Instructions for Faculty Evaluation System: Full-time Continuing Faculty I. Philosophy and Intent of Faculty Evaluation SLCC s evaluation system for faculty provides feedback from students, peers, and chair/director to the faculty member, enabling the faculty member to improve and enhance student learning. Faculty members at SLCC balance commitment to teaching, professional development and activity, and service. Faculty are expected to adhere to the Standards of Professional Responsibility as contained in SLCC Policy (Chapter 4, 1.01), Academic Freedom, Profession Responsibility and Tenure, Section B. All processes calling for faculty evaluation, including tenure, shall use this process. II. Respective Roles of Participants in the Evaluation Process A. Role of the Faculty Member Being Evaluated The faculty member being evaluated shall, in discussion with the chair/director, declare the weights he or she thinks appropriate, within the College s established ranges, given the work to be accomplished during the year. (See Table 1, Faculty Role with Components and Component Parameter Values. ) The faculty member selects two peer evaluators from among a Standing Committee to evaluate her or his during the year. (See III.A, Formation of the Evaluation Committee. ) The faculty member supplies teaching and other materials to the committee for purposes of evaluation. (See III.C, Gathering Evaluation Data below.) B. Role of the Department/Division in the Evaluation Process Divisions and departments and their respective chairs/directors shall engage in discussion about appropriate ranges for each of the faculty sub-roles (teaching, professional activity, and service), given department or division goals. Such discussions should also aid faculty and their chairs/directors in coming to mutual understanding about what constitutes excellent faculty, and in setting goals for the future. C. Role of Faculty Peer Evaluators Those chosen to be faculty peer evaluators have the responsibility of representing the department and the field in the evaluation process. Because faculty peers normally have the greatest knowledge of the field of instruction, they must give the faculty member being evaluated careful and close feedback on the faculty member s field knowledge, course materials, and professional activities. (See Table 2, Best Sources of Information for Evaluating the Faculty Member s Performance. ) D. Role of Chair/Director 1
The chair/director is responsible to see that all the aspects of the evaluation occur. Additionally, the chair/director provides feedback on the faculty member s teaching, faculty development, and service. 2
III. Process A. Formation of the Evaluation Committee In areas where the tenure process is applicable, departments shall use the process outlined in the Tenure Document for forming a Standing Tenure Committee and Sitting Tenure Committees. Both tenured faculty who are to be evaluated and tenure-track faculty select a sitting committee from among the membership of the Standing Tenure Committee for purposes of evaluation. [Note: This committee serves as both the Evaluation committee AND the tenure committee.] In areas where the tenure process is not applicable, departments shall use a similar process: at the beginning of the year, the department (or division) shall elect a Standing Evaluation Committee composed of three senior faculty in the area. Faculty who are to be evaluated shall choose two faculty for purposes of peer evaluation. Where the above procedure is either impracticable or represents a clear conflict of interest, the faculty member being evaluated proposes an alternative to the Professional Growth and Faculty Evaluation (PGFE) Committee of the Faculty Senate. In either case, the duties of the committee should be understood as follows: 1. Committee members (to include the chair/director) should perform all review functions, using appropriate forms to do so. 2. Committee members (to include the chair/director) will meet with the faculty member at the conclusion of the year in order to discuss with the faculty member the results of the evaluation, and to help the faculty member to make decisions about how to improve his or her. B. Declaration of Weights In the early part of the fall semester, the faculty member being evaluated meets with the chair/director to declare the weight to be given each of the three sub-roles, within the established College ranges. The chair/director and the faculty member come to an agreement as to an appropriate distribution. Where relevant, the faculty member and chair/director consider recommendations for improvement from the previous year s evaluation. (See Form I, Declaration of Weights. ) As faculty circumstances change during the academic year, the distribution of weights can be modified, if both the chair and the faculty member agree. [Added 9/10/07: At the conclusion of the year, when the chair/director and faculty member again meet to discuss the evaluation, they can also discuss activities and appropriate distribution of weights for the following academic year. This has the advantage of sparing both faculty member and chair/director an additional meeting in the 3
