Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵÍø

6A. Faculty Evaluation Policy

CWI evaluates all full-time faculty members a minimum of once every year using multiple data sources in accordance with the Northwest Commission of Colleges and Universities Accreditation Standards on faculty evaluation. The purpose for evaluating faculty is to improve and enhance instructional excellence, to assist in making sound personnel decisions, and to provide information on the performance of faculty in their major areas of responsibility.

6B. Philosophy

The evaluations can only be fair and useful if the results of the evaluation are discussed with the person being evaluated. Evaluations should not be confused with or considered as a substitute for open, ongoing communication between supervisors and subordinates.

6C. Evaluation Criteria

The criteria used in evaluating faculty performance for both summative and formative assessments are related to job and rank responsibilities and should be understood by all parties before the evaluation process begins. (Please Note: A performance evaluation does not occur if there is a deficiency of performance. A Performance Plan may be developed in this case, as part of the overall performance management.) Faculty are evaluated based on teaching, professionalism, institutional engagement, and professional development. For further details, refer to HR 140 – Employee Corrective Action Policy.

6D. Identification of Deficits

When improvement and professional development needs are identified, the responsibility for improvement and/or change rests with the faculty member. The institution may assist the faculty member by providing formal and informal improvement opportunities to the faculty. An opportunity for faculty comment is provided within each formal evaluation.

6E. Assessment Schedule

Evaluation Type	Part of the Evaluation if applicable	Due Date
FPAR		Feb. 15
Strengths Based Coaching	Faculty submits FPAR to direct supervisor Faculty fills out this portion of evaluation form Supervisor and faculty meet to discuss evaluation form Faculty confirms meeting occurred	Feb. 15 March 1 March 31 March 31
Summative Evaluation	In conjunction with review of FPAR	Fall semester of year due, Every 5 years or when applying for promotion
Dean Evaluation	Goal Setting Evaluation	Fall semester after promotion to Associate Professor and every five years afterward Fall semester of year due, completed concurrently with Summative Evaluation

6F. Evaluations for CWI Full-Time Faculty

Evaluations for full-time CWI faculty will consist of two types – summative assessments and formative assessments. The criteria used in evaluating faculty performance for both summative and formative assessments are related to job and rank responsibilities. Assessment tools and processes should be understood by all parties before the evaluation process begins. Note: In cases where deficiency has been noted, a Coaching and Development Plan may be developed as part of the overall performance management.

The following are the assessments:

• Faculty Activity Reporting Form (FPAR). Housed in Faculty Evaluation Repository Blackboard Shell
• Strengths Based Coaching. Housed in HR
• Summative Evaluation. Housed in Faculty Evaluation Repository Blackboard Shell
• Dean evaluation (only for Associate Professors and Professors). Housed in Faculty Evaluation Repository Blackboard Shell

6G. Faculty Evaluation Access and Storage

Faculty will have access to an official copy of their own evaluations. Faculty and supervisors will turn in, store, and access evaluations (except those housed by HR) within their departmental faculty evaluation site. Each department, program, or school will have a Faculty Evaluation Repository Blackboard Shell. In each, faculty will have access to training materials and only their own evaluations. Faculty will have the ability to turn in their own evaluations, access supervisor feedback on evaluation drafts, view confirmation of completion of an evaluation, and access previous evaluations. Supervisors will have access to all of their faculty member’s submitted work. Supervisors will be able to collect evaluations, give feedback and revision notes as appropriate, and verify completion of evaluations. The associated dean and administrative assistant will be able to access evaluation documents in the department sites in order to perform administrative functions.

6H. Faculty Activity and Reporting (FPAR)

A. Purpose

The FPAR is a formative evaluation and method of documenting faculty work.

B. Schedule

The FPAR is updated and submitted annually to the departmental faculty evaluation site by Feb. 15, or in the fall semester of a promotion cycle Faculty are encouraged to update it regularly in order to accurately capture work. Faculty may start a new FPAR form immediately following promotion or after a summative evaluation.

C. Contents

The FPAR includes a description of teaching, institutional engagement, and professional development goals and achievements with an explanation of the scope and impact of the faculty member’s contributions.

D. Process

The process is described below. A document containing advice, recommendations, and screenshots to assist in filling out the FPAR is available on the Faculty Senate teamsite.

