Each faculty member’s performance should be evaluated annually as follows:

1. Annual self- evaluation report.

            This report should include:

• the faculty member’s account of responsibilities, activities and accomplishments during the academic year guided by the criteria for evaluation. Reflection (or self-evaluation) concerning each criterion should be included. (Discussion of the criteria for evaluation in the order presented in the role model is recommended).
  
• professional development plan focusing on the upcoming academic year and long range goals for the next 2-5 years; a prioritization of the criteria for evaluation should be included as part of the professional development plan
  
  
• current curriculum vitae

2. Evaluation Conference by Department Head.

Department heads should hold an evaluation conference with faculty who are completing their first, second and third years; as well as candidates for third year review, promotion, or tenure. Regular evaluation conferences with all faculty are encouraged. Mid-year reviews are highly recommended for first year faculty members, particularly if the faculty member is experiencing difficulty in accomplishing his/her goals. Whenever performance issues arise with any faculty member, department heads are encouraged to discuss these matters with faculty in a timely manner.

3. Department head’s written evaluation.

The department head should submit a written evaluation for each faculty member annually based on the criteria for evaluation in the faculty role model. The Dean of each academic school should submit a written evaluation for each department head based on the criteria for evaluation. When a faculty member signs the written annual evaluation from the department head, the signature indicates that he/she has read the evaluation. Faculty members may submit to their Department Head, Dean and/or Vice President for Academic Affairs a written response to the annual evaluation.

4. Student rating forms (ratings of instructors).

The frequency of distribution of the SRF for purpose of course and instructor evaluation should follow the minimum guidelines set forth in the faculty handbook. Student rating forms may be distributed with greater frequency when an individual faculty member, department, or those involved in the personnel evaluation process deem it useful or necessary. Summaries of the data sheets will be kept in permanent personnel files. Department heads should store all student rating forms collected for faculty.  For pre-tenure faculty, department heads should keep all of the evaluations until the tenure decision is made.  Course evaluations for tenured faculty members or faculty who are not in a tenurable line should be kept for five years.  Student evaluations are retained in the departments until the faculty attains tenure or a multi-year contract and for five years after that.  Student rating forms moved from storage should be returned to the faculty member.

5. Evaluations by advisees (undeclared, majors).

Evaluations by advisees should be included, as part of the annual evaluation process for faculty, once a comprehensive system for evaluation of advising has been developed at the college. Systematic evaluation of advising will require the development of valid assessment processes and instruments.

6. Department head’s written evaluation of teaching through formal observation.

Faculty should be observed and evaluated by their department head at least once annually during their first six years or pre-tenure (whichever occurs first). All faculty should be observed at least once every three years. All new faculty should be observed during their first semester.

+Refer to Observation of Teaching Guidelines for recommended practices.

7. Peer Evaluation of Teaching by Colleague in or outside department. 

A peer reviewer should evaluate faculty at least once bi-annually in their first six years or pre-tenure (whichever occurs first). All faculty should be observed at least once every three years. The purpose of peer evaluation is formative, to assist a faculty member toward attaining excellence in teaching. A record that peer evaluation has occurred should be part of the faculty member’s file; however the results of the evaluation are confidential and to be shared with the faculty member only. The faculty member may select the peer reviewer from inside or outside the department in consultation with the department head. Required peer reviews may not be used as part of tenure/promotion materials

+Refer to Peer Observation of Teaching Guidelines for recommended practices.

Sources of Information  (revised 6/12/04)

Numerous sources of information can be used in supporting the criteria for evaluation. The following lists include potential sources of information (the lists are neither prescriptive nor exhaustive).

Potential Sources of Information for Teaching criterion:

• Classroom observation                 
• Peer review record
• Syllabi
• Annual self-evaluation report
• Grade-distribution report
• Course materials and support resources
• Student rating forms
• Professional development plan

Potential Sources of Information for Advising and Mentoring criterion:

• Annual self-evaluation report.
• Evaluations by advisees
• Professional development plan

 

Potential Sources of Information for Service criterion:

• Annual self-evaluation report
• Committee membership/leadership.
• Department and/or program leadership
• Community input should be sought where possible and appropriate
• Professional development plan

 

Potential Sources of Information for Professional Involvement criterion:

• Annual self-evaluation report 
• CV  (updated annually)
• Professional development plan

Guidelines for Evaluation of Teaching Faculty

1. Guidelines for Annual Self- Evaluation Report.

a. Self-Evaluation of faculty role model criteria

• Description of teaching responsibilities, activities, & accomplishments. Self-evaluation and reflections by instructor regarding all aspects of teaching (should include strong points and challenges, as well as any actions taken or revisions planned based on student, supervisor, peer or self evaluations).
  
• Description of activities related to advising and mentoring. Self-evaluation and reflections by faculty member regarding progress toward or fulfillment of advising/mentoring responsibilities.
  
• Description of service responsibilities, activities, and accomplishments. Self-evaluation and reflections by faculty member regarding progress toward or fulfillment of service responsibilities.
  
• Summary of professional involvement including scholarship and professional activities. Self-evaluation and reflections of professional involvement with supporting documentation as appropriate. Faculty should include professional reviews that may be part of the normal processes of the faculty members' professional involvement.
  

b. Professional Development Plan

• Professional Development Plan that articulates current and future goals in all areas of the faculty role model, and presents strategies for accomplishment of these goals.  A prioritization of the criteria for evaluation should be included as part of the professional development plan.
    

 c. Current Curriculum Vitae

  2. Recommended Practice for Evaluation Conference by Dept. Head

The evaluation conference should include discussion regarding the faculty member’s progress toward accomplishment of goals and objectives for the year based on the faculty role model. Additionally, the conference should include discussion of the faculty member’s professional development plan, including the intended prioritization of criteria for evaluation for the upcoming year.

 

 

3. Guidelines for Annual Written Evaluation by Department Head

The department head’s annual written evaluation for each faculty member is to be based on the criteria for evaluation. Department heads should evaluate all aspects of a faculty member’s performance based on the criteria for evaluation expressed in the faculty role model, and in accordance with a faculty member’s designated priorities for the year. The evaluation should also include an examination of the faculty member’s professional development plan as relates to all aspects of the faculty role model. As faculty expand their work beyond department lines, department heads are encouraged to seek additional input as appropriate (ie. faculty who are directors of college-wide programs, teach interdisciplinary courses, etc.). The Vice President for Academic Affairs provides department heads with the format for written annual evaluations.

4. Recommended Practice for Observation of Teaching

Prior to the formal teaching observation, the department head should schedule an appointment with the faculty member to discuss areas of focus for the evaluation. Following the pre-observation meeting, the department head should observe the instructor teaching a class. The department head should schedule a follow-up meeting with the faculty member to discuss the suggestions and comments from the observation and provide the faculty member with a written evaluation of the observation.

+Refer to the Observation of Teaching Guidelines for recommended practices.

 

5. Recommended Practice for Peer Evaluation of Teaching.

A colleague inside or outside the department may perform peer evaluation.  Prior to the observation, the peer reviewer should schedule an appointment with the faculty member to discuss the desired areas of focus for the evaluation. The peer reviewer should observe the instructor teaching a class, and provide the instructor with observations and suggestions for improvement.

+Refer to Peer Observation of Teaching Guidelines for recommended practices.

6. Recommended Practice for Peer Review of Professional Involvement.

Faculty are encouraged to seek peer review of the quality of their scholarship and professional activity as appropriate, either from a peer at Meredith College or a peer in the faculty member’s discipline from another institution. The purpose of this review is formative, to gain suggestions to strengthen the individual’s work.