FACULTY
EVALUATION PLAN
(FEP)
TOPIC
PAGE
Introduction
General
Goals
1
Assumptions
1
Faculty
Accountability
1
Brief
Description of the FEP
2-3
FEP
Quick Guide
4-5
FEP
Summary
6
Endorsement
sheet
7
Appendices
to assist you
A. Examples of data collection for
A1-A2
Required
Areas
B. Examples of criteria reviewed in
B1-B4
Elective
and Related Areas
C. Suggested data collection
procedures
C1-C3
D. Student questionnaire information
D1-D20
The
current members of the Faculty Association’s
FEP Subcommittee are:
|
MEMBER |
COLLEGE |
PHONE
NUMBER |
|
John Seims (Chair) |
MCC |
(480)654-7768 |
|
Robin McCord |
CGCC |
(480)732-7038 |
|
Michael Farabee |
EMCC |
(623)935-8455 |
|
Susan Malmo |
EMCC |
(623)935-8419 |
|
Jim Daugherty |
GCC |
(623)845-3192 |
|
John Lampignano |
GWCC |
(602)286-8501 |
|
Naomi
Story |
MCC |
(480)461-7024 |
|
Denny Sheehan |
PC |
(602)285-7385 |
|
Sue Vanboven |
PVCC |
(602)787-6728 |
|
Pat Case |
|
(480)517-8264 |
|
Chuck Cooper |
SCC |
(480)423-6436 |
|
Amy MacPherson |
SMCC |
(602)305-5714 |
|
Janice Reilly |
FA President |
(480)731-8114 |
FACULTY
EVALUATION PLAN
Introduction
GENERAL
GOALS
As a
result of changes in faculty instructional roles,
responsibilities and delivery systems, a District Faculty Association
Evaluation Committee was formed to examine the evaluation process used
by the
The
committee's goal regarding the FEP is to move away from
"traditional" means of faculty evaluation. Instead,
they have concentrated on a process
to assist faculty in their common mission to meet student needs. The committee recognized that most faculty
continually seek to improve their effectiveness and this proposed
system should
support that effort. The FEP is also
aligned with the MCCCD vision and mission.
ASSUMPTIONS
Faculty
Commitment
to Improvement
•
As faculty members, we are
committed to improving our instructional and service effectiveness.
•
Faculty acknowledge our
accountability for our professional performance.
•
While most faculty members are
committed to continuous improvement through their own effort,
they
perceive that performance is also
enhanced through support and guidance from colleagues
(Maricopa
Community Colleges Faculty Evaluation Survey, Fall 1994).
Goals
of the
Faculty Evaluation Plan
•
The FEP concentrates on
assessment for improved performance. The
research evidence that exists
indicates
that traditional evaluation
methods do not consistently lead to improved instruction.
(Centra, 1993, p. 11) The FEP is an
evaluation system that expands
beyond that traditional model.
•
The new FEP identifies and
acknowledges not only effective teaching but also other faculty service
beyond
the classroom.
•
Administrative review of faculty
for retention/dismissal
(per
Residential Faculty Policy) remains separate from the FEP.
FACULTY ACCOUNTABILITY
Each
faculty member doing an FEP remains accountable to the
department/ division chair and the college Vice President Academic
Affairs for
satisfactory completion of the FEP.
Faculty members may implement their Plan option as often as they
wish,
but must complete a Plan every year while probationary and every third
year
when appointive, as currently required by the RFP.
The faculty member to be evaluated and
members of the evaluation team who assist with an FEP sign an
"endorsement
sheet" verifying that the process has been completed.
Brief
Description of the FEP
The
main goal of this proposed plan is to refocus the current RFP
mandated faculty evaluation system toward emphasizing the recognition
and encouragement
of improved performance and not just gathering evaluation data for
personnel
decisions.
While
keeping some parts of the previous, more traditional method
of faculty evaluation, the proposed FEP plan recognizes an expanded
image of
the role of Maricopa faculty that goes beyond classroom instruction,
for
example, faculty serving in non-teaching roles (librarians, counselors,
program
managers, etc.) and other professional faculty involvement such as
advising and
mentoring students, participating on college/district committees,
departmental
interaction with colleagues, etc.
