Using Activity Insight to Standardize the Annual Adjunct Faculty Evaluation Process

Vicky Fennell

AI Administrator & Faculty Records Analyst

Kaplan University

October 2014

2

Overview

• Why did we need a new annual process for adjunct faculty evaluation?

• What is the new process and how was it developed?

• What does the ongoing use of the evaluation and follow up look like?

3

Why Did We Need a New Process?• At KU, faculty performance is evaluated based on the

five criteria found in the Faculty Handbook: - Substantive Expertise - Preparation- Presentation - Classroom Management- Cultural/Environmental Contribution

• Even though all faculty are evaluated on the above criteria, the frequency, and format for doing so has differed from school to school

- Emails- SharePoint- Word documents- Some bi-annually, some annually, some never, etc.

4

Building the New ProcessTo meet HLC requirements, the Vice Provost of Kaplan University made the decision to standardize the process for completing annual reviews for adjunct faculty.

Pre-change steps: 1. Create a new annual review form that would be used across ALL schools

within KU- Our Vice Provost worked with several Deans and Chairs to create the form that made sense but was also aligned with the faculty handbook

2. Get buy-in and approval from all Deans and Assistant Deans

3. Review form with HR and the University Provost

4. Build the form in Activity Insight along with any reporting to go along with the process

5. Communicate the new process to all Deans, Chairs, and Faculty and provide training on the new form

5

What Is the New Process?• The Annual Adjunct Evaluation form was built right into

Activity Insight, helping it to increasingly become the one-stop shop for faculty members’ professional information.

6

The New Evaluation Form

7

A Sample Email to Faculty

Dear Barbara,

As you may recall, at Kaplan University we complete a formal, holistic evaluation of each faculty member’s performance each year. I have had the opportunity to review your classes and contributions in the past year, and look forward to sharing that feedback with you. To access the evaluation, go to KU Campus > Quick Links > Activity Insight > Manage Your Activities > Teaching > Annual Adjunct Faculty Evaluation.

I would like to set up a time to give you a call so we can discuss your many strengths as well as areas for further concentration. I also want to hear more about your professional goals and discuss ways in which I can support you in reaching them. I am available during the following time slots next week. Please let me know a couple times that would work for you: Monday 1 – 4 pm ET, Wednesday 5 – 8 pm ET, Friday 9 – 11 am ET.

Best regards, and I look forward to our discussion,

Sally

8

Associated Reports

1. Anniversary Report• Pulls all faculty with a hire date within

the month the Chair pulls the report in order to determine which of their faculty need to be evaluated that month

2. Evaluation Verification Report• Pulls list of faculty and shows the date

their evaluation was entered. If no date is listed, there is no evaluation entered.

Two reports were built to aid this new evaluation process:

9

Ongoing Use, Feedback, and Improvement• New process for adjunct

faculty annual evaluations was rolled out in March of this year

• Going smoothly ever since!• Currently in the process of

surveying Chairs for feedback

• We are also VERY excited about the new workflow function in AI which will make this entire process even better!

10

Appendix A: The Evaluation Form

Annual Adjunct Faculty Evaluation

Adjunct faculty members are evaluated annually on the basis of five core criteria. No single criterion predominates; rather, evaluations should reflect their overall attainment of the aspirations expressed in these criteria. A description and brief examples of each criterion are listed below.

Evaluation Criteria Description

Substantive Expertise Knowledge of subject matter, currency of knowledge, breadth of topical expertise, commitment to professional development, contributions to scholarship.

Preparation Relevancy and efficacy of examples, discussions, and exercises; responsiveness to student inquiry

Presentation Energy, attitude, and enthusiasm; engagement of students

Classroom Management Participation and contribution; time management; completion of the assigned curriculum

Cultural/Environmental Contribution

Support for the University’s mission, including participation in retention efforts and activities related to the achievement of student outcomes; collegial relations; participation in student support

11

Appendix A: The Evaluation Form (Cont.)

Calendar Year

Date of Review

,

Overall Evaluation

Overall Performance Comments

When the evaluation is complete, average the ratings in the 5 areas and round to the closest half point:

12

Appendix A: The Evaluation Form (Cont.)

