Evaluation Criteria and Ratings

Statement on Exemplary Teaching

In order to evaluate faculty on their teaching, it is important to have an understanding of the common expectations the college has of its faculty. Collegewide expectations for teaching at ACC are summarized in the exemplary teaching statement:

ACC faculty are committed to exemplary teaching that engenders equity and student success and is guided by ACC Faculty Values. Intentionally using innovative, evidence-based teaching practices, faculty creatively foster critical thinking, student engagement, learning, persistence, achievement, and sense of purpose. While cultivating a culture of belonging and inclusiveness for all students, faculty pursue excellence and continuous improvement in course design, teaching strategies, assessment and feedback, and student learning.

To meet the highest level of exemplary practice, faculty seek out new strategies to intentionally nurture and respect learners’ strengths, interests, needs, and cultures. Faculty commit to continuous mastery of their disciplines and teaching pedagogy as well as engagement in ongoing reflective practices in support of lifelong learning.

Annual Summary Evaluation Form

For the faculty evaluation process to be truly meaningful for faculty, it is important that there be actionable, meaningful feedback. The purpose of the annual Summary Evaluation Form is to provide faculty with the actionable, formative feedback necessary for faculty growth in addition to the summative ratings and comments. Reviewers should rate every criterion and provide well supported comments, even for faculty who receive a positive review. Clear suggestions for specific actionable improvements should be provided where necessary. Faculty who receive Approaching ACC exemplary teaching and faculty expectations or Does not meet ACC faculty expectations for any criteria must be provided with specific recommendations for improvement.

Ratings for individual criteria should be determined based on departmental or college rubrics and weighted according to departmental weightings that follow ACC requirements and departmental policies. All of this information should be clearly posted on the section of the College website devoted to this so that faculty are aware of how their ratings will be determined in advance.

Criteria

Each of the criteria in bold will receive a rating and supporting comments based upon the posted departmental rubric. All instructional formats/modalities are evaluated using this set of criteria. Comments can be made in any section to address different modalities.

Teaching and Student Learning

• • Instructional Performance (must be at least 40% of Overall Rating) – Each year’s rating should be based upon departmental and college-wide requirements, especially the Exemplary Teaching Statement. It should consider the following inputs (depending on the year of the evaluation cycle):
    • • Course Materials (each year for first 3 years teaching at the college, then year 3 of the cycle thereafter)
      • Faculty Reflection Form (Each year – departments may review additional years when needed)
      • Feedback from Peer Reviewers and/or Evaluation Committee, if applicable
      • Values Framework (year 1, full-time faculty only)
      • Purposeful Change (year 2, everyone with the exception of adjuncts teaching less than 6 LEH per year)
      • Grade Distributions – Departmental expectations for grade distributions, if any, should be communicated to all faculty. Since these expectations can reasonably vary not only between departments but also between courses, there is no college-wide standard for this, but it is strongly recommended that expectations take into account that grades in a single class might vary from expectations due to the specific makeup of that class.
      • Student Complaints/Faculty Discipline Issues that have been investigated and substantiated – Note that student complaints/faculty discipline might be addressed under either Instructional Performance or Student Feedback and Faculty Reflection, depending on which is most appropriate.
      • Class Observation Report(s) (where applicable – required during first semester teaching with the college, some departments may choose to require for all faculty, and individual observations may also be requested as part of a Performance Improvement Plan).

• • Student Feedback and Faculty Reflection (must be between 20%-30% of Overall Rating) – This rating should be based upon departmental and college-wide requirements, especially the Exemplary Teaching Statement. It should consider the following inputs (depending on the year of the evaluation cycle):
    • • Student Course Evaluations (each year – departments may review additional years when needed to more fully understand the performance of the faculty member)
      • Faculty Reflection Form (each year – departments may review additional years when needed to more fully understand the performance of the faculty member)
      • Student Complaints/Faculty Discipline issues that have been investigated and substantiated – Note that student complaints/faculty discipline might be addressed under either Instructional Performance or Student Feedback and Faculty Reflection, depending on which is most appropriate.

