Skip to main content

AP 3-31 Evaluation Faculty Job Performance

Arapahoe Community College
Series 3 - College Personnel
AP 3-31 - Evaluation of Faculty Job Performance

Originated: June 1996

Revised: April 2002; August 2004, March 2005; January 2006; April 2010; April 2011; April 2013; January 2015; July 2016

Effective: June 1996; April 2002; August 2004; retroactive September 1, 2004; July 1, 2006; April 2010; April 2011; April 2013; March 1, 2015; July 2016

References: BP 3-10; BP 3-20; BP 3-31; BP 3-80; SP 3-31; AP 3-20; AP 3-55; AP 3-80

Approved:

Diana M. Doyle, Ph.D.
President, Arapahoe Community College

PURPOSE

The goal of faculty evaluation is to assess faculty performance and reward contribution to the success of students and improvement of the College.

This Procedure contains pertinent information affecting faculty members, current through the date of its issuance. To the extent that any provision of this Procedure is inconsistent with State or Federal law, State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education Policies (BPs) or Colorado Community College System President’s Procedures (SPs), the law, BPs and SPs shall supersede and control. BPs and SPs are subject to change throughout the year and are effective immediately upon adoption by the Board or System President, respectively. Faculty members are expected to be familiar with and adhere to the BPs, SPs as well as College directives, including but not limited to this Procedure.

Nothing in this Procedure is intended to create (nor shall be construed as creating) an express or implied contract or to guarantee employment for any term. The College reserves the right to modify, change, delete or add to this Procedure as it deems appropriate.

SCOPE

This evaluation procedure shall apply to all faculty, as defined in Board Policy BP 3-20. Faculty shall be evaluated by their supervisors following the guidelines set forth in these procedures. Nothing in this procedure shall be construed to limit academic freedom as defined by AP 1-40 or limit due process rights as defined in BP 3-20 and AP 3-20.

DEFINITIONS

Faculty - Refer to BP 3-10 (Administration of Personnel)

Supervisor - The employee who faculty member directly reports to. This individual has requisite training for the performance evaluation process.

Second level supervisor - The employee who the supervisor directly reports to. This individual has requisite training for the performance evaluation process.

Performance Plan - Documented agreement between faculty and supervisor on projected activities or improvements for the evaluation period. It should be based on workload and assignments unique to the individual.

Performance Plan Evaluation - Documented result of the performance plan.

PROCEDURE

  1. Procedure for Faculty Evaluation
     
    1. Factors in Evaluation

      Faculty will be evaluated according to their documented responsibilities, job description, and the ability to meet program, college and Board goals related to their areas of responsibility. These documented responsibilities and goals will determine the specific focus of the faculty member's work and evaluation in the two principal evaluation categories: teaching and service.

      A faculty member would typically be expected to devote 70 percent of his or her effort and attention to teaching activities and 30 percent to service activities. These percentages may be modified in circumstances including but not limited to: provisional status; reduced teaching loads for department chair or other leadership duties; special assignment or projects, such as accreditation; or where performance concerns have been identified. The modified percentages should be specified in the performance plan. The final overall evaluation rating is not meant to be a weighted average of ratings in each category, but should reflect the faculty member's overall performance based on his or her individual responsibilities.

      Compliance with State Board policies and System President's procedures is a requirement of all State System employees; noncompliance will be an overall negative factor in a faculty member's evaluation.

      Teaching

      The evaluation of teaching will include but is not limited to consideration of student evaluations and direct observation by supervisors. Evaluators should consider all the following components of teaching: class structure and organization; course materials, including syllabi, course outlines, and lesson plans; command of subject matter; demonstrated currency in the field and in teaching methodology; presentation skill; professional and courteous interaction with students; availability to students during office hours; student engagement; and promotion of student achievement.

      In addition, evaluators should consider other factors that may be relevant based on the faculty member's job description, responsibilities and individual and college/department goals. These may include, but are not limited to: assessment of student learning; documented teaching and curriculum improvement based on assessment results; incorporation of course, program, and college student learning outcomes; incorporation of student retention strategies; and integration of technology into course work as appropriate to the discipline.

      Service

      Service includes fulfilling the mission and goals of the college outside of the classroom. Components of service to be considered in the evaluation should be based on the faculty member's job description, role, goals, and documented responsibilities. These may include but are not limited to departmental service, including curriculum coordination and development, advising and outreach, administrative assignments, and committee work; system, college-wide and campus committee work; sponsoring and participating in student activities; and attendance at college activities and events.

