Faculty Performance Review and Development System Guidebook

(1)

Qatar University / College of Arts & Sciences

1 Qatar University

Office of Evaluation

Faculty Performance Review and Development System Guidebook

Job Number:

Name:

College:

Department/Program:

(2013/2014)

Revised Version for CAS

This Faculty Performance Review Guidebook is based upon the policies and procedures located in the

QU Faculty Handbook Spring 2010 version.

The purpose of faculty evaluation is centered upon the

improvement of instruction, for decisions relating to promotion and salary increases, and alignment

with the mission and goals of the university and its respective colleges and departments.

(2)

2

Introduction:

A Faculty Performance Review and Development System is essential to each academic institution looking forward to the long-term promotion of faculty competence and academic excellence.

Participants:

Performance Review and Development is a joint effort among several participants:

Faculty member:

1. Completes the faculty member records in this handbook.

2. Submits all requested documents, including one or more course portfolios, published research papers etc. 3. Sends these materials to the Department Head no later than 15 May of this academic year.

Head of the Department:

1. Establishes that the faculty has received the necessary materials to complete the Faculty Performance Review and Development System, and that their Review and Development process has commenced.

2. Presents criteria against which faculty performance will be measured in the respective department. 3. Verifies the documents presented by the faculty member.

4. Meets individually with each faculty to present feedback on strengths and prospective improvements. 5. Agrees on a work plan for the subsequent year.

College Dean:

1. Supports and monitor the execution of the system.

2. Verifies and accredits the results submitted by the respective departments. 3. Considers revaluation applications submitted by each faculty.

4. Prepares final college faculty evaluation report. 5. Sends final report/s to the Office of Evaluation.

The Office of Evaluation:

1. General supervision of the application of the Faculty Performance Review and Development System.

2. Cooperation with the various departments/colleges at the university to implement the Review and Development System. 3. Contribution in overcoming problems arising at the time of implementation of the Review and Development System.

4. Preparation of the final Faculty Review and Development Report, and submission to university administration.

Prospective Weight Distribution:

Faculty academic responsibilities are weighted as follows:

Domain

Weight

Teaching performance

50% - 60%

Scholarly endeavor

20% - 40%

University and community service

10% - 30%

Total

100%

Heads of Departments, in collaboration with each faculty member, should agree on the different weights for scholarly endeavor and university and community service at the beginning of each academic year, provided that total “grade” should be equal to 100%.

Executive Measures/ Mechanisms:

1. Office of Evaluation distributes the Guidebook to the Faculty during September or October.

2. Every Faculty member should fill out corresponding evaluation records (P. 6; P. 8) after thoroughly reading the guidebook.

3. Faculty and the Head of the Department may agree on which “course portfolio(s)” to submit for evaluation. Based on needs associated with university or program accreditation, the Department Head may determine more than one course portfolios should be submitted.

4. Faculty should send the completed guidebook, along with relevant documents, to the Head of the Department before May 16 each year. 5. The Head of the Department should complete evaluation records until end of May.

6. The Head of the Department prepares an overall faculty performance assessment report. This may be completed with the input of a selected department.

7. A faculty member is provided with his/her appraisal report and s/he should sign the document. Signing the report does not necessarily indicate agreement, and is not a requirement for filing an appeal.

8. After receiving the report a faculty member has the right to appeal to the Dean of the college within three days of being provided with their appraisal. (Appendix 1

9. The Head of the Department prepares final report reports to be officially endorsed by the Dean.

10. In coordination with the respective Head of the Department, the Dean defines a date for meeting with that faculty whose performance was less than expected or unsatisfactory, and fills out the professional development plan form (appendix 3).

11. Administration of the college reports to the Office of Evaluation.

General Principles:

1. Each college is entitled to modify the Review and Development criteria and scales providing that Faculty member are made aware of such changes at the beginning of the academic year.

2. The Head of the Department may seek help from whoever he/she finds necessary to assess any activities or domains included in the evaluation process.

3. The Head of the Department may seek advice from any faculty to report on faculty classroom performance (as per demand of the faculty member, students’ evaluation, new faculty, or whatever), and should check with the Office of Evaluation about the rules and regulations necessary to this procedure.