It has
been designed to avoid the traditional “cookie cutter”
approach to faculty evaluation requiring the same procedure for all. The goal of the proposed FEP is to allow more
flexibility to reflect more accurately the diverse faculty roles and
the
uniqueness of different teaching styles and teaching in different
disciplines. This includes the
opportunity to customize the FEP, allowing a faculty member to obtain
more
useful and applicable information while assessing their performance as
they
strive to improve instruction or the effectiveness of other
professional
services.
In
searching the literature on faculty evaluation, the Faculty
Evaluation Committee which developed the FEP has come to support
strongly this
observation: “Improved performance only
occurs when faculty: (1) learn something
new about their performance, (2) value the information and have
confidence in its source, (3)
know how to make changes based on it, (4) are motivated to make the
changes”
(Centra, 1993, p. 9). The team of
individuals that assist a faculty member in developing and implementing
an FEP
should be guided by these values.
Key
Elements of the
FEP
1.
Recognizing the movement toward
broadening the definition of instruction-time beyond the traditional
semester,
the proposed FEP can begin at any time within the fiscal
year but must be completed by June 30th of the
same fiscal year. The college Vice
President Academic Affairs, through the appropriate department/division
chair,
will be responsible for notifying a faculty member to begin the FEP.
2.
It is recommended that each college
Faculty Senate appoint a “RESOURCE
PERSON” who is familiar with the FEP to help facilitate the process. The college Faculty/Staff Development
Specialist is a suggested candidate for this position.
(According to Centra [1993, p. 11] “A trained
faculty development instructional specialist has the potential to help
instructors significantly change their teaching and should be involved
in the
process.”)
3.
Faculty must complete (or review
and update) a plan every year while “probationary” and every third year
(or
more often if desired) when “appointive.”
This process should also include 49% faculty and part-time
faculty--although
the FEP would be modified by/for these faculty members in order to
accommodate
differences in their roles. (The
existing process to evaluate adjunct faculty will remain in place)
4.
To complete an FEP each faculty
member must engage in a self-examination
of “THREE REQUIRED AREAS”:
·
TEACHING
(OR OTHER
PRIMARY DUTIES). For example, instructional
or service delivery, content
expertise,
classroom or program management, instruction/program design.
·
COURSE
OR PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT/REVISION. For
example, a
review of syllabi, tests, and
course or
program
content, including competencies and
objectives.
·
GOVERNANCE
AND/OR
COMMITTEE PARTICIPATION AT THE COLLEGE AND/OR DISTRICT LEVELS
In
addition to an assessment of these “3 REQUIRED AREAS” (RFP
Section 3.5.3.1.) , “AT LEAST TWO ELECTED AREAS” (RFP
Section 3.5.3.2.), and other “RELATED AREAS” (REP
Section 3.5.3.3.) may also be selected
by the faculty
member to review, in order to bring into better focus their full
professional
involvements at the college or within the District.
Examples include program coordination,
research projects, department/division chair responsibilities, student
activities-advising/mentoring, professional involvement in the
community,
professional growth, involvement/projects, professional interaction
with
colleagues, etc.
See
(Appendix B)
for details.
5.
As a means of designing an FEP that
is flexible enough to respect the broad diversity of the faculty role,
a
faculty member developing and implementing the plan should select ways
of
examining his/her performance that will most effectively describe
his/her: current performance, future goals
and actions
needed to achieve them, accomplishments in the professional areas to be
examined, etc. These may include
different means of assessment for each of the “REQUIRED,” “ELECTIVE,” and “RELATED”
areas that are evaluated.
Examples of different means include checklists, observations,
student
evaluation instruments (which can be customized), student skill
inventories,
video assessments, portfolios, written summaries, conferences, etc.
See (Appendix C) for details.
6.
The team will
consist of:
·
THE
FACULTY MEMBER TO BE ASSESSED will be the director of,
and active participant in, the designing
and implementation of their FEP plan.
He/she will carry the major responsibility for gathering the
information
about and completing the plan to the best of the person’s ability.
·
A
FACULTY PEER (to be chosen by the faculty member) may be outside
the faculty member’s discipline, department, or college.
·
A
THIRD PERSON WILL BE SELECTED BY THE EVALUEE FROM AMONG THE
FOLLOWING: Department/Division
chair, appropriate
other professional, another faculty member, administrator, staff
developer,
advisory committee, alumni, college committee members.
