reviews, the annual review is one of the most powerful tools available to academic leaders for supporting faculty development and for setting the expectations to which the unit holds itself.

Overall process description aligned to the policy

Faculty member submits materials

  • As defined in each unit’s APT document, each compensated faculty member (tenure track, clinical/teaching/practice, research, and associated) must submit the required annual review documentation by the unit’s submission deadline. At a minimum, this documentation must include information on any area of work in which the faculty member had at least 5% effort allocated.
  • Eligible faculty may conduct a review
    • The eligible faculty may conduct a review of faculty annual review materials. OAA recommends that the annual review process for probationary faculty involve the eligible faculty or a subset thereof every year. OAA recommends that the annual review process for associate professors involve eligible faculty or a subset thereof at least once every three years.
    • The eligible faculty or a subset thereof should provide feedback on the faculty member’s performance and share this with the TIU head or designee (or associate dean in colleges without departments or the dean/director at regional campuses) for inclusion in the annual review.
    • If the eligible faculty or a subset thereof do review a faculty member’s annual review materials, they are not to provide an additional letter to the faculty member. A single annual review is to be provided by the TIU head or designee (or associate dean in colleges without departments or the dean/director at regional campuses).

TIU head or designee (or associate dean in colleges without departments or the dean/director at regional campuses) conducts review

  • Delegation, format, meetings
    • The TIU head may delegate responsibility for annual reviews to the following individuals only: associate chairs/deans, vice chairs/deans, or division chairs/directors/section heads. A TIU head who delegates responsibility for reviews is accountable for the process and should maintain regular oversight of the reviews.
    • In colleges that are the TIU, an associate dean, vice dean, or division director/section head is to complete the TIU-level review. The dean will conduct the Dean Review as described below.
    • ALL written annual reviews must use the OAA Annual Review Template.
    • In addition to a written assessment, annual reviews for all probationary faculty (tenure-track, clinical/teaching/practice, research, and associated) must include a face-to-face meeting with the TIU head or designee. TIU heads or designees (or associate deans in colleges without departments or the deans/directors at regional campuses) are to offer all other compensated faculty the opportunity for a face-to-face meeting.

General considerations about prioritizing annual reviews

  • It is important that faculty members approaching key decision points (e.g., fourth-year review, tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review) receive their annual reviews promptly after submitting their review materials. Timely feedback ensures that they have sufficient opportunity to implement any recommended adjustments before their next review.
  • OAA strongly encourages units to stagger the completion and release of annual reviews in the following order, giving precedence to those listed first.
    • Probationary faculty with a forthcoming mandatory review
    • Assistant professors
    • Any tenured faculty member who needs a post-tenure review
    • Associate professors
    • Professors, lecturers, senior lecturers
  • Given the time from the end of the review period to receipt of the annual review, it is critical to consider what changes a faculty member can make in the time remaining before the next review. For faculty approaching a decision point in their next review (e.g., fourth-year review, promotion with tenure review, promotion review, post-tenure review), receiving timely feedback after submitting their materials allows more opportunity to implement any recommended adjustments.

