Skip to content

POLICY 06:02:04

FACULTY EVALUATION SYSTEM

The Faculty Evaluation System is a yearly requirement for all individuals who fall under Policy No. 06:01:01, Section I. A. (Definition of Faculty.) Faculty denotes both personnel directly involved in academic assignments and those whose principal activities are academic support, and the relevant forms and procedures may be adjusted to reflect these differences. For instance, librarians should follow the procedures in Policy No. 06:03:00, Section VI. J. (Faculty Promotion-Promotion Guidelines and Procedures.)
The Faculty Evaluation System has two components: 1) Self-Evaluation and 2) Department Head Evaluation. Each component is described separately. The description of each component begins with a rationale. Next, the procedures are described. Finally, the instruments which guide each process are included.

  1. Faculty Evaluation Portfolio or Self Evaluation consists of the four components below.
    1. Teaching (including Student Perception of Teaching Procedures)
    2. Service/Outreach
    3. Scholarship/Creative Activities/Research
    4. Goals
  2. Department Head Evaluation
    The Faculty Evaluation Portfolio is submitted to the academic department dean who, considering all components of the portfolio, completes the department head evaluation. The academic department dean also observes the faculty member teaching at least one class each year. Following completion of the department head evaluation, the academic department dean schedules an evaluation conference with each faculty member.

    1. The evaluation conference and related issues are discussed in the section VII “Department Head Evaluation: Procedures.”
    2. Evaluation calendar follows the dates established by TBR for reporting evaluation completion.
  3. Self-Evaluation: Rationale
    All teaching is an act of revision, a means of “re-seeing” approaches and strategies with a view toward desired improvements. Consequently, a rigorous self-evaluation can lend support to effective pedagogy while revealing key opportunities for improvement. Above all, self-evaluation should be considered an opportunity for profiling one’s unique abilities in light of the institution’s common goals.
    Self-evaluation should not be a mere list of strengths and weaknesses, nor should it involve assigning rank or measuring one’s performance against that of peers. Rather, self-evaluation should enable each instructor to provide a thoughtful response to the requirements of a discipline and to accepted standards that define effective performance in that discipline. Faculty should be as comfortable targeting domains for improvement as in documenting exceptional achievements.
    When approached in this way, self-evaluation can contribute to the development of sound and innovative methods and programs. It can also be a mirror by which faculty view themselves objectively with the aid of criteria and categories considered vital to performance. Self-evaluation is a crucial feature of a total evaluation system and should reflect both the instructor’s and the institution’s desire for constant revision in pursuit of exceptional standards.
  4. Self-Evaluation: Procedure
    Each faculty member completes a self-evaluation, following the directions provided (see self-evaluation instrument: Attachment I). This self-evaluation is the basis of the faculty member’s evaluation portfolio.
    The Self-Evaluation Instrument consists of four categories, each briefly described below. These categories reflect both the multi-faceted nature of faculty work and the purpose of evaluation—SELF-IMPROVEMENT.
    The faculty member is asked to consider not simply what work was done, but the VALUE of the work as well. Evaluation requires asking QUESTIONS—What did I do? How well did I do it? What worked well? What would I do differently? What did I gain from the activity? What did others gain? The result of this consideration is the articulation of goals for the coming year and the assessment of progress towards previously articulated goals.
    RESPONSES TO EACH CATEGORY MAY BE IN THE FORM OF A LIST OR A NARRATIVE. CLARITY, SPECIFICITY, AND BREVITY ARE ENCOURAGED REGARDLESS OF FORMAT.

    1. Category A: Teaching (65%)
      To address this category, faculty members should assess what they do to promote learning in the classroom. Included are Teaching Excellence questions that may be used as topics to consider in addressing this category. These questions are intended to be thought provokers and are not intended to be all inclusive. The results of the academic department dean’s visit to the faculty member’s classroom also should be included. The five areas under this category appear below.