busy beginning weeks of the fall semester. See also note to Table 3, The Faculty Evaluation Process in the Academic Year. ] 4
C. Gathering Evaluation Data The faculty member being evaluated shall submit to the committee all materials relevant to the evaluation. Such materials include, but are not limited to: syllabi; assignments; evidence of faculty development; evidence of professional activity; evidence of service. In the case of an online or hybrid course, this could also include evidence of student interaction, i.e.: chat logs or email correspondence. [added 5/08 per meeting with Lisa Bickmore and Ray Emmett] All student evaluation data shall be drawn from the prevailing student evaluation instrument. Peer review data shall be drawn from peer observations of teaching and analysis of materials submitted to the committee by the faculty member being evaluated. Peer evaluators use Form II, Faculty Peer Review. Chair/director evaluation data shall be drawn from the chair/director s observation of teaching and other, as well as analysis of materials submitted to the committee by the faculty member being evaluated. Chairs/Directors use Form III, Chair/Director Review. Both forms shall use the following scale: 1 Unsatisfactory Performance: Does not meet minimal standards of professional 2 Minimal Performance: Does not consistently meet accepted standards of professional 3 Standard Professional Performance: Consistently meets accepted standards of professional 4 High Professional Performance: Frequently exceeds accepted standards of professional 5 Exemplary Professional Performance: Consistently exceeds accepted standards of professional Student evaluations to be considered as part of the faculty member s yearly evaluation will be administered, where practicable, during Fall semester. Peer and chair/director evaluation of teaching, professional activity, and service, are to be completed by February 15. D. Committee Discussion of Evaluation Before meeting with the faculty member, committee members meet to discuss their observations and ratings of faculty. The committee shall carefully consider the activities and objectives the faculty member set in the year s initial meeting. Ratings and student evaluations shall be computed according to the Declaration of Weights form. 5
Where there are significant discrepancies in ratings, committee members should thoroughly air the rationales for their respective ratings. Where consensus cannot be reached, the evaluation score shall be computed by averaging the three ratings. E. Committee Meeting with Faculty Member Before spring semester ends, the evaluation committee meets with the faculty member being evaluated. In this meeting, the committee and faculty member discuss the faculty member s, the committee s observations and ratings, and areas for improvement for the following year. The summary of the faculty member s evaluation and areas for improvement, as well as commendations for excellent, should be recorded on Form IV, Faculty Performance Summary. [Added 9/10/07: Logistics may make it difficult or even impossible for the full committee to meet with the chair/director and the faculty member being evaluated. Therefore, if the committee agrees, the chair/director may meet with the faculty member without the committee being present. However, any party to this process may request and be granted a meeting with all parties present: the committee may deem it desirable to meet with the chair/director and the faculty member being evaluated; the chair may request that the committee meet with the faculty member being evaluated; the faculty member being evaluated may similarly request to meet with the whole committee and the chair/director.] At the conclusion of this meeting, the faculty member shall retain a copy of all forms, including rating forms and Form IV. The office of the Chair/Director also retains copies of these forms for its files. For the sake of transparency and clear communication with the faculty member about the committee s view of her or his, the two sets of forms shall be identical. 6
Table 1: Faculty Role with Components and Component Parameter Values; Component Sub-roles with Relative Weights A. Teaching (60-75% of total evaluation) B. Professional Activity (10-20% of total evaluation) C. Service (15-30% of total evaluation) Sub-role #1: Instructional Delivery (35% of total Teaching role evaluation) Sub-role #2: Instructional Design and Assessment (35% of total Teaching role evaluation) Sub-role #3: Field/Discipline Knowledge applied to teaching (20% of total Teaching role evaluation) Sub-role #4: Course Management (10% of total Teaching role evaluation) Sub-role #1: Maintaining or developing one s field knowledge, credentials, etc. (65% of total Professional Activity role evaluation) Sub-role #2: Participation in Professional Organizations/Endeavors (35% of total Professional Activity role evaluation) Sub-role #1: College Service (50-100% of total Service role evaluation) Sub-role #2: Partnerships and Community Service (0-50% of total Service role evaluation) 7
