Faculty Performance

Institutional Report on the Annual Review of Faculty Performance

Academic Year 2016-2017

Arkansas statute (ACA 6-63-104) and AHECB policy require that each college and university conduct an annual review of each faculty member’s performance.  ADHE is required to monitor the evaluation process and report findings to the Coordinating Board and Legislative Council. This form will collect the information required for reporting purposes.

Directions: Summarize the Annual Faculty Performance Review process at your institution. When a description is requested, please provide only a summary on the report form—brief, concise, and to the point.  Should you need to elaborate further on any of these points, attach additional information as an appendix to this form.  An electronic copy of this report is due to ADHE by June 15, 2016.  Answer all of the questions or requests for information. 

Elements of the Faculty Performance Review Process

Summarize the overall faculty performance review process. Supervisor evaluation, Self-Evaluation, and Peer Evaluation.  A classroom observation is included along with data to support course success and completion rate.   

  1. How are faculty peers involved in faculty performance? In Health Professions Divisions two peer evaluations are solicited and completed, one of the Dean’s choice and one of the faculty’s choice.  In the ASBIT division the department chair chooses one peer and the faculty chooses the other.
  2. How are students involved in faculty performance? Through use of classroom evaluations
  3. How are administrators involved in faculty performance? Direct supervisor performs evaluation, including a classroom evaluation. 
  4. How do faculty members self-evaluate their performance? Use of form tailored to match supervisor evaluation.
  5. Describe any other activities used to evaluate faculty performance. Course evaluation means are included in the packet to support instructional delivery performance. Evaluations are also conducted for the rank and promotion process.

Institutional Monitoring of the Faculty Performance Review Process

  1. Does the institution monitor the annual faculty review process? _X__Yes   ___No
  2. If yes, describe the procedures and persons responsible for the monitoring. HR monitors whether evaluations have been completed, and this is related to the Board of Trustees before contracts are re-issued in June.  Faculty Senate does not review the process but have revised the forms. 
  3. If no, describe measures that are being taken to begin annual monitoring.

Use of Review Findings

  1. How are performance results used in decisions related to 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 Compensation Committee reviews/approves the applications for rank and promotion.  Supervisor and student evaluations are part of what is submitted with the application.

English Fluency of Teaching Faculty

  1. How do students and administrators review the English fluency of all teaching faculty—full-time, part-time, and graduate teaching assistants? To date, North Arkansas College has never had complaints in academic areas related to English fluency.  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.
  2. What measures are in place to assist deficient faculty in becoming English proficient? We can provide additional support through our Center for Teaching and Learning.
  3. Summarize English deficiency findings and note action taken by the institution.

College of Education Support for Accredited Public Schools

  1. If applicable, how does the institution’s College of Education and related discipline faculty members work collaboratively with accredited public schools in Arkansas? We don’t have a College of Education, and we don’t certify students to teach.  Our faculty works with public schools to provide observation sites for freshmen students.

Notable Findings and Future Plans

  1. List any notable findings from the annual faculty review process conducted during the year that may have implications for future annual faculty reviews.
  2. Describe any plans or revisions to the annual faculty review process that have been developed as a result of the findings noted above. (Any significant revision to an institution’s annual faculty review plan must be submitted to ADHE separate from this report and received by June 1, 2015 in order to be considered for approval by the AHECB at the July 2015 board meeting.)  Faculty Senate have been requested to revise 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 for state reporting and consistency with other employees of the College.

Level of Faculty Satisfaction with Current Process

  1. On the scale below, indicate the faculty’s overall sense of satisfaction with the annual review process. If the rating is low (1 or 2), briefly describe corrective measures that will be implemented.

                                                     1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

                                                   low                                                  high

We have not surveyed the faculty for their satisfaction of the annual review process, but will do so in the coming academic year.