4. Period of application of the faculty performance Review and Development system extends from last evaluation to the mid of May, except Scholarly endeavor where the application period is two years (15/5/2012 until 15/5/2014).

5. Faculty may add information they find applicable to this guidebook.

6. The Teaching Performance Domain shall include but not be limited to the following areas: course syllabi assessment, students’ opinions, and; a final grade should be specified for each activity. Teaching performance evaluation may also be conducted against student and/or program learning outcomes.

7. After completion of the system, the concerned Head of the Department is required to meet with every faculty member in person to provide necessary feedback on strengths and weaknesses of the faculty performance, so as to launch a better future plan.

(3)

3 Faculty Performance Rating Scale

The following scale is used to objectively evaluate faculty performance.

The scale is characterized by:

-

A qualitative side expressing the level of performance and a quantitative side

expressing assessed standards for each domain;

-

Five-point performance rating scales.

Dimensions of the scale:

Grade

Quantitative/qualitative

General performance

Specific performance/in

different domains

4.7 - 5.0

5 Exceptional

4.6 - 3.8

4 Exceed expectation

3.7 - 2.8

3 Meet expectation

2.7 - 1.8

2 Below expectation

1.7 - 1.0

1 unsatisfactory

Overall effectiveness rating will be the result of multiplication of the percentage obtained with the

grade.

Example:

Domain

Percentage

Grade

Teaching performance

60%

3 Scholarly endeavor

25%

4 University and community service

15%

3 Total

100%

3.25 Grade

: □ Exceptional □ Exceed expectation ◙ Meet expectation □ Below expectation □

unsatisfactory

Steps to estimate overall rating:

- (1): Percentage is multiplied by grade:

• Teaching performance = 3 X 60% = 1.8

• Academic effort = 4 X 25% = 1.0

• University and community service = 3 X 15% = 0.45

- (2) Overall score total = 1.8 + 1.0 + 0.45 = 3.25

- (3) Overall rating = expected

(4)

4 General criterion against which Faculty Performance is to be measured

(These criteria are not all inclusive but represent common standards and/or conditions)

Activity

Criterion

Teaching process/course

Content of the course(s) is/are comprehensive and valid

Presented course material is new

How far material presented covers the course

Variety and compatibility of the activities with the objectives and outcomes of the course

Innovations (innovative teaching methods-innovative teaching activities)

Course content & instructional strategies satisfy accreditation standards/criteria

Academic advising

Present during the period/s specified for academic advising, early registration and add and drop

Solves problems facing students at the time of registration/add and drop

Presents samples of students’ advising files

Resolves all problems facing students

Scholarly Endeavor

Nature of participation (main participant/associate participant)

Agency/body of publication (periodical/conference/regional periodical/regional conference etc.

University and

community service

Attends various committee meetings

Actively participates in the activities of committees

Presented a seminar, lecture, workshop or training sessions

Other services for university or society

Professional relations

See attached rating scale

Course portfolio Contents

1. course description

-Course data

-Instructor data

-Course description

-Course objectives

-Educational outcomes

-Distribution of contents

-Methods of teaching

-Teaching aids

-Methods of students’ evaluation

-Objectives and tasks

-Instructions for

students

-References/sources

2. Course teaching philosophy

3. samples of teacher work

-Innovations introduced into the course

-Variety of assessment methods

-Variety of presentation methods

-Innovations introduced to course references and sources

4. Samples of students’ work

5. Reflection page

-Updating contents

-Recommendations about

advantages/disadvantages

-Development of evaluation

methods

-Variety of course presentation methods

(5)

5 Faculty Domain-Based Performance Rating

Domain Exceptional (5) Exceed expectation (4) Meet expectation (3) Below expectation (2) Unsatisfactory (1) Teaching

Performance

Teaching activity/Course portfolio

All components are present in the course portfolio; achieves, at least, six of the following: - Handles and presents the course material in a non-conventional style as is reflected in the course portfolio

- Uses modern and varying teaching resources – recent textbook, DVD, online sources, Blackboard