      1. Curriculum and or program development–creating effective course materials and courseware either on the classroom, discipline, or institutional level, organizing subject matter in a logical way to motivate students, and generally stimulating creativity in students within the discipline area.
      2. Development and application of current instructional techniques—employing innovative techniques that might include online and computer-assisted course development. Many possibilities might be applicable to this category such as use of multimedia stations, visual aids, and other enrichment techniques.
      3. Use of diverse teaching methodologies—being mindful of developing approaches that result in outstanding student products and/or student learning. A variety of methodologies might be appropriate including group work, student created projects, discussion, etc.
      4. Staying current in his/her field or discipline/specialization—While this category may most often suggest traditional professional development, other possibilities exist such as reading relevant publications, doing research through various avenues for material to incorporate in the classroom, and regularly revising all elements used in the individual teaching environment.
      5. Summary of Student Perception Results—Rather than simply attaching Student Perception Results, the faculty member summarizes the data and responds to the students’ perceptions, if deemed necessary by the faculty member. Responses may include explanation, agreement, disagreement, plans for revision or improvement, etc.
    2. Category B: Service/Outreach (20%)
      1. Student Interaction—This component of the faculty member’s service might include activities such as advising, mentoring, offering help sessions, holding conferences, sponsoring student organizations and/or participating in student-oriented events, writing letters of reference for students, etc. If necessary, the faculty member describes the nature of his or her participation and assesses the benefit to students of the interaction.
      2. College and Community Service—The faculty member may serve the college in a variety of ways. Chairing or participating in departmental, program, or college-wide committees or undertaking special projects or assignments are examples of college service.
      3. Community service involves the faculty member giving of his/her time and professional expertise outside the college to the community at large; professional service involves contributions to organizations related to the faculty member’s discipline or to the teaching profession generally. Examples might be working with area K-12 schools, consulting, providing professional expertise, supporting charitable organizations or causes, serving on statewide or TBR committees, guest lecturing on other campuses and other appropriate activities.
    3. Category C: Scholarship/Creative Activities/Research (15%)
      Professional Development
      This category contains typical professional development activities such as presentations at a professional meeting, journal editorship, article and grant proposal review, performances, exhibitions, creative activities, as well as completing books, journal articles or monographs, and other appropriate activities. Taking classes, attending workshops, and professional conferences are also included.
      Faculty members should consider the value of these activities to their professional development and should elaborate on the value of these activities if necessary.
    4. Category D: Goals for the Coming Year
      After consideration of performance and valid contributions in the other categories, the faculty member articulates goals for the coming year. Also included are steps that will be taken in meeting the goals. Individual faculty member’s goals should lead to self-improvement, furtherance of the department and/or college goals, and higher levels of student achievement as measured by academic program goals. Finally, the faculty member describes his/her progress in meeting previously articulated goals.
  5. Student Perception of Teaching Procedures
    Students will be officially surveyed in all scheduled courses each spring and fall semester. All perceptions will be administered online. Faculty may conduct the survey during their class period or have students complete the surveys outside of class time. When the surveys are completed during class time, faculty must leave the room during the process.

    1. The Council of Student Advocates (COSA) will review annually the survey form and the procedure for use of student perception of teaching. Any recommendations from the COSA regarding the use of student perception of teaching and/or the survey form will be made to the chief academic officer. An analysis of student perception of teaching will be given to the COSA each spring semester.
    2. Reporting of Student Perception Survey Results
      The following data will be provided to the faculty member for each class: 1) sample size, 2) frequency responses to each question, 3) percentage responses to each question, and 4) typed comments.
    3. Use and Interpretation of Student Perception Data
      The results of the Student Perception Survey are used in two ways:

      1. The faculty should reflect on the comments made by students and, if needed, consider ways to improve the quality of instruction for each course.
      2. The faculty should respond to the Student Perception data, which is one of the five components within the important Teaching category of the Faculty Self-Evaluation. Thus, these results are examined by the faculty member, the academic department dean, and the chief academic officer. The adjunct faculty student perception results will also be reviewed by program coordinators.
  6. Department Head Evaluation: Rationale
    Academic department dean’s role is a complex and multi-faceted one that includes more than the perfunctory tasks of arranging schedules and assigning classes. An academic department dean leads, shares a vision, and determines ways faculty can best make contributions. The essence of an academic department dean’s job is knowing how to empower faculty to discover possibilities for improvement. An effective academic department dean is one who encourages faculty by example and by keen appraisal of faculty performance. A department head’s evaluation should, therefore, include as many components as necessary to evaluate faculty fairly and completely. Observation of classroom teaching, self-evaluation, and student perceptions are all components that an academic department dean must consider in determining a faculty member’s contributions to the department and the college. Above all, a department head’s evaluation should encourage continued success, support creative instructional approaches, and provide opportunity for improvement. An academic department dean’s assessment may also offer a basis for decisions about promotion, retention, tenure, salary increases, bonuses or merit pay, and other human resource issues.
  7. Department Head Evaluation: Procedure
    Prior to completing the department head evaluation, the academic department dean does the following:

    1. Observes the faculty member teaching at least one class per year. Documentation of the academic department dean’s perceptions is provided to the faculty member following the visit. [Depending upon departmental preference, the documentation may be a form completed by the academic department dean or a narrative composed by the academic department dean.] The documentation [whether a form or a narrative] of the classroom observation is included with the Self-Evaluation (see Faculty Observation Form Attachment III and/or Observation Form for Online Faculty Attachment IV).
    2. Reads the Faculty Evaluation Portfolio or Self Evaluation.
    3. May discuss the evaluation with the chief academic officer. The academic department dean completes the department head evaluation based upon consideration of all components of the Portfolio as well as the classroom observation. Following completion of the department head evaluation, the academic department dean schedules an evaluation conference with each faculty member.
    4. Evaluation Conference Process
      At the evaluation conference, the faculty member and academic department dean review the evaluation portfolio and the department head evaluation. They discuss strengths, weaknesses, and individual goals. If the faculty member is rated less than “Good” in any area, the academic department dean must specify weaknesses on the department head evaluation form. In addition, at the conference, the academic department dean should help the faculty member incorporate plans for improvement into his or her individual goals.
      If the faculty member and the academic department dean agree, each signs the department head evaluation form.
      If the faculty member and the academic department dean do not agree, the following occurs:

      1. Faculty member may attach addendum comments.
      2. Academic department dean may attach addendum comments.
      3. Faculty member and academic department dean sign the department head evaluation.

      Academic department dean and chief academic officer review Evaluation Portfolios and Department Head Evaluations

      1. If the chief academic officer agrees with the department head evaluation, he or she signs the form.
      2. If the chief academic officer does not agree, the following occurs:
        1. The faculty member, academic department dean, and chief academic officer have a conference to review the evaluation portfolio and the department head evaluation.
        2. The faculty member attaches addendum comments
        3. The academic department dean attaches addendum comments.
        4. The chief academic officer attaches addendum comments.
        5. The chief academic officer signs the form.

        The president of the college reviews the evaluation portfolios and the department head evaluations

  8. Faculty Evaluation/Development Program for Tenured Faculty
    1. Evaluation Review Procedure
      1. Evaluation review—When the immediate supervisor, on the basis of evaluation process results, determines that corrective action is appropriate, he/she meets with the faculty member to discuss the faculty development activities that should be followed in order to attain the level of professional expertise required. After discussion and agreement between the faculty member and the supervisor regarding development activities, the supervisor establishes a series of meeting times during the following semester when the faculty member and the supervisor are to meet and to discuss progress. The supervisor and the faculty member both sign the agreed upon improvement plan. When the faculty member and the supervisor meet the following semester and the faculty member has satisfied or is satisfying the agreed upon criteria, the review process will go no further. If the process goes no further, no written record of the action will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
      2. Written record—If the faculty member does not agree with the improvement plan suggested by the supervisor or if the faculty member has not made satisfactory progress by the end of the next semester, the supervisor will submit the improvement plan, noting lack of satisfactory progress, to the chief academic officer and shall give the faculty member a copy of the submitted document.

      The chief academic officer will review the supervisor’s recommendations and approve or disapprove them. If approved, the chief academic officer will forward a copy of the supervisor’s recommendations, together with any comments, to the Human Resources office and to the chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee with the request that the committee advise the chief academic officer if the committee is aware of any reason not to continue action. The committee will inform the chief academic officer of its option within 30 days. The opinion of the committee will not be binding on the chief academic officer.

    2. Probation Procedures
      If the chief academic officer with the approval of the president decides to continue the action, he/she will instruct the supervisor to establish a reasonable time frame within which the faculty member is to complete the improvement plan (said time frame not to exceed one year) and to inform the faculty member that he/she is being placed on probation. If the faculty member satisfies the development criteria within the time frame or if the supervisor believes that substantial progress is being made to satisfy the criteria, the review process is ended. The supervisor will then forward a written report documenting adequate fulfillment of the improvement plan to the faculty member, to the chief academic officer, and to the Human Resources office.
    3. Termination Procedures
      Termination of Tenured Faculty—If the faculty member refuses to comply with the improvement plan or if the faculty member fails to respond in a positive manner within the time frame established by the chief academic officer, the supervisor will forward a written notice of that response failure to the faculty member, to the chief academic officer, and to the Executive Director of Equity and Compliance officer. The supervisor will request initiation of termination procedures against the faculty member. The chief academic officer will then certify his/her agreement and initiate procedures for termination for adequate cause as outlined under the Academic Tenure Policy 06:02:00.

 

Reviewed/Recommended: President’s Staff, October 30, 2006
Approved: President Allen G. Edwards, October 30, 2006
Reviewed/Recommended: President’s Staff, March 26, 2007
Approved: President Allen G. Edwards, March 26, 2007
Editorial Changes, July 2008
Reviewed/Recommended: President’s Staff, June 15, 2009
Approved: President Allen G. Edwards, June 15, 2009
Reviewed/Recommended: President’s Staff, May 17, 2010
Approved: President Allen G. Edwards, May 17, 2010
Reviewed/Recommended: President’s Council, November 21, 2016
Approved: President L. Anthony Wise, Jr. November 21, 2016