Search
Student Login Employee Login

Faculty Evaluation Official Practices

Revised October 2008

I. COMPONENTS FOR EVALUATION

  • Designated Evaluator
  • Peer Evaluation
  • Administrative Evaluation
  • Student Evaluation
  • Annual Report of Activities

II. CATEGORIES FOR EVALUATION

  • Performance in Primary Assignment
  • Professional Improvement
  • Service to the College
  • Service to the Community

Definitions of these criteria can be found under the descriptions of academic rank in Part IV. For the annual record of the weighting of these categories by the promotion and tenure committees, see Chairmoot minutes on conferencing each spring.

III. TIMELINE FOR EVALUATION

    A. EVERY YEAR ALL FACULTY

1. Student evaluations performed one term in all sections taught. (For first and second year faculty, student evaluations will be performed every term in all sections).

2. Faculty member submits Annual Report of Activities to the Vice President of Instruction via designated evaluator BY OCTOBER 15.

3. Designated evaluator and faculty member discuss student evaluations and Annual Report of Activities and review Professional Improvement Plan.

    B. FIRST YEAR FACULTY

1. Peer team established.

2. Designated evaluator meets with faculty member and peer team to establish responsibilities and goals. Faculty member may share his or her goals and request feedback.

3. Pre-visitation conference between faculty member and evaluator(s).

4. Class visits and review of class materials.

5. Post-visitation conference between faculty member and evaluator(s).

6. Formative report submitted to faculty member. (Report not submitted to personnel file.)

7. Peer team members meet with designated evaluator and faculty member to discuss observations.

8. Designated evaluator evaluates for rehire.

9. Student evaluations administered each term, all sections.

    C. SECOND YEAR FACULTY

1. Designated evaluator meets with faculty member and peer team to establish responsibilities and goals. Faculty member may share his or her goals and request feedback.

2. Pre-visitation conference between faculty member and evaluator(s).

3. Class visits and review of class materials.

4. Post-visitation conference between faculty member and evaluator(s).

5. Peer evaluators' summative reports submitted to faculty member.

6. Designated evaluator provides written evaluation including summary of peer evaluation reports. (Reports submitted to personnel file.)

7. Vice President for Instruction or designate class visit (generally in the second year).

8. Vice President for Instruction or designate submits report on visit to designated evaluator and faculty member prior to submission to personnel file.

9. Student evaluations conducted each term, all sections.

    D. YEAR PRIOR TO TENURE REVIEW, OR EVERY FIFTH YEAR

1. Designated evaluator meets with faculty member and peer team to establish responsibilities and goals. Faculty member may share his or her goals and request feedback.

2. Pre-visitation conference between faculty member and evaluator(s).

3. Class visits and review of class materials.

4. Post-visitation conference between faculty member and evaluator(s).

5. Summative report submitted to faculty member.

6. Designated evaluator provides written evaluation including summary of peer evaluation reports. (Reports submitted to personnel file.)

IV. DESCRIPTION OF COMPONENTS FOR EVALUATION

    A. DESIGNATED EVALUATOR

1. The designated evaluator is assumed to be the department chair, except when an alternative appointment is made by the Vice President for Instruction or designate. The designated evaluator for a department chair is the Vice President for Instruction or designate.

2. The designated evaluator serves as an evaluator and as coordinator and guide of the evaluation process, overseeing the work of peer evaluators and tracking the schedule of evaluation procedures and requirements. Although the designated evaluator coordinates the process, individual faculty members are responsible for ensuring that their personnel files are complete.

3. The designated evaluator's evaluation may also include reference to professionalism and commitment to the institution.

4. Designated evaluators will be trained in the use of classroom observation techniques, along with the peer evaluators, and designated evaluators will undergo additional group training, by Chairmoot, with the aim of ensuring consistency in the evaluation process.

5. Classroom observations, and/or equivalent observation of performance in non-teaching duties, are negotiated and mutually agreed upon by the faculty member and the designated evaluator.

6. On the annual report of activities provided by the faculty member, the designated evaluator will provide a brief commentary on the year's performance, noting strengths and any areas for improvement. This document should be reviewed with the faculty member, along with student evaluation responses, and be placed in the personnel file.

7. In addition to these annual comments, the designated evaluator provides a full written evaluation, including summaries of the peer evaluator reports, in the second year for new faculty, and after that in the year prior to tenure consideration and when recommending for promotion.

8.  If the designated evaluator does not support the faculty member's candidacy, the DE should provide a letter analyzing faculty performance in line with the criteria for advancement, making clear the DE's concerns. The letter and file will go to the Promotions or Tenure Committee, which will review the file (if the file is otherwise complete) in light of the criteria.  When someone is not recommended for Promotion, the designated evaluator, the dean, and the faculty member need to work out a plan for improvement.

    B. PEER EVALUATION

1. During the first year of employment, peer teams will be established for a strictly formative purpose. After the first year, all references to peer evaluation refer to summative evaluation.