- Uses teaching practices and utilizes them in alignment to learning outcomes

- Diversifies student assessment methods

- Devises comprehensive exam questions that are aligned with the Student Learning Outcomes - Students' final grades conform to accepted criteria, if number of students is reasonable - Presents constructive

suggestions to develop the course and solve existing problems in his/her reflection page AND

-Receives Teaching Excellence Award from the college/university OR

Reaches the final stage in the nominations for the Teaching Excellence Award

All components are present in the course portfolio; achieves, at least, five of the following:

-Handles and presents the course material in a non-conventional style as is reflected in the course portfolio

-Uses modern and varying teaching resources – recent textbook, DVD, online sources, Blackboard -Uses teaching practices and utilizes them in alignment to learning outcomes

-Diversifies student assessment methods -Devises comprehensive exam questions that are aligned with the Student Learning Outcomes -Students' final grades conform to accepted criteria, if number of students is reasonable

- Presents constructive suggestions to develop the course and solve existing problems in his/her reflection page

All components are present in the course portfolio; achieves, at least, three of the following:

-Teaching performance within acceptable standards of university teaching

- Utilizes available teaching practices in presenting the course, e.g. use of technology, application of update teaching methods (problem-solving teaching, guided discovering, exchange of questions and answer) as is reflected in the course portfolio - Uses the methods of interactive teaching and critical thinking - Diversifies student assessment methods - Devises comprehensive exam questions that are aligned with the Student Learning Outcomes Follows up students' attendance actively and constructively

Teaching performance is below accepted standards of university teaching as reflected in the course portfolio. At least three of the following apply: - Does not utilize the advanced facilities and practices in teaching which are available at the University - Course portfolio is incomplete

- Does not Diversify student assessment methods - Exam questions are not comprehensive - Problems arise out of his/her not following up students' attendance

-Course content is clearly inadequate, as reflected in the course portfolio

OR

-Doesn't submit a course portfolio OR

-Doesn't keep his/her office hours or his classes

OR

-Does not follow up students’ attendance

-Students' survey 15%

-Attains “Excellent” rating in student survey (90-100 )

-Attains “Above

expectation” rating in student survey (80-89)

-Attains “Average” rating in student survey (70-79)

-Attains “Below Average” rating in student survey (60-69)

-Attains

“Unsatisfactory” rating in student survey (60 > )

(6)

6

Scholarly Endeavor* Exceptional (5) -Receives an excellence or honorary award in his/her field of research from the university or other professional

organization/body; OR

-Publishes a refereed research in his/her field in an internationally leading/high impact journal as the main author;

OR

-Publishes as a main author a refereed book in his/her field by an internationally leading/high impact publishing house; OR

-Publishes as a main author a refereed research or study in his/her field in a reference book refereed by an internationally leading/high impact publishing house;

OR

-Acts as a chief editor of an international refereed journal; OR

-Awarded a NPRP grant as a Lead-PI . Exceed expectation (4) - Publishes a refereed research in an international journal as a co-author; OR -Authors or Co-authors a refereed book in his/her field;

OR

-Translates a reference book in his/her own field; OR

-Obtains a grant for an externally funded refereed research as a PI or Co-PI. OR

-Publishes a refereed research in his/her field in an international journal as the main researcher;

OR

-Publishes as a main author a refereed book in his/her field by an international publishing house;

OR

-Publishes as a main author a refereed research or study in his/her field in a reference book refereed by an international publishing house

OR

-Awarded a NPRP grant as a Co-Lead-PI where the Lead-PI is based outside Qatar

Meet expectation (3) -Publishes a refereed research in an academic journal; OR -Participates in the translation of a book in his/her field; OR -Participates in an on-going refereed and financed research project (graduation projects), and presents a paper in an academic conference; OR

-Publishes a refereed paper in the proceedings of an international conference.

Below expectation (2)

- Publishes un-refereed research in his/her field; OR

Attends an academic conference in his/her field.

Unsatisfactory (1)

No of evidence of the mentioned criteria.