      Additional activities may include serving as the college representative on a local board or commission, making community or professional presentations, serving as a liaison to local schools, or serving as an elected or appointed member of local boards.

      Service also includes professional and courteous interaction with colleagues, staff and community as typically demonstrated by active engagement, collaboration, and constructive cooperation in department and college activities. This shall not diminish lively, critical debate which is both necessary and appropriate in an academic institution.
       

    2. Definitions of Performance Ratings
       

      There shall be three performance ratings: Exemplary, Commendable, Needs Improvement. Faculty must receive a performance rating of Exemplary or Commendable to be eligible for salary increases.

      Exemplary

      To receive a rating of "exemplary," a faculty member demonstrates performance beyond Commendable and must meet the standards for Exemplary performance in both teaching and service. Evidence of exemplary performance must be documented within the performance evaluation.

      Examples of the kinds of combinations of qualities or activities an "exemplary" teacher might demonstrate include, but are not limited to: exceptional skills in both instructional delivery and course design and planning; engaging students at a high level; demonstrating a strong commitment to using assessment data to guide revision of his or her teaching methods to improve student outcomes; leading the integration of new technology into the classroom; or developing new courses or curriculum either in the classroom and online that are of impressive quality.

      For service, exemplary faculty typically perform their department and discipline responsibilities at a high level or take active leadership on specific initiatives that meet significant college or department goals. For example, if charged with managing a career/technical program they might demonstrate very strong relationships with industry partners that lead to high levels of program support, internships, and high placement rates for students.

      Other examples of the type of efforts that might characterize exemplary service include: effective leadership roles in college or system committees; developing significant new relationships in the community that meet college goals (with institutions like K-12 districts, other colleges or key business partners); making a contribution to their field of study, either in published work, presentations, or service in a professional organization; leadership in broader college initiatives that improve teaching and learning like Learning Communities, Service Learning, Writing Across the Curriculum or similar initiatives.

      Exemplary service should be consistent with the faculty member's performance plan.

      Commendable

      To receive a rating of "commendable" a faculty member must meet the standards for commendable performance or above in both teaching and service, abide by all college guidelines and CCCS policies and procedures and meet department, college, and board goals related to his or her area of responsibility, including performance objectives defined in his or her performance plan.

      Commendable faculty members meet basic instructional requirements, including following curriculum guidelines, college and department syllabus policies, assessment requirements and deadlines for schedules and grades. They demonstrate currency in the field and in teaching methodology. They demonstrate skill in both instructional delivery and course design and planning, as well as innovation in teaching methods and a commitment to continuous improvement of student learning outcomes, including meeting college guidelines for assessment of student learning.

      Commendable faculty members engage actively in service such as serving on department and college committees, engaging in department and college functions and activities, advising students as appropriate and demonstrating professional and courteous behavior. They also meet the critical duties of their assigned roles. For example, if charged with managing a program, they meet all basic program requirements, including holding productive advisory committee meetings and appropriately advising students. Or, if charged with hiring and mentoring part-time instructors, they provide appropriate screening, orientation, and supervision, including classroom observations.

      Needs Improvement

      A faculty member "Needs Improvement" when he or she does not meet the criteria of a "commendable" performance rating in either teaching or service - he or she fails to competently meet the teaching or program management standards outlined above or in college guidelines, fails to provide significant service to the college or department, or violates the expectation of professional and collegial behavior. Any disregard for or violation of established CCCS policy or procedures or college guidelines may also result in this rating.
       

    3. Process
       
      1. Performance Plan
         

        Faculty members develop and submit for supervisor approval an annual performance plan incorporating teaching and service. The supervisor schedules a collaborative meeting with faculty to discuss and agree to the performance plan.

        See Appendix A for the evaluation process timeline. See Appendix B for the plan format.

        The performance plan may be reviewed and revised during the evaluation period. as agreed upon by faculty and supervisor.

      2. Evaluation
         

        Faculty members shall receive annual performance evaluations from trained supervisors. The delegated faculty supervisor has discretion to require more frequent evaluations.

        Faculty prepares and submits to supervisor a written performance evaluation narrative that summarizes teaching and service activities for the year focusing on contributions and outcomes of the performance plan. See Appendix A for timeline and Appendix B for evaluation format.

        Supervisor meets with faculty to review the evaluation narrative and discuss performance.

        Supervisor prepares a written performance evaluation narrative including summary, feedback, and performance rating, with rationale for the rating.