2. Schedule of Evaluation: Summative peer evaluation will occur in the second year for new faculty, and after that only in the year prior to tenure consideration. After tenure has been granted, a summative peer evaluation will occur every fifth year.

3. To promote consistency in evaluation, annual training will be provided in the Fall (at the Annual Retreat) if possible, through the Faculty Development program to those who are working as peer evaluators in that year and to any other faculty members who wish to attend.

4. Peer Team Make-Up

a. Faculty peer evaluators will be selected through consultation among the faculty member, the designated evaluator, and the potential peerevaluator. Peer teams are approved by the Vice President for Instruction or designate. Someone other than the designated evaluator may serve as the third member of the formative peer team.

b. A peer team will be assembled during the first month of the faculty member's contract period.

c. The peer team will consist of the designated evaluator, one member from the faculty member's department or from a related department, and one member from outside the faculty member's department/division. After tenure has been granted, the peer team may be reduced to the designated evaluator and one other faculty member.

d. The designated evaluator is responsible for contacting potential peer-team members and requesting their participation on the peer team.

e. Department chairs should keep track of peer team assignments within their departments to ensure that assignments are made fairly among department members.

5. Initial Meeting of Peer Team

a. The designated evaluator will call an initial meeting among peer team members and the faculty member to discuss peer team responsibilities and establish deadlines.

b. The faculty member is given the opportunity to share individual goals and requests for feedback from the peer evaluators, and to give peer evaluators the opportunity to ask questions and offer suggestions.

6. Classroom Visitations and Review of Materials

a. The number and nature of classroom visitations should be decided upon by the peer team, the designated evaluator, and the faculty member.

b. Each peer team member and the faculty member should arrange a pre-visitation conference to select class meetings for visitation, to discuss specific learning goals for these classes, as well as to continue the dialogue on the relevant background information introduced at the initial meeting.

c. A post-visitation conference should be held promptly (ideally within 48 hours) between the visiting peer team member and the faculty member to debrief on class observations. Follow up visitations and review of additional course material may be arranged at this point.

d. Peer team members are encouraged to consider classroom materials (syllabi, handouts, assignments, even the faculty member's critiques of student work) in their evaluation.

e. It is important that the peer team serve a mentoring role during the formative evaluation year offering specific, constructive suggestions as well as introducing the faculty member to the procedures and culture of COCC.

7. Final Reports

a. Formative: Individual feedback should be submitted to the faculty member. Peer teams should meet with the faculty member and designated evaluator to discuss their final observations. At that time, possible concerns for future summative evaluation should be raised. No written report will be submitted to the faculty member's personnel file.

b. Summative: Peer evaluators should be prepared to write complete, detailed reports to offer positive feedback, to provide guidance for further growth (perhaps by identifying goals for the development of the faculty member's teaching effectiveness), and to document perceived problems.

8. The "Peer Evaluation Guidelines" provides guidelines for Peer Team meetings, classroom peer evaluation, review of classroom materials, and review of unique
teaching situations.

    C. ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION

1. The Vice President for Instruction and/or Instructional Dean will go through the same training and follow the same methodology as the other evaluators. Vice president or Instructional Dean reviews all evaluation documents, and under unusual circumstances may conduct an extraordinary evaluation.

2. The Vice President and/or Instructional Dean will give reports of his or her class visits, generally made in the second year, to the designated evaluator and the faculty member for review, prior to inclusion in the personnel file.

    D. STUDENT EVALUATION

1. Written student evaluations, using a campus-wide standard questionnaire, are to be conducted for every faculty member once every year, including every section being taught by the instructor that term. For first and second year faculty, student evaluations are to be conducted every term in all sections. The Vice-President of Instruction has set a benchmark of 80% or better of students in the class completing evaluations. Therefore, faculty are urged to distribute evaluations on a day when strong attendance is expected. The instructor has the option of attaching to summary report alternate "number enrolled" figures with an explanation.

2. The following standard procedures will be used for administering student evaluations:

a. the instructor leaves the room.

b. a student volunteer reads a standard statement of explanation and instruction to the class.

c. forms are sealed in the presence of the class and taken to the department secretary or to a secure place by the student volunteer. (NOTE: only evaluations which are contained in that envelope when the secretary receives it will be processed.)

d. results are not reviewed by anyone, other than the typist who compiles the responses, until after final grades are turned in.

3. The summary sheet will show ratings and student comments and will indicate the percentage of enrolled students completing the questionnaire. The summary sheet is distributed to the Vice-President for Instruction (this copy will be forwarded to the personnel file), the Designated Evaluator, and the faculty member.

4. Faculty members and Designated Evaluators should meet annually (perhaps when the Annual Report is discussed and signed) to review and discuss the student evaluation results, including identification of faculty strengths and weaknesses.

