New Annual Faculty Assessment... after the Beta

As a Chair of a Department, where you should have ended up and a reflection on the process.

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. 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.