        Supervisor obtains second level concurrence. Responsibilities of the second level supervisor include: reading the performance evaluation, confirming inclusion of all necessary components and accuracy of all relevant information, thus validating the performance rating. This concurrence ensures awareness and performance rating consistency across the evaluation process. The second level supervisor provides his/her signature as concurrence with the performance evaluation narrative and rating. In addition, Exemplary evaluations are reviewed by the ACC President.

        Once the performance evaluation narrative, performance rating, and second level review are completed, supervisor emails faculty, offering three options to review the narrative and rating in order to complete the evaluation process: 1) meet face to face with supervisor, 2) meet via phone call with supervisor, or 3) receive the evaluation and rating via email. Faculty chooses an option, reviews the evaluation narrative and rating, and signs the evaluation document. See Appendix A for timeline.

        Faculty, supervisor, and secondary supervisor signatures are required. Signing the document does not indicate that a faculty member agrees with the rating. Faculty shall have the opportunity to respond to the performance evaluation and performance rating for the record.

  2. Appeal of Ratings
     

    In the event faculty disagrees with the performance plan evaluation or performance rating, faculty is encouraged to discuss the discrepancy with the supervisor or second level supervisor to come to a resolution if possible.

    Faculty may respond to the performance plan evaluation and/or performance rating in writing on the form and/or include an attachment, making it part of the personnel record.

    Faculty may formally request appeal and review of the performance rating using the following steps:
     
    • Faculty shall have 10 working days from receipt of signed performance rating to request review by the President.
    • The President shall make a determination within 10 working days of receipt of request. All parties will be made aware of the final determination.
  3. Evaluation Committee
     
    1. Composition of the Committee
       

      The Faculty Evaluation Committee is a College standing committee with no fewer than six members elected by the faculty to serve two-year, staggered terms. The Committee members are selected by September 15th of each year. The Committee elects its own chairperson. The Committee will be composed of:

      • A faculty member from each School. At least one of which will represent a Career and Technical Education program;
      • One instructional administrative staff member appointed by the Vice President for Instruction; and
      • If the committee members deem it necessary, they will consult with Human Resources.
      • If the committee members deem it necessary, they may request a non-voting member to assist with data compilation, research, etc.
    2. Duties and Responsibilities of the Committee
       

      As charged by the College President, the Vice President for Instruction, or the Faculty Senate President, the Committee periodically reviews AP 3-31 Evaluation of Faculty and makes recommendations for modifications. Committee recommendations are forwarded to the Faculty Senate President and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee for approval. The Faculty Senate President engages the entire Faculty Senate in discussion and approval. Once approved by a majority of the faculty, the Faculty Senate President forwards the recommendations to the College President and Vice President for Instruction. The College President has final approval authority on ACC procedural changes. If charged by the College President or Vice President for Instruction, the approval steps will begin at that level, followed by Faculty Senate.

      In the spirit of shared governance and open communication, the Committee may elicit feedback from Administration during the review and recommendation process.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: The Evaluation Process Timeline

ACTIVITY DEADLINE
Faculty member develops annual performance plan. Prior to meeting with supervisor.
Faculty member agrees on annual performance plan with supervisor. No later than six weeks after first faculty fall semester contract date.
Provisional faculty member meets with Supervisor for midyear review of Performance Plan.
(Optional for non-provisional faculty)
No later than three weeks after first faculty spring semester contract date.
Faculty member writes performance evaluation narrative. Performance narratives are due two working days prior to performance evaluation meeting with supervisor. Meeting with supervisor is to take place between the day after spring break and the last day in April.
Faculty member and Supervisor complete evaluation. No later than the final faculty spring semester contract date.

 

Appendix B - Performance Plan and Evaluation Form

SAMPLE ONLY - Fillable form is located on myACC on both the Employee and Faculty tabs.

Arapahoe Community College
PERFORMANCE PLAN AND EVALUATION FORM

References: SP 3-31; AP 3-31
Effective: Fall 2014

Faculty Name:
Academic Year:

Process:

The processes for the Performance Plan and Performance Plan Evaluation are summarized below.

Refer to SP3-31 and AP3-31 for details.

Faculty will be evaluated according to their documented responsibilities, job descriptions, and the ability to meet program, college and System Board goals related to their area of responsibility. (SP3-31)

  • Faculty and supervisor will meet no later than six weeks after first faculty fall semester contract date to develop a Performance Plan defined as a documented agreement between faculty and supervisor on projected activities or improvements for the evaluation period.
     
