ACC Faculty Evaluation Proposed Revisions – Proposed Annual Ratings & Weightings

Summary Form Criteria and Weightings

The goals the Faculty Evaluation Work Group developed were:

• • Allow for reasonable variation by department and years of experience, but make faculty evaluations more consistent across the college, standardizing the weightings of the different criteria
  • The weighting of criteria should be transparent to all faculty
  • Provide rubrics for departments in determining ratings (to be published for all departments)
  • Due to inherent biases, student course evaluations should not be weighed too heavily, but should absolutely count, to ensure the student voice is not lost
  • For full-time faculty, increase the focus on Professional Service
  • Ensure that adjunct faculty criteria are weighted equitably compared to full-time faculty: Weight Instructional Performance and Student feedback and faculty reflection the same between adjunct and full-time faculty
  • Since Professional Service isn’t required for adjunct faculty, split the Professional Responsibilities weighting evenly between Administrative Performance and Professional Development

On the Annual Summary Evaluation Form, the Faculty Evaluation Work Group recommends that the criteria be organized as follows:

• • Teaching and Student Learning
    • Instructional Performance
    • Student Feedback and Faculty Reflection
  • Professional Responsibilities
    • Administrative Performance
    • Professional Development
    • Professional Service (required for full-time only)
  • Overall Rating 

Please note that:

• • Every criterion is rated and comments may be entered for any of the criteria (allowing multiple areas for comments is important).
  • Formative feedback is important, even in this summative assessment.
  • Relative weights of the criteria will be provided.
  • Different modalities may be addressed where needed.

As a matter of transparency, every department will need to clearly post materials on the college Faculty Evaluation website and update them as they change for their faculty that describe the following:

• • The departmental evaluation process (i.e., whether reviews will be carried out by a committee, Assistant Department Chair(s), peer reviewers, etc. prior to moving on to the Department Chair)
  • The rubrics for all criteria on the Summary Evaluation Form – These can be developed by the department or can be taken from the rubrics provided by the college or from elsewhere or any combination of those. (Rubrics will be provided that any department may choose to use.)
  • How the different criteria on the Summary Evaluation Form will be weighted in determining the Overall Rating, along with the scale for determining that rating.

In order to ensure that the Summary Evaluation Form criteria are weighted in a consistent, transparent, and equitable manner in computing the overall evaluation rating, the percentage weightings for each department must satisfy the following:

• • Instructional performance – This criterion must be weighted the same for both full-time and adjunct faculty. It should be no less than 40% of the total.
  • Student feedback and faculty reflection – This criterion must be weighted the same for both full-time and adjunct faculty. It can be between 20%-30% of the total.
  • Professional service (Required for full-time only) – This should be at least 15% of the total.
  • Both Administrative performance and Professional development must be counted in the overall rating.

A recommended weighting is as follows:

Weightings

 Summary Form Criteria and Weighting Feedback

Evaluation Ratings

In our research, the Work Group found that most other institutions we contacted used a more simplified rating system than the one currently in use at ACC. In discussions with the Human Resources Department, they also suggested that any future rating system should be very clear about what each rating meant and what the consequences of each rating were. The Work Group developed the following goals for a proposed revamped rating system:

• • Simplify ratings – provides clearer distinctions between the ratings, develop publicly accessible rubrics to inform faculty of the new system
  • A more formative approach to evaluations – less emphasis on the final rating and more emphasis on the comments 
  • Ratings provide more meaningful information rather than emphasizing competition

We recognize that this will require changes in faculty expectations and culture – faculty will need to “recalibrate” their expectations. There will need to be training for faculty and for evaluators on the new system.

Proposed ratings:

• • ACC exemplary teaching and faculty expectations have been met –  This rating is for faculty who are doing work that matches or exceeds ACC’s expectations for exemplary teaching and are doing a great job overall. We expect most ACC faculty will receive this rating.

• • Approaching ACC exemplary teaching and faculty expectations – Faculty who are doing a good job for the most part, but who need to improve certain specific things will receive this rating. This is meant to be a “warning signal”, without all the extra stress of “Does not meet faculty expectations”. It is important that these faculty be provided with a clear list of expectations for change.

• • • • Specific areas for improvement must be listed
      • Failure to make significant progress may result in a lower rating the next year

• • Does not meet ACC faculty expectations – Human resources indicated that it was extremely important that faculty with this rating develop a clear performance plan and be held accountable for it.

• • • • Meeting with Department Chair required 
      • Performance plan with a strict timeline must be developed
      • Failure to meet deadlines for improvement may result in disciplinary action

Submit Summary Form Rating Feedback