*

(7)

7

University and Community

Service

Exceptional (5)

- Receives an award from a well-known organization/body in the field of community service; OR

a-Attains an outstanding evaluation in at least four committees two of which should be departmental committees based on demonstrated evidence for his/her above expected contributions, which should be included in the portfolio and evaluated as such by the department Head;

AND

b-Initiates active partnership with community organizations in field of specialization with outstanding benefits for both, his college and the community (e.g. succeeded in raising funds for departmental activities, or collaborative organized conference).

Exceed expectation (4) -He/she is a member in at least three committees and attains an 'Exceed expectation' evaluation for work in at least two of them. AND

-Follows up his advisees continually and helps in solving their problems*

In addition to at least two of the following activities: -Actively participates in developing his/her field of specialization (program development, revising course descriptions, active participation in launching a new program);

-Plays a leading role in the operations of the department;

-Conducts a workshop or a training course in his/her field;

-Actively participates in establishing student clubs or professional societies; -Regularly writes articles and essays in international magazines and newspapers; -Acts as a member of the editorial board in an internationally leading/high

Meet expectation (3) - He/she is a member in at least three committees and attains a ‘Meet

Expectation' evaluation for work in at least two of them.

AND

-Attends departmental seminars and college activities;

AND

-Uses the electronic students advising systems made available by the University;

AND

-Follows up his advisees continually and helps in solving their problems* In addition to at least two of the following activities: -Carries out duties and works assigned to him/her with high efficiency; -Presents a paper in the department or college seminar series;

-Plays an active role in the organization of a scientific conference;

-Being an invited speaker at a scientific conference; -Regularly writes articles and essays in local magazines and newspapers;

Below expectation (2)

-Attains a 'below expectation' rating for his/her work in at least two committees

In addition to one of the following

-Absence from most department and college activities

-His/her students face problems in academic advising resulting from his/her negligence of advising responsibilities

Unsatisfactory (1)**

-Hasn't satisfactorily carried out any of the duties assigned; OR

-Has not participated in any committee work; OR

-Has not attended department and college activities;

OR

-Has not provided any academic advising to students.

(8)

8

impact international refereed journal;

-Acts as a referee for more than one article for an internationally leading/high impact publication

-Acts as a referee in academic promotions; OR

-Acts as a member of the editorial board of an international refereed journal.

-*Those who are not required to do advising will be evaluated according to other tasks assigned by the department Head. **Meeting one of the conditions of unsatisfactory overrides meeting the conditions of the other higher levels.

(9)

9 Professional Relations Rating

Descriptor

Unacceptable

Acceptable

Working with others

May project an attitude of being better

than other colleagues. Treats staff

and/or clinical faculty members as

inferior members of the department.

Trends to be rude or stand-offish

toward others, causing people to avoid

interacting with him/her. Makes

inappropriate or negative comments to

others after taking a stance on an issue.

Is unwilling to accept compromise,

refuses to contribute for the good of

the department, university or

organization.

Treats others with respect, including

staff and clinical faculty. Is willing to

compromise on issues that impact the

department, college, or organization.

Respects the ideas of others and

behaves in a cordial manner. Treats

others without prejudice. Completes all

tasks assigned to him/her in resemble

& expected time frame.

Promoting a professional work

environment

Does nonrelated activities during

meetings (e.g., grades papers, reads the

newspaper, talks on the phone, sleeps)

and rarely contributes.

Is generally upbeat and positive while

at work. Is approachable and interacts

with others informally as well as

professionally. Is attentive at meetings

and other professional activities.

Following departmental or university

procedures

Seems to look for ways to avoid

following departmental/university

policy. Feels that rules were created

for others, not for self. When problems

arise, goes above the intermediate

supervisor for a solution.

Follows procedures established by the

department/university. When

confronted with an unfamiliar

situation, asks the Chair for the

answer. Tries to resolve issues before

going to the Chair or Dean for a

solution.

Communication with others

Does not respond to emails or phone

messages. Avoids contact with

individuals rather than facing and

resolving problems.

Responds to emails and phone

messages in a timely manner. Practices

good communication skills (e.g., eye

contact, positive body language, etc.).

Addresses issues as they arise rather

than allowing them to fester.

Personal and professional involvement

Avoids participating in new or

additional activities/tasks.