    E. ANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES

1. The faculty member has the option of attaching a one-page self-evaluation essay to the annual report, perhaps addressing individual goals achieved during the year, or any weaknesses noted in the file.

2. Such documentation as the faculty member has to support the annual report should be kept by the faculty member until requested by the designated evaluator or the promotion or tenure committees.

3. The faculty member and the designated evaluator should review the Professional Improvement Plan as they review the annual report.

4. The annual report is completed by October 15th.

    F. FACULTY RANK

1. PROMOTION

Central Oregon Community College has used a system of academic rank throughout its history as a means of recognizing the quality of a faculty member's contribution to the College. Considerable effort is undertaken to employ faculty members who are fully qualified in the disciplines, who have the potential for significant personal and professional growth, and who are committed to the goals and philosophy of Central Oregon Community College. Thus, it is expected that faculty members employed at Central Oregon Community College, whatever rank they initially occupy and whatever qualifications they possess on initial employment, will mature as professionals and progress through the ranks to become outstanding faculty members.

2. ELIGIBILITY

Eligibility for promotion will adhere to the following time limits, unless exceptional conditions warrant otherwise:

Assistant Professor I: Entry Level

Assistant Professor II: A faculty member should be in his/her third year of service at the rank of Assistant Professor I at the time he/she is first considered for promotion to Assistant Professor II.

Associate Professor: A faculty member should be in his/her fourth year of service at the rank of assistant professor II at the time he/she is first considered for promotion to associate professor.

Professor: A faculty member should be in his/her sixth year of service at the rank of associate professor at the time he/she is first eligible for consideration to be promoted to professor. Note: the faculty member can choose not to stand for promotion to Full Professor.

Note: Persons with significant service of an outstanding nature at other institutions of higher education, or who display extraordinary service at Central Oregon Community College, may be recommended by the President for early advancement to any of the ranks noted above.

3. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION

a. Performance in Primary Assignment

b. Professional Improvement

c. Service to the College

d. Service to the Community

4. DESCRIPTION OF ACADEMIC RANK

Although each rank has specific criteria to be examined during promotions deliberations, there are fundamental assumptions (most of them obvious) which pertain to all faculty and are not grounds for promotion. These are:

1. The faculty member satisfactorily performs his/her assignment.

2. The faculty member is competent in his/her field. Competency implies that one keeps current in one's field.

3. The faculty member acts professionally and ethically.

4. The faculty member shares in the extra-teaching responsibilities of the College.

5. The faculty member shows a willingness to undertake appropriate new efforts on behalf of the College and his/her professional associates.

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR I

This rank, the rank at which many faculty are hired, carries with it the expectation that points one through five, above, are valid.

In addition to these characteristics common to all faculty members, the following criteria are considered necessary to the ranks beyond instructor:

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR II

Performance in Primary Assignment: Evidence of above average teaching ability or, in the case of non-teaching faculty, evidence of above average performance in one's assignment. The individual shows regular, significant improvement in the quality of teaching or performance in non teaching assignment. The individual contributes to maintenance and development in his/her curricular or program area.

Professional Improvement: The individual steadily pursues a current professional improvement plan. Commitments are being met or exceeded. The individual remains current in the discipline and is progressing toward significantly greater competence.

Service to the College: The individual is increasingly involved in college affairs and is an active participant in affairs of the department or division.

Service to the Community: The individual demonstrates willingness or promise of meaningful service to the community.  Advisory boards and consulting with industry or service in a professional or personal capacity are some examples of such service.


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

Performance in Primary Assignment: The individual clearly shows continued improvement and refinement of teaching ability or of performance in the primary assignment. The individual has contributed significantly to maintaining and developing the existing curriculum or program area.

Professional Improvement: The individual has initiated and actively pursued an approved professional improvement plan. The activities pursued and accomplished are demanding and clearly contribute to the individual's competence and to the goals of the College.

Service to the College: The individual is an active participant at the department or division level and frequently makes contributions outside the department.

Service to the Community: The individual has demonstrated willingness to provide service to the community with an emphasis on serving in the areas of one's professional competence as connected to the primary assignment.

PROFESSOR

Performance in Primary Assignment: The individual continues to demonstrate regular and significant improvement and refinement of teaching ability or of performance in the primary assignment. The individual has demonstrated leadership in curricular or program development.

Professional Improvement: The individual has a long term record of broad commitment to professional growth. The individual has an exemplary and current plan for professional improvement. The activities are challenging, actively pursued, and clearly contribute to the individual's competence and to the goals of the College.

Service to the College: The individual consistently seeks opportunities to be involved in leadership on the campus.

Service to the Community: The individual will demonstrate a consistent meaningful service to the community, with an emphasis on serving as an expert resource in the area of one's professional competence as connected to the primary assignment.

    G. TENURE

Candidates and Chairs are encouraged to refer to the Tenure Committee's Report on Procedures and Practices.

Chairmoot 6/21/2006