Explanatory Note to Table 1: What follows are possible sample activities for each role and sub-role. Please understand that the list below is not, and could not be, exhaustive; departments and perhaps divisions will work to specify what the relevant activities would be for any given field or discipline. A. Teaching, Sub-role #1: Instructional Delivery Choose from among these, or similar, activities: The teacher Uses appropriate pedagogy for discipline and instructional task Effectively integrates appropriate technology into the classroom Explains concepts clearly to students Interacts effectively with students Lectures and other class activities well-organized Seeks and uses feedback to improve teaching For Online or Hybrid: cultivates a sense of community through course activities, discussion forums or chat rooms. [Added 5/08] A. Teaching, Sub-role #2: Instructional Design and Assessment Choose from among these, or similar, activities: The teacher Revises curriculum on a regular basis, using student, peer, PAC, outcomes assessment, and transfer institution feedback Assesses course and College learning outcomes Prepares appropriate assessment tools for class Designs effective learning activities and assignments Designs effective online class activities and assignments Develops new courses For Online or Hybrid: conducts periodic formative evaluation of course activities [Added 5/08] A. Teaching, Sub-role #3: Field/Discipline Knowledge Applied to Teaching Choose from among these, or similar, activities: The teacher Prepares syllabi, assignments, and course content in keeping with current research in the field Prepares syllabi, assignments, and course content in keeping with relevant College and department learning outcomes For Online or Hybrid: updates content utilizing current technology resources and methodologies [Added 5/08] 8
A. Teaching, Sub-role #4: Course Management Choose from among these, or similar, activities: The teacher Gives timely response to student work [via email or discussion board Added 5/08] Submits, in a timely manner, grades and other paperwork related to teaching/students Maintains published office hours for student advising* [* advising, broadly defined, means any assistance given or offered to students] Provides an accurate syllabus/schedule B. Professional Activity, Sub-role #1: Maintaining or developing one s field knowledge, credentials, etc. Choose from among these, or similar, activities: The teacher Attends workshops, conferences, conventions Takes additional courses Works in industry Develops or improving one s pedagogical abilities, including developing expertise with instructional technologies Does appropriate research Does creative work relevant to field Publishes B. Professional Activity, Sub-role #2: Participating in Professional Organizations and Endeavors Choose from among these, or similar, activities: The teacher Maintains membership in professional organizations Reads relevant professional journals or other publications Presents at workshops, conferences, conventions Attends or organizes a teaching circle Presents at Faculty Convention Serves as an officer of a professional organization Serves as a committee member of a professional organization Organizes a conference or program Serves on the board of a professional journal Reviews textbooks or articles for publication Participates in professional Blog or Wiki environments[added 5/08] 9
C. Service, Sub-role #1: College Service Choose from among these, or similar, activities: The teacher Does departmental service committees, department meetings, tenure committees, program-level curriculum and course development Participates in new course development Participates in existing course revision Participates in faculty governance work serving as senator or officer Participates in College-level committee work Works with part-time faculty Serves as coordinator Mentors new faculty Works with concurrent enrollment faculty/sites Does overload teaching (the whole of college service should not, however, be considered as fulfilled by overload teaching) Writes letters of recommendation for students Does program-level advising C. Service, Sub-role #2: Partnerships and Community Service Choose from among these, or similar, activities: The teacher Participates in grant writing Works with PACs Gives service to the community related to one s profession works with the legislature forms and maintains partnerships does articulation work does advising for VICA and other like organizations 10
Table 2: Best Sources of Information for Evaluating the Faculty Member s Performance (weighted percentages for each sub-role and component) Sources of Information: TEACHING (60-75% of overall evaluation) Students Peers Department Head Instructional Delivery (35% of total Teaching role evaluation) Instructional Design/Assessment (35% of total Teaching role evaluation) Field/Discipline Knowledge (20% of total Teaching role evaluation) Course Management (10 % of total Teaching role evaluation) 80%* 10% 10% 20% 60% 20% 0% 80% 20% 10% 0% 90% PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY (10-20% of overall evaluation) Maintaining/Developing Knowledge/Credentials (65% of total Professional Activity role evaluation) Participating in Professional Organizations/Endeavors (35% of total Professional Activity role evaluation) 0% 75% 25% 0% 50% 50% SERVICE (15-30% of overall evaluation) College Service (50-100 % of total Service role evaluation) Partnerships and Community Service (0-50 % of total Service role evaluation) 0% 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 11