  • Faculty will prepare a draft Performance Plan and send to supervisor at least 2 days prior to meeting.
  • The Performance Plan may be reviewed and revised during the evaluation period as agreed upon by faculty and supervisor. Provisional faculty are required to meet with supervisor no later than three weeks after faculty’s first spring semester contract date for a midyear review.
  • The faculty and supervisor will meet between the day after spring break and the last day in April to discuss the Performance Plan Evaluation.
  • Faculty submit the Performance Plan Evaluation, documenting the results of the Performance Plan, to the supervisor at least 2 days prior to the scheduled evaluation meeting.
  • Faculty and supervisor will complete the Performance Plan Evaluation no later than the final spring semester faculty contract date.

The Performance Plan will:

  • Be based on documented responsibilities and job descriptions of faculty (SP3-31, AP3-31);
  • Align to System Board goals, college strategic directions, instructional goals, and/or program objectives;
  • Include areas of focus that are measurable and able to be evaluated; and
  • Encompass the timeline of the academic year.

The Performance Plan will reflect the two categories of Teaching and Service. The plan is individual to the faculty but generally 70% Teaching and 30% Service unless otherwise negotiated with the supervisor. Percentages can be modified as appropriate but must be specified on the plan.

Both faculty and supervisor will provide narrative evaluation of the plan.

Teaching Performance Plan

Narrative Teaching Performance Plan

  • Explain overall plan for the evaluation period; and
  • This narrative should align with faculty position descriptions, System Board goals, college strategic directions, instructional goals, and/or program objectives.

 Details on Area(s) of Focus

  • Provide details about area(s) of focus for the teaching performance plan;
  • Identify how the area(s) of focus align to the teaching performance plan; and
  • Consider the following questions when writing this section of the performance plan:
     
    • Why this area(s) of focus?
    • What priority is placed on the area(s) of focus?
    • How does the area(s) of focus align with faculty position descriptions, System Board goals, college strategic directions, instructional goals, or program objectives?
    • What are the anticipated outcomes?
    • What activities will be implemented in this area(s) of focus?

Teaching Performance Self Evaluation (To be completed at year-end)

Narrative Teaching Performance Self-Evaluation

  • Provide overall self-evaluation for the period; and
  • This narrative should align to Teaching Performance Plan.

Evaluation Details on Area(s) of Focus

  • Provide self-evaluation about area(s) of focus within the teaching performance plan; and
  • Consider the following questions when crafting this section of the self-evaluation:
     
    • How did the area(s) of focus align to System Board goals, college strategic directions, instructional goals, or program objectives?
    • What were the outcomes?
    • What activities were completed?

Service Performance Plan

Narrative Service Performance Plan

  • Explain overall plan for the evaluation period; and
  • This narrative should align with faculty position descriptions System Board goals, college strategic directions, instructional goals, or program objectives.

Details on Area(s) of Focus

  • Provide details about area(s) of focus for the service performance plan;
  • Identify how the area(s) of focus align to the service performance plan; and
  • Consider the following questions when writing this section of the performance plan:
     
    • Why this area(s) of focus?
    • What priority is placed on the area(s) of focus?
    • How does the area(s) of focus align with faculty position descriptions System Board goals, college strategic directions, instructional goals, or program objectives?
    • What are the anticipated outcomes?
    • What activities will be implemented in this area(s) of focus?

Service Performance Self Evaluation
(To be completed at year-end)

Narrative Service Performance Self-Evaluation

  • Provide overall self-evaluation for the period; and
  • This narrative should align to Service Performance Plan.

Evaluation Details on Area(s) of Focus

  • Provide self-evaluation about area(s) of focus within the service performance plan; and
  • Consider the following questions when crafting this section of the self-evaluation:
     
    • How did the area(s) of focus align to System Board goals, college strategic directions, instructional goals, or program objectives?
    • What were the outcomes?
    • What activities did you complete?
    • What benefit was provided to professional development, the students, or the program/college?

Teaching and Service Performance Plan Percentages
(5% is the minimum amount that must be allocated to either category)

Teaching:

Service:

Justification required only if differs from 70% Teaching and 30%, Service (to be completed by the supervisor):

Mid-Year Adjustments

Description of mid-year changes in Teaching and/or Service

  • Provide narrative description of mid-year changes
  • Provide any other information or context needed for changes (e.g. per discussion with Dean; based on course load change)
  • Note if the Teaching and Service performance plan percentages have changed

Teaching Adjustments

Service Adjustments

Performance Evaluation
Supervisor’s Performance Rating Narrative and Justification:

  • Provide evaluation of performance based on the plan and areas of focus for the evaluation period.
  • This narrative should:
     
    • Align to both Performance Plan aspects;
    • Justify the overall Performance Rating (Needs Improvement, Commendable, Exemplary);
    • Identify areas pf competencies and achievement; and/or
    • Identify areas for improvement.

Performance Rating:

Exemplary
Commendable
Needs Improvement

Performance Planning

I concur with the Performance Plan as written:

Faculty Signature and Date

Supervisor Signature and Date

Mid-Year Changes (if necessary)

I concur with the mid-year changes as written:

Faculty Signature and Date

Supervisor Signature and Date

Performance Evaluation

The president, second level supervisor and supervisor signatures indicate concurrence. Signing the report does not indicate that faculty agrees with the rating. (See AP3-31, Section II Appeal of Ratings.)  Faculty may attach a statement to this form indicating agreement or disagreement with the evaluation.


President Signature and Date
*Required for Exemplary Performance Rating

Second Level Supervisor Signature and Date

Supervisor Signature and Date

I have received and read the Performance Plan Evaluation and the Performance Rating.

Faculty Signature and Date

Faculty Post-Evaluation Comments:

  • Comments are optional and can be included after the evaluation is completed.
  • Attach any additional comments to this sheet.

A copy of this evaluation will be placed in the personnel file of the faculty member.

Appendix C - Classroom Observation Form

SAMPLE ONLY - Fillable forms are located on myACC on both the Employee and Faculty tabs.

Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Time:
Observer:

These are some of the factors that affect your effectiveness in the classroom. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to evaluating your work, there are certain standards that apply to all: context, content and presentation, a focus on learners, and professional behavior.

Context: The following criteria will be ranked as "Met," "Improvement Needed," "Not Known":

  • Information may be collected prior to class observation; content covering that day, lecture materials for the day, class size (mandatory or optional attendance) and classroom culture. Instructor prepares students for that day’s lesson and assignments, parallels the information received.

    Comments:
     
  • Instructor effectively communicates course content, appropriateness/effectiveness of teaching and learning materials for that day. (note any use of multi-media)

    Comments:

    Appropriate pedagogy, varying technique (for example; facilitating group activities, promoting interaction,
    encouraging and responding to student participation, engaging learners, praising student accomplishments,
    questioning effectively), atmosphere of mutual respect, enthusiasm.

    Comments:
     
  • Timeliness, professional appearance, and appropriate language.

    Comments:
     
  • Other Considerations: (Instructors strengths and other areas for consideration)

Observer's Signature and Date:

I have reviewed this evaluation with the instructor.

Instructor's Signature and Date:
(Instructor's signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with evaluation.)

Online Observation Form

Course:
Instructor:

Context: The following criteria will be ranked as "Met," "Improvement Needed," "Not Known":

Organization

  1. Syllabus is linked to the Course Home page
  2. Course Schedule is updated / due dates are for current semester
  3. How to get started in the Course is clear (getting started link, scavenger hunt, syllabus quiz, introduction podcast.) State in comments
  4. All learning objectives are stated clearly
  5. Grading policy is clearly stated
  6. Minimum technology requirements are clearly stated, instructions for use provided. (Other technology that is used besides ACC's course engine)

Comments:

Teacher-Student Interaction

  1. Timeline for instructor feedback is clearly stated. The course design facilitates readability.
  2. Instructor contact information clearly present and instructor presence established (photo, into podcast, bio). State which is used.
  3. Learning activities involve student-student interaction with instructor feedback and monitring
  4. The requirements for learner interaction are clearly stated
  5. Provides opportunity for introductions
  6. Comments to students are constructive and timely (enhanced learning, group interactions, personal development, etc.)
  7. Instructor is providing feedback / grades as stated in their timeline, which is reasonable

Comments:

User Experience

  1. Clear instructions or links are provided to help students use the tools in the Course Management System (D2L)
  2. Organization of Course is easily followed
  3. Course navigation facilitates ease of use. (Learner can find the activities in the course and determine what needs to be done)
  4. The course design facilitates readability (color, font size)

Comments:

Accessibility

  1. Format of course documents and course text are accessible for different learning needs
  2. Information is delivered using UDL principles. (This includes multiple use of representation, communication, assessment and engagement).

Comments:

Content

  1. The content teaches the learner the objective of the module / unit
  2. Student can track their progress (checklist, grades, progress toolbar)
  3. Employs multimedia technology
  4. If applicable, relates concepts to students' experience and/or uses real world or relevant examples
  5. Selects varied learning activities and materials (with different types of measurements)

Comments:

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (attach more pages if necessary):

Instructor's comments (attach more pages if necessary):

Observer's Signature/Date

Instructor's Signature/Date