|
Big Sandy Community and Technical College (BSCTC) regularly evaluates the effectiveness of each faculty member. The published
performance review process is described in Section 2.5 KCTCS Performance Review of the
KCTCS Administrative Polices and Procedures manual
[1].
The evaluation process is the same for contractual or tenured full-time faculty. As noted in this document, "The purpose
of the annual performance review is to set forth job expectations and corresponding goals, to measure individual performance
related to goals, to achieve individual employee improvement through constructive feedback, and to achieve organizational
improvement."
The annual performance review process includes multiple steps, each of which is fully described in the document,
KCTCS Strategic Planning and Its Relationship to Performance Planning and Evaluation (PPE):
A Handbook for KCTCS Employees [2].
The process begins with the planning stage, thus enabling faculty and supervisors to establish goals in the five areas
identified on the Performance Planning and Evaluation
(PPE) Form [3].
Those areas include position responsibilities, internal service, external service, professional development, and leadership.
Associate Deans and the Provost review the proposed goals of the faculty to ensure alignment and support of the BSCTC
strategic goals. The process includes an optional mid-year review conducted at the discretion of the Associate Dean, Provost,
and/or the BSCTC President. The evaluation process concludes with a self-evaluation of performance in each of the five areas.
The evaluation process continues with relevant input from students, Associate Deans, the Provost, and the BSCTC President.
Performance review ratings are awarded based on outcome information submitted by the faculty member at the conclusion of the
evaluation period [4].
The evaluation process results in a comprehensive review of performance and a plan of action for any needed improvements.
A sample faculty member's PPE [5]
with identifying information removed is included in the supporting documentation. The table below includes a summary of
performance review ratings of faculty at BSCTC over the past two years. As noted in the table, all BSCTC full-time faculty
completed the PPE process.
|
Academic Year
|
Performance Review Rating
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
EE
|
ME
|
M
|
NI
|
F
|
# Full-Time
Faculty
|
# Completing PPE Process
|
|
2005-2006
|
27
|
63
|
21
|
1
|
0
|
112
|
112
|
|
2004-2005
|
44
|
46
|
29
|
0
|
0
|
119
|
119
|
|
|
|
(EE: Consistently exceeded expectations of job requirements; ME: met and exceeded job requirements; M: Fully met job
requirements; NI: Some improvement needed to meet job requirements; and F: Did not meet job requirements)
|
Documentation of yearly full-time faculty evaluations for 2005-2005 and 2006-2006 is provided by the
College President [6].
Current evaluations still pending.
The College employs a variety of instruments to assess faculty performance. Student evaluations are completed for each course
taught each semester using the
Student Evaluation of Instruction [7]
survey instrument. The same survey instrument is used for both full- and part-time faculty. In order to improve the student
evaluation of instruction procedure and make the process more accessible to all students, BSCTC will begin a new electronic
evaluation process in Spring 2007. During this transition, some faculty opted to use the traditional evaluation process
(paper and pencil) during the Fall 2006 semester.
The Associate Deans share the results of Student Evaluation of Instruction surveys with both full-and part-time faculty.
Even though part-time faculty members do not receive an annual performance review rating, the Associate Deans review
evaluation results with them. Should the outcomes of the part-time faculty evaluations warrant, the Associate Dean and the
part-time faculty member will develop a plan of action for any needed improvements. At this time, no situations have
warranted a plan for improvement.
BSCTC uses the Instructional Improvement Report Instrument to identify teaching strengths and weaknesses as
indicated by their student evaluation of
instruction [8].
|
Section Home