Professional Responsibilities

Administrative Performance (must be at least 5% of Overall Rating) – Administrative duties in the ACC faculty contract must be met in addition to the timely completion of the following:

• • • Holding the required number of office hours and being available to students during those times
    • Certifying attendance and submitting grades by the deadline at the end of each session
    • Maintaining required information in Lighthouse according to the departmental/college deadlines
    • Submitting textbook order/information by the appropriate deadlines (where applicable)
    • Maintaining departmentally required information in Blackboard for each course (where applicable)
    • Submitting syllabi and other departmentally required documents by the required deadlines
    • Appropriate and timely submission of all required faculty evaluation materials
    • Responding to student, departmental, and college communications in a timely manner
    • Fulfilling other required departmental duties (where applicable)

Professional Development and Growth (must be at least 5% of Overall Rating) – This rating should reflect both professional growth and the completion of Professional Development, according to departmental and college requirements. It should also consider stated professional development goals and updates over time, including the following information:
Goals for Professional Development and Growth (year 3, full-time faculty only)

• • • Goals for Professional Development and Growth (year 3, full-time faculty only)
    • Faculty Reflection Form (each year)
    • Completion of college and department required training, including compliance training.
    • Recorded faculty development hours and how they relate to college requirements and professional growth

Professional Service (required for full-time faculty, optional for adjunct faculty; must be at least 15% of the Overall Rating for full-time faculty) – This rating should reflect work outside of the classroom and normal preparation to teach assigned classes (Board policy on full-time faculty service here). This can include service for the department, for the college, or for a professional or industry group. While this is not a required criteria for adjunct faculty, recognition should be awarded to those who contribute service to the department or college, even if paid a stipend. This should consider the following inputs:

• • • Faculty Reflection Form (each year)
    • Values Framework (year 1, full-time faculty only) or Statement of Teaching Philosophy for faculty in their first 3 years of teaching at the college if approved by the department
    • Other documented information regarding service

Faculty Evaluation Ratings

A simplified set of ratings for faculty evaluation criteria are intended to provide clear distinctions between ratings and provide more meaningful feedback to faculty for a more formative approach to evaluation. It is important that written feedback be supplied for each rating and that ratings are based upon rubrics clearly posted in advance of evaluation deadlines.

The three basic ratings are:

• • ACC exemplary teaching and faculty expectations have been met – Overall, the faculty member has met the teaching standards set forth in the above Statement on Exemplary Teaching, as well as other non-instructional duties required of faculty. Formative feedback on potential areas for improvement as well as areas of particular merit will be provided in comments.
  • Approaching ACC exemplary teaching and faculty expectations – The faculty member has met many of the above standards, but there are one or more areas that do not satisfy that standard. The rating may focus on one  significant issue or multiple lesser issues.
  • Required: In addition to providing formative feedback on areas that need improvement, the Summary Evaluation Form should contain a list of specific improvements necessary to attain ACC exemplary teaching and faculty expectations have been met. These necessary improvements must be clearly communicated and faculty are expected to work on improving those items within the provided timeline. Documentation of any changes/improvements should be submitted in the following year’s evaluation.
  • Failure to make significant progress towards addressing these issues could result in a rating of Does not meet ACC faculty expectationsin the following year.
  • Does not meet ACC faculty expectations – The faculty member has not met the expected teaching and/or non-instructional standards of the college in a significant manner.
  • Required: If this rating is received in any individual areas of the Summary Evaluation Form, a list of specific improvements needed and timeline must be provided.
  • If the Overall Rating is Does not meet faculty expectations, a meeting with the Department Chair is required to develop a Performance Improvement Plan with clearly specified outcomes and timeline. The Department will provide assistance in obtaining professional development for skills required to make these improvements.
  • Failure to make significant progress on these issues within the time specified in the Performance Improvement Plan will result in further action being taken.
  • Except when immediate corrective action is required, faculty who receive this rating will be given reasonable time and support to address these problems and should progress to a higher rating in the following year if they follow their improvement plan. Faculty who receive this rating may be required to repeat a year in the evaluation cycle in order to resubmit specific evaluation materials the following year for review, especially if course materials are at issue. Department Chairs may require changes on a faster timeline if appropriate.

Detailed information about faculty evaluation procedure can be found in the Faculty Evaluation Manual.