• Step 1: Update and Submit FPAR
  • Faculty update and submit the FPAR to the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell. A blank FPAR form is available in the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell.
• Step 2: Supervisor Review and Contribution
  • Supervisors review the FPAR, note questions and areas for improvement in filling out the document, and add comments as necessary. After the supervisor and faculty member discuss the FPAR and make submit a draft with any revision, the supervisor records the FPAR as complete in the  Faculty Evaluation Repository shell and that copy is considered the official version until it is updated in a future evaluation cycle.
  • Supervisor Leaving Position. If a supervisor is leaving their position, they must ensure a completed copy of each of their faculty member’s FPARs are the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell and were verified as completed within the last academic year. It is the responsibility of the deans to ensure this occurs.
• Step 3. Use the FPAR
  • The FPAR will be used to complete Yearly Strength Based Coaching, Summative Evaluations, and Dean’s Evaluations.
• Step 4. Record Keeping
  • The official FPAR will be housed in the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell for the duration of the faculty member’s tenure.

6I. Strengths Based Coaching

A. Purpose

The purpose of this formative evaluation is to ensure the faculty and their direct supervisors have strong lines of communication about the work of faculty. During Strengths Based Coaching, faculty and supervisors will

• review the work and goals of faculty,
• plan for future work and development,
• plan for the resources needed to complete the faculty work,
• discuss the connection of faculty work to the needs of students, the department, the school, the institution, and the community as appropriate to rank.

This evaluation is documented in writing using the method chosen by Human Resources.

B. Schedule

Strengths Based Coaching will occur yearly. Parts of the process have different due dates:

• Feb. 15: Faculty submits the FPAR to direct supervisor.
• March 1: Faculty fills out their portion of evaluation form.
• March 31: Supervisor and faculty meet to discuss evaluation form.
• March 31: Faculty confirms meeting occurred.

C. Contents

Strengths based coaching will consist of a review of the faculty’s teaching, institutional engagement, and professional development since the last Strengths Based Coaching session.

D. Process

The process explanation is below and also housed in the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell.

• Step 1: Faculty Send Updated FPAR to Supervisor
  • The faculty fully updates all sections of the FPAR and emails it to the supervisor by Feb. 15. Faculty are encouraged to seek their supervisor’s input in completing the FPAR prior to the due date. The Strengths Based Coaching Process beings when your supervisor generates the Page Up form after you submit your updated FPAR to them.
• Step 2: Supervisor Reviews FPAR and Completes Strengths Based Coaching Form
  • The supervisor reviews the FPAR, identifies activities that need to be discussed and/or revised, signs off on activities that do not need to be discussed. Using the FPAR, the supervisor fills out the Strengths Based Coaching Report as required by Human Resources.
• Step 3: Faculty and Supervisor Meet for Strengths Based Coaching Session
  • The supervisor schedules a meeting with the faculty member to discuss the FPAR and the Strengths Based Coaching Report. The meeting will occur by March 31. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the work the faculty member has done in the previous year and the work the faculty member will be doing in the future. The supervisor and faculty member will also discuss any potential revision of the FPAR. If the FPAR is revised, the supervisor will finish signing off activities. The supervisor may revise the Strengths Based Coaching Report based on the meeting. The faculty member will receive the finalized Strengths Based Coaching Report after the meeting.
• Step 4: Faculty Member Confirms Meeting and Receiving Strengths Based Coaching Form.
  • After the meeting with the supervisor occurs, information will be provided to the faculty member regarding how to confirm that they have met with the supervisor and received the finalized Strengths Based Coaching Report. At this point, the faculty member will also have the option of including comments regarding the Strengths Based Coaching Report. Should a supervisor choose to revise the Strengths Based Coaching Report, they will need to contact HR.

6J. Summative Evaluation

A. Purpose

Summative Evaluations are formal evaluations administered by the faculty’s supervisor. The purpose of the Summative Evaluation is to have the faculty member and their supervisor participate in the assessment of the faculty member’s work at rank over an extended period.

B. Schedule

Summative Assessments are conducted annually for faculty on non-renewable contract status, and at least once every five years for faculty on renewable contract. Summative Assessments shall occur immediately prior to any request for consideration of advancement in rank. The Summative Evaluation will occur after a faculty member submits a letter of intention to apply for promotion or after a period of five years since the faculty member’s last Summative Evaluation.

C. Contents

The Summative will consist of a review of the faculty’s teaching, institutional engagement, and professional development since the last Summative Assessment.

The faculty member’s Faculty Planning and Activity Reporting (FPAR) Form that contains all information since the last Summative Evaluation will be reviewed so that supervisors can refer to this information when adding their comments to the Summative.

The Summative Evaluation will include an observation of the faculty member’s instruction a minimum of once during the evaluation period.