Clicking on the symbol opens the rubric for the item:

1. Performance is below expectations: Faculty demonstrates one or more of the following: poor or out-of-date subject-matter knowledge, low topical expertise, insufficient professional development (less than mandated), or scholarship contributions as required by role.

2. Performance meets expectations: Faculty demonstrates a good, current subject-matter knowledge, breadth of topical expertise, professional development (meets or exceeds annual requirement), and scholarship contributions as required by role.

Performance exceeds expectations: Faculty demonstrates most of the following: a strong, current subject-matter knowledge, excellent breadth of topical expertise, strong professional development (exceeds annual requirement), and scholarship contributions that may exceed those required by role.

Section 1 Substantive Expertise Overall Substantive Expertise Comments

13

Appendix A: The Evaluation Form (Cont.)

Clicking on the symbol opens the rubric for the item:

1. Performance is below expectations: Faculty demonstrates one or more of the following: failure to provide relevant and effective examples regularly; poor preparation for seminars, discussions and other class activities; frequent lack of responsiveness to student inquiries.

2. Performance meets expectations: Faculty provides relevant and effective examples; demonstrates preparation for seminars, discussions and other class activities; and responds to student inquiries in a timely manner.

3. Performance exceeds expectations: Faculty demonstrates most of the following: provides personally and professionally relevant and highly effective examples; demonstrates a high level of preparation for seminars, discussions and other class activities; and responds to student inquiries quickly.

Preparation Overall Preparation Comments

Section 2

14

Appendix A: The Evaluation Form (Cont.)

Clicking on the symbol opens the rubric for the item:

1. Performance is below expectations: Faculty demonstrates a pattern of negativity or discouragement. Communication tone is often abrupt, cold, or disengaging.

2. Performance meets expectations: Faculty is energetic and enthusiastic and engages students well.

3. Performance exceeds expectations: Faculty is highly energetic and enthusiastic and engages students exceptionally well.

Presentation Overall Presentation Comments

Section 3

15

Appendix A: The Evaluation Form (Cont.)

Clicking on the symbol opens the rubric for the item:

1. Performance is below expectations: Faculty demonstrates one or more of the following: Seminar does not allow opportunities for interaction, is unfocused, and off topic; discussion facilitation is infrequent, irrelevant, or impersonal; grading feedback lacks a positive component, does not set goals for future assignments, lacks effective examples, does not provide explanation of how the grade was derived, or is posted after the deadline.

2. Performance meets expectations: Seminar is interactive, focused, clear and easy to follow; discussion facilitation is frequent, relevant, and personalized; grading feedback has a positive component, goals are set for future assignments, effective examples are provided, the rubric in included with the explanation of the grade's derivation, feedback submitted on-time.

3. Performance exceeds expectations: Faculty demonstrates most of the following: Seminar is highly interactive, very well-focused, clear and easy to follow; discussion facilitation is frequent, highly relevant, personal, and requires students to expand their knowledge and make additional connections; grading feedback has a positive component, goals are set for future assignments, effective examples are provided, explicit reference to the rubric in included with the explanation of the grade's derivation, feedback submitted early.

Classroom Management Overall Classroom Management Comments

Section 4

16

Appendix A: The Evaluation Form (Cont.)

Clicking on the symbol opens the rubric for the item:

1. Performance is below expectations: Faculty demonstrates one or more of the following: Little attempt to create good relationship with students, little student outreach, rarely works with education advisors to support student learning, not responsive to administration and fellow faculty, not present or active in department, school or institutional meetings.

2. Performance meets expectations: Strives to create good relationship with students, provides student outreach, works with education advisors to support student learning, responsive to administration and fellow faculty, and typically present and active in department, school or institutional meetings.

3. Performance exceeds expectations: Strives to create strong and ongoing relationship with students, provides extensive student outreach, seeks opportunities to work with education advisors to support student learning, very responsive to administration and fellow faculty, volunteers for special projects, and regularly present and active in department, school or institutional meetings.

Cultural/Environmental Contribution Overall Cultural/Environmental Contribution Comments

Section 5

17

Appendix A: The Evaluation Form (Cont.)

Please provide any comments you may have regarding your annual performance appraisal

I acknowledge I have received and reviewed this evaluation.

Date Reviewed

,