Regional campus process

  • Faculty review
    • Regional campus and Columbus campus eligible faculty or a subset thereof may review the materials of a regional campus faculty member, and they may provide feedback to the regional campus dean/director and TIU head or designee.
    • The faculty bodies are not to provide additional letters to the regional campus faculty member. A single, co-authored annual review, is to be provided jointly by the regional campus dean/director and TIU head or designee.
  • Regional campus dean/director and TIU head or designee review
    • The regional campus dean/director and TIU head or designee are to co-author the written annual review for regional campus faculty and are expected to come to agreement on the entire review.
    • The regional campus dean/director and TIU head or designee are both to review the regional campus faculty member on all areas of their appointment.
    • OAA encourages the regional campus dean/director and TIU head or designee to meet together with probationary faculty.
    • The vice provost for regional campuses and the vice provost for faculty affairs will support the regional campus deans/directors and TIU heads or designees in coordinating this effort.
  • Joint appointment process
    • Using the MOU between units as a guide for engagement, the TIU head or designee and the head of the joint appointment or designee are to co-author any sections of the annual review for which the faculty member has greater than 5% of their assigned appointment across units.
    • It is the responsibility of the TIU head or designee (in colleges that are the TIU, this is the associate dean, vice dean, division director, or section head) to coordinate with the head of the joint appointment unit or designee.
      • In the case of colleges that are the TIU, the head of the joint appointment is the dean’s designee (i.e., associate dean, vice dean, division director, or section head).
    • Because the faculty members of the joint unit (that is not the TIU) are not eligible to participate in the discussion for 4th year, promotion with tenure, or promotion reviews, the annual review is a key opportunity to reflect on the faculty member’s performance in the joint unit(s).
  • Part-Time and Term Associated Faculty
    • As noted above, all compensated faculty are to receive an annual review. Associated faculty who work for the university in a part-time-limited capacity (e.g., teach one course in one semester; provide a time-limited service in a faculty role), and who are compensated by the university, MUST ALSO receive an annual review.
    • If the work of the faculty member is limited to a single area (e.g., teaching), the TIU head or designee need only provide an evaluation and rating in that area.
  • Face-to-face meetings
    • The TIU head or designee (or associate dean in colleges without departments or the dean/director at regional campuses) must meet with all probationary faculty members and must provide the opportunity for a meeting with all nonprobationary faculty members. All meetings should occur prior to the release of the final annual review and the commencement of the comments process. A preliminary annual review may be released to the faculty member prior to a meeting.
  • Comments process
    • As has always been the case, a faculty member can provide comments to the TIU head or designee’s (or associate dean in colleges without departments or the dean/director at regional campuses) written annual review. The TIU head or designee may respond to comments and/or revise the written annual review before finalizing the review and forwarding it to the dean.
    • Comments from the faculty member may include, but are not limited to, clarification of the record, corrections within the written annual review, and/or comments about agreement or disagreement with the TIU head’s or designee’s (or associate dean in colleges without departments or the dean/director at regional campuses) performance ratings.
    • At a minimum, the TIU head or designee (or associate dean in colleges without departments or the dean/director at regional campuses) should acknowledge receipt of the comments, indicate any action to be taken based on the comments or that no action will be taken, and the next step in the process. See information about the appeal process below.
    • At the conclusion of the comments cycle, the annual review and any comments will be forwarded to the dean.

Dean Review

  • The college dean must review and approve or disapprove of each rating for each area of work and any overall rating for ALL faculty annual reviews.
  • If the dean approves all ratings, they are not required to provide additional feedback to the faculty member. If the dean disapproves any rating, the dean may provide a rationale for the disagreement to be shared with the faculty member and the provost.
  • Following the dean’s review, all annual reviews will be forwarded to the provost.

Provost Review

  • If the dean approves all ratings, the provost will only review.
  • If the dean disapproves of any ratings, the provost will review and make a final decision on the disputed rating(s).

Appeal process

  • What is appealable?
    • Under the Faculty Annual Review, Post-Tenure Review, and Reappointment policy, a faculty member may appeal a rating decision in their annual review.
    • Only rating decisions may be appealed. Should a faculty member wish to appeal a rating decision, they must demonstrate that the final evaluation contains a substantive factual error, inconsistently applies the established criteria of the TIU, or otherwise does not align with the criteria of the TIU.
    • Assigned workload for the upcoming year is not appealable, as this falls under managerial discretion.
  • Timing and Process
    • Appeal of the TIU-level review
      • A faculty member who wishes to submit an appeal to the college dean must do so within 14 days of the conclusion of the comment cycle with the TIU head or designee (as described above).
      • The appeal should include the rating decision(s) with which the faculty member disagrees, a rationale for the disagreement, as well as any additional information they would like to provide.
      • The appeal is to be submitted to the college dean or their designee, who is to consider this information as they make their decision on each appealed rating.
      • The dean or designee is to review and approve or disapprove each appealed rating.
  • Appeal of the Dean-level review
    • If the college dean or designee modifies any rating within the annual review, it will be automatically appealed to the provost for review and final determination.
    • Should the faculty member wish to provide any information that has not already been shared in the process, they will have 14 days from the date of the dean or designee’s decision to submit additional written materials to the provost. Any such additional written materials must be in line with the categories for appeal noted above.
      • If the dean or designee does not modify any rating, the annual review will be submitted to the provost for review only.

Considerations in Conducting Annual Evaluations

  • Providing Feedback throughout the Year
    • Faculty feedback should occur year-round, not just during the annual review. TIU heads and regional campus deans/directors should acknowledge successes as they happen and highlight them in the annual review. They should also address concerns about performance promptly, helping faculty develop improvement plans as concerns arise rather than waiting for months to address them for the first time in an annual review. The annual review should summarize any such critical feedback and planning, and provide commentary on the faculty member’s progress toward addressing identified areas for improvement.
    • When it is time to conduct the annual review, if a faculty member is given a rating of “does not meet expectations,” the evaluation MUST include guidance on how the faculty member can remediate their performance, and it should include feedback given through the previous review period.
  • Be Clear and Consistent
    • In line with providing feedback throughout the year, rather than at a single point in time, it is critical for TIU heads or designees and regional campus deans/directors to be clear and consistent with individual faculty as well as across faculty. If multiple faculty members are engaging in similar behaviors, the TIU head should respond consistently (e.g., announce all award winners, not some; give critical feedback similarly when poor or underperformance is observed). The same is true across time with the same faculty member. TIU heads should refer to past feedback and direction and should provide consistent feedback over time. If a change in feedback occurs, a rationale for that change should be articulated to the faculty member.
  • Keep Records
    • To remain consistent over time, it is essential to document feedback over time in any form that it may arise (e.g., providing an email summary to a faculty member following a coaching conversation to document what was discussed). Without such documentation, it becomes far more difficult to be consistent, particularly as local leadership changes. This record can include the annual review, but may also include email documentation, student feedback, among others.
  • Calibrate Expected Changes to the Time Remaining in the Subsequent Review Period
    • When giving performance feedback that requires behavior change, goals should align with the time remaining in the review period. For example, if a faculty member is told in May that their publication record is below expectations, it may be realistic to expect a new submission but not an accepted publication by the time their next review materials are submitted in December. Similarly, a faculty member struggling with teaching may complete professional development in Autumn, but it may be unrealistic to expect significant improvements in student feedback scores by the end of the review period in December.
    • When underperformance is observed, co-constructing strategies to meet expectations should be the goal. Any plan must take into consideration the time needed to change behavior and to see the outcomes of those changes. Identifying intermediate steps that can demonstrate progress can more meaningfully support a faculty member.
  • Considerations for Evaluating Teaching
    • The university is replacing the Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) with the Survey of Student Learning Experience (SSLE) in autumn 2025.
    • State law requires that “25% of teaching component must be student driven”.
    • In addition to the outcomes from the SSLE, units can also include evidence from other aspects of teaching in the teaching evaluation. Areas to consider can include, but are not limited to, to the following: course preparation, peer evaluation of teaching, student mentoring, discursive feedback, curriculum development, teaching professional development, receiving teaching endorsements, and receiving recognition for excellence in teaching.
  • Justifying Ratings
    • As required by state law, all areas for which a faculty member has at least 5% of their workload allocated must be given a performance rating.
    • The law requires annual reviews to, at a minimum, include ratings of “exceeds expectations,” “meets expectations,” or “does not meet expectations.” Units may add up to two additional ratings at their discretion. All ratings used by a unit must be defined in the unit’s APT document.
    • APT documents must also articulate that the expected standard for faculty performance is “meets expectations”.
    • Units may develop rubrics to promote clarity and consistency in faculty evaluations. OAA recommends that such rubrics be based upon the tables in the unit’s APT document outlining criteria and evidence for promotion and tenure. Regardless of whether rubrics are used, units are responsible for ensuring that evaluation criteria are applied consistently across all faculty while also considering individual variation in relevant contextual factors. For example, if a faculty member launches a new course and receives critical feedback, the evaluation can acknowledge the successful course creation while offering guidance for improvement. Similarly, if a faculty member has no recent publications but has work under review, the evaluation can recognize their ongoing efforts and any known delays in the review process, while encouraging continued submissions.
    • In addition to the ratings, the required OAA Annual Review Template includes space to provide evaluative commentary (not a summary) of the faculty member’s work. This evaluation should use the documentation in the unit’s APT document to support and justify each evaluation.
  • Consideration of Administration When Only Part of a Person’s Appointment
    • Faculty who have partial administrative appointments of at least 5% (but less than 100%) are to follow the annual review process as articulated in the Faculty Annual Review, Post-Tenure Review, and Reappointment policy. It is the responsibility of the TIU head or designee to work with the person supervising the faculty member’s administrative work to gather an evaluation and rating of that work to include in the written annual review.
  • Providing Annual Reviews for Part-Time Associated Faculty
    • If the work of the faculty member is limited to a single area (e.g., teaching), the TIU head or designee need only provide feedback in that area.