D. Process

• Step 1: Faculty Complete the Faculty Narrative
  • The faculty member downloads the Summative Evaluation form from the departmental evaluation site, completes the Faculty Narrative portion of the form, and submits it to the departmental evaluation site, along with the updated FPAR, by an agreed upon date. Advice on filling out the Summative Evaluation is available in the Tips for Filling out the Summative Evaluation document in the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell.
• Step 2: Supervisor Completes Supervisor Narrative
  • The supervisor completes the Supervisor Narrative using the following professional documents from the period since the last summative evaluation: the Summative Evaluation Faculty Narrative, the FPAR, Strength Based Coaching reports, teaching observations, student evaluations, and any other appropriate professional documents.
• Step 3: Evaluation Meeting
  • After the supervisor completes the Supervisor Narrative, the faculty and direct supervisor are required to meet in order to discuss the evaluation and the faculty member’s future work. The evaluation and meetings are to be done with the goal of being both formative and summative in nature. The direct supervisor and faculty member need to sign the evaluation after the meeting. The faculty member and/or the supervisor may amend their own section of the evaluation after the meeting but prior to both parties signing. Signing the evaluation indicates that the evaluation meeting occurred and that the signee’s sections were written by the signee. Disagreement with the other party’s narrative may be reflected in the signee’s narrative section(s).
• Step 4: Record Keeping
  • The supervisor retains the physical signed copy and sends the faculty member a digital copy of the signed copy. The faculty member then uploads the digital signed copy to the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell. The supervisor then confirms the Summative Evaluation is completed in the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell. The signed copy housed in the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell is considered the official version. The Summative Evaluation will be reviewed by the appropriate dean and may be reviewed by higher instructional leadership.

6K. Dean Evaluation

1. Purpose

When an Associate Professor takes on rank responsibilities at the school level, goal setting and communication with the school’s dean is an important step in this new role and as a Full Professor. Deans have an important perspective on the needs of the schools and institution, and their coaching of faculty is integral to the faculty member achieving excellence at advanced rank. The Dean Evaluation and all parts of the process are meant to be formative as well as summative in nature.

2. Schedule

• Goal Setting. Beginning with the promotion class of 2020, after achieving the rank of Associate Professor, faculty consult with their dean to complete the first section of the  Dean Evaluation, which includes a review of the FPAR and the Summative Evaluation created with the faculty’s direct supervisor.
• Evaluation. The second section of the Dean Evaluation is completed when an Associate Professor is preparing for promotion to Full Professor or every five years when the summative evaluation occurs, and for subsequent Summative Evaluations.

3. Contents

The evaluation is focused on the faculty member’s contribution to school initiatives. Contribution would occur through a faculty member’s teaching, institutional engagement, and professional development. Faculty will only be assessed on contributions discussed and documented with the dean during goal setting. Contributions by faculty beyond what was discussed and documented in the goal setting meeting should be included but not assessed in the evaluation. In the evaluation, the faculty member and the dean should refer to the faculty member’s Summative Evaluation, Faculty Planning and Activity Reporting (FPAR) Form, and any other ideas discussed in the goal setting meeting(s).

The faculty member’s Faculty Planning and Activity Reporting (FPAR) Form that contains all information since the last Summative Evaluation will be reviewed so that supervisors can refer to this information when adding their comments to Summative.

4. Process

a. Part One: Goal Setting

Starting in the first year of rank at Associate Professor, the faculty member meets with their dean for a formative conversation about the faculty member’s strengths and interests and how those can contribute to initiatives in their school. Those goals are agreed upon and recorded in Part One of the Dean Evaluation, as well as updated in the FPAR. The faculty member submits the agreed upon goals in Part One of the Dean’s Evaluation to the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell. These goals may be amended with additional meetings over the five-year period, initiated by the faculty member or the dean.

b. Part Two: Evaluation.

Both the faculty member and Dean will consult with the faculty’s department chair to complete this evaluation.

• Step 1: The faculty member completes the Faculty Narrative portion of the evaluation and submits the document to the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell. The faculty member must complete and submit this by the due date of the Summative Evaluation. It is the faculty member’s responsibility to schedule the Evaluation Meeting with the dean.
• Step 2: The dean completes the Dean’s Narrative portion of the evaluation within 2 weeks of receipt of the faculty’s evaluation narrative.
• Step 3: Evaluation Meeting. The faculty and dean are required to meet in order to discuss the evaluation and the faculty member’s future work. The dean and faculty member need to sign the evaluation after the meeting. The faculty member and/or the dean may amend their own section of the evaluation after the meeting but prior to both parties signing. Signing the evaluation indicates that the evaluation meeting occurred and that the signees sections were written by the signee. Disagreement with the other party’s narrative may be reflected in the signees’ narrative section(s).

c. Part Three: Record Keeping.

The dean retains the physical signed copy and sends the faculty member a digital copy of the signed copy. The faculty member then uploads the digital signed copy to the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell. The supervisor then confirms the Dean Evaluation is completed in the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell. The signed copy housed in the Faculty Evaluation Repository shell is considered the official version. The Dean Evaluation will be shared with the faculty’s direct supervisor, may be reviewed by the Provost, and will be included in any future promotion portfolio. The official document will be kept in the office of the dean.

