Transcript New Annual Faculty Assessment - Fayetteville State University

New Annual Faculty Assessment
. . . after the 2009-2010 Beta
As a Chair of a Department, where you should
have ended up and a reflection on the process.
http://www.uncfsu.edu/evaltaskforce/PhaseVI/Phase_VI.htm
Reviewing the Feedback





Online: A short feedback form has been sent to all
faculty and chairs
A meeting with the Chairs of Departments for
feedback
A meeting with faculty being scheduled for
feedback
All suggestions will be presented to the Task Force
for a Comprehensive Annual Faculty Assessment
Revised Suggestions will be integrated into the
document; then presented to the Academic Affairs
Committee of the Senate, then the Faculty Senate
Feedback Up to Date:

Chair: “There is too much paper, too many matrixes.”
-See revised Matrix that does not separate self, peer, and Chair

Chair: “There needs to be one self evaluation form in the
department that relates to the peer and Chair form.”
- University Peer Evaluation form possibly used for all self
evaluations.

Chair: “Beyond the one page university-wide document for self,
does the faculty even need to fill out a self assessment? Since
this is peer-centered, why not let the peer evaluation begin the
assessment?”
Faculty Feedback:



-
-
“I was confused about the process.”
“I wasn’t sure which forms to use.”
“It took a long time.”
Solutions:
Revise/streamline the instrument using
feedback
Have monthly workshops in the Learning
Center for Faculty/Chairs this academic year
Faculty Feedback

How will the new assessment
instrument work with the existing RPT
policy and award system.
http://www.uncfsu.edu/evaltaskforce/Pha
seVI/Phase_VI.htm
Faculty Feedback

“I wasn’t sure from the heading what
evidence to include in my portfolio to
meet expectations.”
Solution: All departments revise
their “Annual Report Guidelines” to
answer the above by listing examples.
Faculty Feedback

If I am using an the electronic portfolio,
how am I to document some of the
categories, like teaching?”
Solution: To be resolved
Information needed for SACS

Before you leave the meeting, as the Chair,
please let Dr. Thomas know if your
department participated.

Dr. Marion Gillis-Olion needs the following:
“The SACS standard to which we are trying to provide
evidence for is: The institution regularly evaluates the
effectiveness of each faculty member in accord with published
criteria, regardless of contractual or tenured status.”
SACS Office needs:

A sample of evaluations done last year. Per my discussion
with the chair of the SACS Faculty Credentials Committee, the
sample should be composed of submissions from each
department. The departments should submit one evaluation
for an assistant professor, associate professor, full professor,
and adjunct faculty member. The sample should be mixed
with tenured and tenure-track faculty. The names of the
faculty members should be covered/blackened/whited out, but
there should be a note indicating the rank and tenure status of
the person. The department should be indicated as well.

The narrative to accompany the sample will describe the Beta
and the former practices. We will present the information as
one of our efforts at continuous improvement at FSU.