·
STUDENTS
(or other service area recipients) will always provide
input regarding teaching or service area
performance via a customizable questionnaire or other appropriate
measurement
instrument.
See
(Appendix D) for details.
7.
At the conclusion of the process,
the individual team members will review the documents submitted by the
faculty
member to indicate his/her performance and goals in the areas outlined
in the
FEP and discuss them with the faculty member.
Then an “FEP SUMMARY ENDORSEMENT
SHEET” will be filed. It will be signed by the individual team members
and also by the Department/Division Chair and College Vice President
Academic
Affairs to verify the work and indicate compliance with the process. See
page 6-7.
*
Centra, John H.
Reflective Faculty Evaluation:
Enhancing Teaching and Determining
Faculty
Effectiveness. San
Francisco:
Josse Basse, 1993.
** Maricopa
College
District Faculty Evaluation Committee (1994).
Summary of the first
survey, Fall
1994.
FACULTY EVALUATION PLAN QUICK
GUIDE
The
Faculty Evaluation Plan is flexible enough to meet your unique
circumstances/needs
while maintaining a structure to help you plan
your
approach and provide for District-wide consistency.
To
complete the plan, follow these three steps:
|
I.
Areas to Examine |
A. Required Areas
that must
be examined
1.
Teaching, Learning, and/or Service
2.
Course Assessment and/or Program Development/Revision
3.
Governance and/or Committee Participation at the College and/or
District levels
B. Elective Areas of which at
least two must be examined
1.
Professional Development
2.
Acquisition of New Skills
3. Enhancement of Diversity
4.
College Level Assessment of Learning Outcomes
5.
Service to the Community
C. Related Areas that may
be examined
1.
Program coordination
2.
Department/division chair responsibilities
3.
Advisement/mentoring or other student activity involvement
4.
Professional interaction
5.
Other roles (as identified)
__________________________________________________________________
|
II. Persons involved in the
process: |
1.
Individual Faculty Member
2.
A peer selected by the evaluee
|
3. A third person selected by the
evaluee from among the following:
• Department/Division chair
• Appropriate other professional • Another faculty member • Administrator
• Staff developer
• Advisory committee
• Alumni
• College committee members
4. Students or other service recipients |
NOTE: The FEP requires a faculty member to gather
written evaluations or assessments from students or other service
recipients. They will then be reviewed by the FEP team and discussed
with the faculty member. |
__________________________________________________________________
|
III. Methods
examining performance: |
A.
Checklists
B.
Observations (classroom visit or video)
C.
Questionnaires (including student evaluation)
D.
Pre-post evaluations
E.
Student skills inventories
F.
Portfolios or written summaries
G.
Conferences
FEP
Summary
Faculty
member's name______________________________________
Department_______________________________
Date_______________________
1.
Brief description of my roles and
responsibilities as a faculty member:
2.
Focus of the FEP and brief statement of
rationale and purpose:
3.
Summary of accomplishments and outcomes:
4.
Brief statement of plans to integrate or apply this learning into my
work as a
faculty member:
5. What
method and class was used for the student/service recipient evaluation?
6.
Goals for next evaluation:
Please
send the FEP Summary and Faculty
Evaluation Plan Endorsement Sheet to the Employee Records Center at the
District office, keep a copy for the Faculty member’s college file and
send a
copy to the Faculty member.
FACULTY
EVALUATION PLAN
ENDORSEMENT
SHEET
Faculty
member:_____________________________________,
completed
a Faculty Evaluation Plan
on____________________.
We
have assisted with the above member’s Faculty
Evaluation Plan and agree
that
the FEP documents comply with the evaluation
requirements in the RFP.
Signature
Title
____________________________ ___________________Date_______
____________________________ ___________________Date_______
As
Division/Department Chair, I acknowledge
receipt of this Summary/Endorsement sheet.
__________________________________
Date____________
Signature
As
College Vice President Academic Affairs, I
acknowledge receipt of this Summary/Endorsement sheet.
(Sign, send to District, and forward copy to
faculty member within 10 working days.)
___________________________________
Date_____________
Signature
Please
send the FEP Summary and Faculty
Evaluation Plan Endorsement Sheet to the Employee Records Center at the
District office, keep a copy for the Faculty member’s college file and
send a
copy to the Faculty member.