6L. Adjunct Faculty Evaluation

Last Reviewed

September 20, 2024

Refer to INST 030 Adjunct Faculty in the CWI Policies and Procedures Manual.

6M. Peer Observation

1. Peer Observation Purpose

Faculty at CWI are committed to teaching excellence, and faculty peer observation is a valuable method for purposeful engagement in continuous improvement of teaching. The peer observation process is an opportunity for the observed and observer to learn from one another and share ideas, experience, philosophies, strategies, and resources. The process is to be formative and collegial in nature, rather than evaluative.

2. Peer Observation Standards

The peer observation process has standards that all faculty must adhere to. There are, however, some standards that are tailorable by department, which are noted below.

3. Procedure.

The peer observation process consists of a faculty member being observed at least once and doing an observation at least once. The process must meet the standards described below, and the process must follow the procedure that was approved by Faculty Senate, appropriately customized by the department, and provided through the Faculty Evaluation Repository.

4. Frequency.

At minimum, faculty must participate in the peer review process, including doing an observation and being observed, with the following frequency:

• Faculty new to CWI must be observed and do an observation within the first two semesters of their teaching at CWI.
• Ongoing faculty must be observed and do an observation a minimum of once per five years. The five-year period applies regardless of whether a faculty member has taught each semester of that five-year period.

Departments will more narrowly define frequency expectations for themselves. Below are example models for frequency.

• Model where frequency is consistent across the department
  • Once a year
  • Every other year
  • Every three years
• Model where frequency is based on instructor’s time with college
  • Faculty new to CWI [0-2 semesters/0-1 years at CWI] participate in the full observation cycle a minimum of once per year.
  • Ongoing faculty at CWI [3+ semesters/1-3years] participate in the full observation cycle a minimum of once every five years.
  • Established faculty at CWI [5+ semesters/over 2 years] participate in the full observation cycle a minimum of once every five years. Established faculty may be called upon to observe new faculty more frequently.

5. Deliverables

1. Required Deliverables. Two deliverables are required as part of the peer observation process: 1) the Peer Observation Form and 2) the Observer Information. The Peer Observation Form approved by Faculty Senate and provided through the Faculty Evaluation Repository must be used. Departments may choose to add to the forms but may not remove contents/sections. The Observer Information is collected via a quiz in the Faculty Evaluation Repository. This quiz may not be modified by the departments. Departments may require additional deliverables.
2. Delivery. Faculty will deliver a completed Peer Observation form and complete the Observer Information through the Faculty Evaluation Repository through the procedure described in the Faculty Evaluation Repository.
3. Use of Deliverables. Deliverables and any other material generated through peer observation cannot be used in evaluations of any type. They are formative only. The purpose of the collection of the deliverables it to ensure completion of the peer review process, maintenance of the process standards, collection of general data, and maintenance of records for use by the faculty who participated in the observation. Only supervisor observations may be used in the management of faculty.

6. Observations

Observations should be focused on pedagogy rather than solely on course content; as a result, there is a great deal of flexibility regarding who may be observed. Departments may set limitations on or set goals for who should be observed. Below are some of the populations it may benefit faculty to observe.

• Instructors in department
• Instructors in other departments within the school
• Instructors in other schools
• Instructors at other institutions
• Instructors in learning situations in the workforce/outside of traditional academia
• Instructors based on experience (e.g. new faculty need to observe veteran faculty)

7. Arrangement of Observations

Department chairs or their designees will assume responsibility for connecting observers to people to be observed. Faculty may request to assume responsibility for arranging to be observed and/or do an observation.  Departments will provide information on the exact procedure they expect their faculty to use.

8. Length of Observation

The observation should last roughly the same period as 1 credit hour’s time, 50 minutes. This observation work may be completed synchronously, asynchronously, or any combination of the two. This 50 minutes' worth of work may include observation of course materials, lecture, lab, online course, etc.

9. Elements of Course Observed

The observer and observed must agree to the portions of the course that will be observed. Observations should be focused on pedagogy rather than solely on course content.

10. Required Meeting

The observed and observer are required to meet after the observation to discuss the observation. The meeting should be roughly 30 minutes.

11. Burden Limitation

Faculty may be asked to participate in peer observation more frequently than required. Faculty are not required to participate more frequently than the standard set by the department. However, faculty are encouraged to participate as often as they would like and that their schedule reasonably allows

12. Communication of Department Tailored Standards

The decisions made by departments on frequency, who may be observed, and how observations will be arranged must be posted in the Faculty Evaluation Repository Peer Observation section using the Department Standards for Peer Observation form. The notification needs to include the decision, the dates decisions were made, and the date the decision will be reviewed again.