Table 3: The Faculty Evaluation Process in the Academic Year Date Event Form Third Friday of Fall semester September Fall Semester (prior to Feb. 15) Feb. 15** Feb. 15** Before end of Spring Semester Chair/Director forms Evaluation Committee. (For purposes of tenure, this will serve as the Standing Committee.) Chair/Director meets with faculty member to declare weights* and to select peer evaluators. (For tenuretrack faculty, this will be the Sitting Committee.) *For online, Faculty member arranges for reviewer access to online environments. [Added 5/08] Faculty member submits materials, including syllabi, assignments, evidence of professional development and service. Chair/Director and Peers complete observations and evaluations of faculty member. Chair/Director and Peers meet to discuss evaluation data and compute ratings. Chair/Director and Peers meet with faculty member to discuss the evaluation and give faculty member copies of all forms. Form I, Declaration of Weights Form II, Faculty/Peer Review Form III, Chair/Director Review Form IV, Faculty Performance Summary All forms *At the conclusion of the 2006-07 academic year, chairs should initiate the declaration of weights for the following academic year at the end of the current academic year, at the same time the faculty member meets with the committee to discuss the evaluation. This should create an incentive to use evaluation feedback continuously as the basis for forming professional goals. **[Added 9/10/07: The process of gathering and reviewing data and evidence, and of observing faculty members being reviewed as they teach should be completed prior to the committee and the chair/director meeting to discuss the evaluation and compute ratings. Both the process and the meeting should occur by February 15. 12
Form I Salt Lake Community College Declaration of Weights Declaration of Weights for Evaluation Period: to At the beginning of the academic year all faculty are to decide on the specific weights for faculty evaluations (see table 1). Percentages in the areas of teaching, professional activity, and service must add up to 100 percent. Use the back of the page as needed. TEACHING (Choose from 60 to 75%) Identify professional objectives serving as rationale for distributed weight: % PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY (Choose from 10 to 20%) Identify professional objectives serving as rationale for distributed weight: % SERVICE % (Choose from 15 to 30%) College Service % (Choose from 50 to 100%) Within SERVICE: Partnerships & % Community Service (Choose from 0 to 50%) Identify professional objectives serving as rationale for distributed weight: Committee Selection Two full-time faculty members must be selected to participate in the peer review process. Signatures: Faculty Member Date Immediate Supervisor Date 13
Form II Salt Lake Community College Faculty/Peer Review Faculty Member: Date: 1 Unsatisfactory Performance: Does not meet minimal standards of professional 2 Minimal Performance: Does not consistently meet accepted standards of professional 3 Standard Professional Performance: Consistently meets accepted standards of professional 4 High Professional Performance: Frequently exceeds accepted standards of professional 5 Exemplary Professional Performance: Consistently exceeds accepted standards of professional Note: Reviewers must provide a rationale for each rating. Rating Criteria Instructional Delivery TEACHING Instructional Design and Assessment Field/Discipline Knowledge Applied to Teaching PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY Maintaining or developing one s field knowledge, credentials, etc. Memberships and Participation in Professional Organizations College Service SERVICE 14
Partnerships and Community Service Reviewer: 15
Form III Salt Lake Community College Immediate Supervisor Review Faculty Member: Date: 1 Unsatisfactory Performance: Does not meet minimal standards of professional 2 Minimal Performance: Does not consistently meet accepted standards of professional 3 Standard Professional Performance: Consistently meets accepted standards of professional 4 High Professional Performance: Frequently exceeds accepted standards of professional 5 Exemplary Professional Performance: Consistently exceeds accepted standards of professional Note: Reviewers must provide a rationale for each rating. Rating Criteria Instructional Delivery TEACHING Instructional Design and Assessment Field/Discipline Knowledge Applied to Teaching - Syllabi, assignments, and course content in keeping with current research in the field Course Management PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY Maintaining or developing one s field knowledge, credentials, etc. Memberships and Participation in Professional Organizations 16