Participates willingly in new or

additional activities/tasks. Contributes

to these responsibilities in a positive

manner. Will accept leadership

positions when asked.

(10)

10 Checklists for the academic year (20 ….. / 20 ….)

(To be filled out by the faculty member)

1. Teaching Performance

1.a. Course:

Data on the course(s) to be presented for evaluation

Course number

Course title

semester

No. of students

1.b. Academic Advising:

- Are you officially in charge of academic advising?

Yes □ no □

- If (yes, define number of the students): ………. .

2. Scholarly Effort: ………. .%

Preparation and publication of Scholarly works/Participation in Scholarly Projects/Compiling and Translation

between (15/5/2013 – 14/5/2014)

Title of the work

Category*

Place of/body

responsible for

publication

Nature of

Participation

Date of

publication

* Categories:

1. Published;

2. Accepted for publication;

3. Scholarly project;

4. Translation; 5. Composition;

6. Work in process

3. University and community service: Percentage ……….%

3.a. Participation in committees/duties (inside and outside University)

Committee or Task

Body/Institution

Nature of the

participation

Date*

From

to

(11)

11 3. b. Participation in conferences, symposiums, training sessions, and workshops

Subject

Date

1. coordinator 2. head of a session 3. Presenter 4. participant

Organizing

institute/body

Place

4. Other activities:

-

(12)

12 Reflection Page

Dear Colleague,

Filling out this form may help the Head of the Department evaluate properly your performance. Therefore, please

give your judgments about your activities in the following domains:

*

Teaching performance:

-

* Scholarly endeavor:

-

* University and community service:

-

- In the light of the data you provided above, please lay down the academic work plan for next year.

Objective

Activity

Name of the instructor: signature: Date:

(13)

13 Percentage of General Performance

(To be filled out by the Head of the Department)

Percentage of General Faculty Performance

Serial Domain

Activity

Percentage

Grade

1 Teaching performance

Teaching process/ course

Grade: -- --- 50% - 60% Students’ opinion Grade: -- ---

2 Scholarly endeavor

10% - 40%

3 University and community service

University and community

service

Grade:

---

10% - 30%

Academic advising

Grade: --_---

Total

100%

* Grade

: Exceptional: 5 Above expected: 4 Expected: 3 Less than Expected: 2 Unsatisfactory: 1

Justification of the result:

How do you describe the faculty member’s Professional Relations:

(Give reasons and refer to rating rubric)

Good

□

Unsatisfactory

□

Faculty signature: ---

Signature of the Head of the Department:

---Dean’s Signature: --- Date: ---

-

Faculty signature in the specified fields in this guidebook does not necessarily imply his acceptance of the result, but rather to prove that he/she was informed about evaluation results.

(14)

14 Appendix (1)

Faculty Revaluation Request Form

College:

Department

Faculty Name:

Job Number:

*

Reasons why the result should be revaluated:

-

Signature:

Date:

* How to submit the application form:

1. The form should be filled out by faculty member and sent to his/her respective Dean’s office; copies of the form may

be sent to other pertinent offices (e.g. the department Head, Associate Dean).

2. The concerned Dean should discuss the evaluation results with faculty member in the presence of the Head of the

Department.

(15)

15 Appendix (2)

Revaluation Results Form

*

College:

Department

Faculty Name:

Job Number:

Date:

Venue:

Revaluation Results

*

Justification of the result:

-

Faculty member:

Head of Department:

Dean:

Date:

* This form used by dean of the faculty and keep with the original form; a copy of the form may be sent to faculty

member and another copy to the Head of the Department

.

(16)

16 Appendix (3)

Professional Development Plan Form

In coordination with the Head of the Department, the Dean may assign a date to meet with faculty whose

teaching performance was less than expected or unsatisfactory. The following form may be filled out or used as

a guide in documenting this meeting:

Purpose of the meeting

Why faculty member couldn’t score the required marks: ( If Applicable) - - Performance strengths:

-Domains in his/her performance to be improved:

-Suggestions for improvement (

Professional Development Plan)

Teaching performance: Objectives: - - - Future activities: - - - Scientific endeavor: Objectives: