Faculty Performance

2018 Annual Review of Faculty Performance

Arkansas statute (ACA 6-63-104) and AHECB policy require that each college and university conduct an annual review of faculty performance.  This report includes the following:

Elements of the faculty performance review process

  • The performance evaluation form for full-time faculty include sections for peer evaluation, supervisor evaluation, self-evaluation, and classroom visit evaluation. In the self-evaluation portion of the form called “Quality Improvement”, the individual lists their specific contributions to objectives that are aligned with Northark Strategic Plan.  Faculty performance evaluation also includes formal student assessment at the conclusion of each course.  Faculty receives results of the assessment and appraisal that aid in decisions for improvements to course instruction.

 

  • At the end of the annual formal evaluation process for faculty, the supervisor and faculty member meet to review the evaluation and the evaluation is signed by both parties. The evaluation form includes a space for the faculty member to respond to the chair’s recommendations.

Institutional monitoring of the review process

  • Northark faculty use the current Faculty Evaluation Forms and process to evaluate work performance.” Supervisors are held accountable when evaluations are not completed by a specific date each year.  New employment contracts for the next fiscal year are not written or delivered for signature and approval to the returning non-classified employee until an evaluation with a satisfactory rating has been delivered to the employee and a copy in Human Resources.

 

Use of review findings for promotions, salary increases or job tenure

  • Faculty have a Rank and Promotion process that is separate from the annual performance evaluation process.  Faculty evaluation results are used to determine the amount of merit bonuses in years when merit bonuses are given.  The Faculty Compensation Committee reviews/approves the applications for rank and promotion.  Supervisor and student evaluations are part of what is submitted with the application.

 

The process used to address students’ concerns regarding instructors’ English fluency and your efforts in working with faculty who are found to be deficient

  • When new faculty are hired, they must demonstrate effective communication skills which is also a part of the course evaluations that students complete for existing faculty. We provide additional support through our Center for Teaching and Learning for faculty development in instructional delivery best practices.

 

If applicable, activities conducted by the College of Education in support of public schools in Arkansas

  • North Arkansas College does not have a College of Education nor certify students to teach. Our faculty work with public schools to provide observation sites for freshmen students. While North Arkansas College does not have a COE, we support, work closely and partner with our area public schools.

 

Notable findings gleaned from the process during the year and plans developed as a result of these findings

  • In fiscal year (FY) 2016-2017, a group of faculty made improvements to the faculty evaluation process. Individual faculty members now have a section on their Self-Evaluations called “Quality Improvement” where the faculty member lists contributions to objectives that are aligned with Northark’s Strategic Plan.  This was added to the form at the end of the academic year and approved by Faculty Senate in early FY 2017-2018.  In addition, Faculty Senate revised the 3-point Likert scale that is currently used for Supervisor, Peer, and Self-Evaluations components to the faculty evaluation to a 4-point scale to align with and for state reporting and consistency with other employees of the College.

INSERT CHART

Level of faculty satisfaction with the current evaluation plan

  • Using a Likert scale of 1-5 with 5 being the highest, during Spring 2018 North Arkansas College faculty rated the current evaluation process at 3.9 with a majority response rate. Faculty Senate will use these results for decision making for next academic year.

5 - Extremely satisfied

4 - Satisfied

3 - No opinion

2 - Dissatisfied

1 - Extremely dissatisfied