College Service SERVICE Partnerships and Community Service Supervisor Reviewer: 17
Form II-Adjunct Salt Lake Community College Adjunct Faculty Peer Review Faculty Member: Date: 1 Unsatisfactory Performance: Does not meet minimal standards of professional 2 Minimal Performance: Does not consistently meet accepted standards of professional 3 Standard Professional Performance: Consistently meets accepted standards of professional 4 High Professional Performance: Frequently exceeds accepted standards of professional 5 Exemplary Professional Performance: Consistently exceeds accepted standards of professional Note: Reviewers must provide a rationale for each rating. Rating Criteria Instructional Delivery TEACHING Instructional Design and Assessment Field/Discipline Knowledge Applied to Teaching Reviewer: 18
Form III-Adjunct Salt Lake Community College Adjunct Faculty Immediate Supervisor Review Faculty Member: Date: 1 Unsatisfactory Performance: Does not meet minimal standards of professional 2 Minimal Performance: Does not consistently meet accepted standards of professional 3 Standard Professional Performance: Consistently meets accepted standards of professional 4 High Professional Performance: Frequently exceeds accepted standards of professional 5 Exemplary Professional Performance: Consistently exceeds accepted standards of professional Note: Reviewers must provide a rationale for each rating. Rating Criteria Instructional Delivery TEACHING Instructional Design and Assessment Field/Discipline Knowledge Applied to Teaching - Syllabi, assignments, and course content in keeping with current research in the field Course Management Supervisor Reviewer: 19
Form IV Faculty Performance Summary Evaluation Year Faculty Member Faculty Review: Summary of professional objectives as declared at the beginning of the year. Commendations: Plan for Future Development: Future improvements can be identified through the review of the goal progress faculty evaluation summary. Describe possible plans for future work. 20
Signatures: Faculty Member Date Supervisor Date 21
Salt Lake Community College Faculty Evaluation Final Summary All fields containing red text are to be entered by user. Faculty Name: enter faculty member's name Declaration of Weights Instructions: Enter the percents declared in each of the evaluation components from the Declaration of Weights form. Teaching (60-75% of total) Professional Activity (10-20% of total) College Service (50-100% of Service (15-30% of total) Service) Partnerships & 0% Community Service (0-50% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total 0% This should sum to 100% Ratings Instructions: Enter the ratings from student, peer and administrative reviews. For post-tenure faculty, enter 3-year averages. Teaching Students Peer 1 Peer 2 Dept. Head Subtotal Instructional Delivery 0 0 0 0 0 Instructional Design and Assessment 0 0 0 0 0 Field/Discipline Knowledge 0 0 0 0 Course Management Overall rating for Teaching 0 0 0 0 Professional Activity Students Peer 1 Peer 2 Dept. Head Subtotal Maintaining Field Knowledge 0 0 0 0 Professional Organizations 0 0 0 0 Overall rating for Professional Activity 0 Service Students Peer 1 Peer 2 Dept. Head Subtotal College Service 0 0 0 0 Partnerships and Community Service Overall rating for Service 0 0 0 0 0 Overall Faculty Evaluation Rating 0 22
Form IV-Adjunct Salt Lake Community College Adjunct Faculty Evaluation Final Summary Enter the ratings from student, peer and administrative reviews. Teaching Students Peer Dept. Head Instructional Delivery: Instructional Design and Assessment: Field/Discipline Knowledge: Course Management: Overall rating for Teaching Additional Comments: Signatures: Adjunct Faculty Member Evaluator Date Date 23
Form V Salt Lake Community College Online and Hybrid Faculty Evaluation Checklist (Selections from the Online Course Review document) [Added 5/08] Teaching Students Peer Dept. Head 1.1 Course goals and objectives are clearly stated 1.4 Students have been given a clear statement of course requirements in advance. 1.5 The tools necessary to facilitate communication between students, faculty and others associated with the course are readily available. 2.2 Consideration is given to students different learning styles. 2.3 Appropriate course tools have been used to facilitate interactivity and interaction. 3.4 The course includes opportunities for peer and/or self-assessment. 4.1 The course appropriately utilizes asynchronous and synchronous communication, as suited to the course content. 4.2 Face-to-face or same-time interactions are worked into the course design where appropriate and/or feasible. 4.3 The course encourages a sense of community among the learners. 4.4 The instructor uses a clear communication style that conveys expectations, course objectives, instructions for assignments, and method of evaluation. Overall Rating for Teaching 24