Foundational to ACC’s faculty evaluation process is the review of faculty work from a 360° perspective. Student course evaluations provide the perspective of the students; review of course materials and the Peer Dialog provide input from peers and other faculty; the Reflection Form, the Purposeful Change, and the Values Framework provide input from self-reflection and self-assessment; and the Annual Summary Evaluation Form provides additional feedback from reviewers and supervisors.

Different components will be submitted each year for faculty evaluation; some of these apply only to full-time faculty. The basic components considered in faculty evaluations are the following:

• • Course Materials (submitted by all faculty) – Course materials are integral to understanding a faculty member’s design of their course. It informs reviewers of how the faculty member integrates course objectives into the course.
    • • Faculty who have taught more than 3 years at the college are in a 3 year cycle:
        • • In years 1 and 2 of cycle – There are no course materials required in these years of the cycle unless the Department requires some limited collection of materials (such as syllabi, for example)
          • In year 3 of cycle – Course materials will only be required for one or two courses from that academic year, as determined by the Department; some departments may choose to review and provide feedback on additional course materials as long as this is applied to all departmental faculty.
      • Faculty in their first 3 years at the college – Where possible, materials for at least 2 courses (more if required by the department) taught each year are required for all faculty members during their first three years of teaching at the college; faculty teaching only 1 course submit coursework for that course.

Specific requirements to submit for each course being evaluated may be modified by each department, but the basic components are:

• • • • Course Syllabus – The syllabus is fundamental in connecting a student with the instructor and the institution. It is a binding contract between the student and the instructor. A review of the syllabus can indicate whether an instructor is meeting department standards, clearly informing students of the policies and procedures of the class, and whether those policies and procedures follow best practices and college policy.
      • Samples of Major Assignments – Major assignments provide insights into the level at which courses are taught and the various assessment strategies used with students. Faculty submit samples of the handouts that are given to students that relate to major assignments or projects. Also, samples of tests, major assessments, quizzes, etc. are to be submitted. The review team can use these samples to determine if students are being tested over the objectives of the course as given in the syllabus and handouts and if they meet departmental course objectives. Many departments will require all major assessments to be included.
      • Other course-related documents required by each department

• • Student Course Evaluations (submitted by all faculty) – Student course evaluations can provide important information about how a class went from the students’ perspectives. While it is true that there are many non-instructional issues that can impact these results, this is the one place in the process where students can have some input. It is important that faculty and reviewers are aware of the biases that can be inherent in student course evaluations, but it is also important that the student voice not be lost. Student course evaluations are administered every semester; all of these for the academic year should be included in faculty evaluations for that year. Reviewers will consider not only the student course evaluation rating for each course, but also the student comments as well as any faculty response to those comments (in the Faculty Reflection Form, below). Reviewers will consider all three of these in determining the Student Feedback and Faculty Response rating.

The following components of the faculty evaluation process will be distributed as separate forms with more detailed instructions:

• • Faculty Reflection Form (submitted by all faculty) – The Faculty Reflection Form is meant to encourage more thoughtful reflection on teaching and student learning, leading to more meaningful formative feedback for faculty. This form is required in the fall and spring semesters every year (some departments may choose to require this for faculty who teach during the summer as well and faculty who teach during the summer may choose to submit one for the summer even if not required by their department). This form asks faculty to reflect on their teaching methods and experience, their students’ experiences, their response to student course evaluations, their professional development activities, and (required only for full-time faculty) their professional service each semester. These forms are important to the overall evaluation process. (The Faculty Reflection Form replaces and expands upon the Faculty Input Form from prior years.)
  • Purposeful Change (submitted by all faculty, except for adjunct faculty teaching less than 6 LEH during the academic year under review) – The Purposeful Change is meant to encourage ongoing faculty reflection and experimentation. Once every 3 years, each faculty member will decide upon some focused, purposeful change to make in their teaching that year in order to improve teaching and student learning in some specific manner. During that year, they will attempt that change and then reflect upon whether it accomplished the intended goals, led to a completely different outcome than expected, or didn’t really work. Reviewers will consider the reasoning, planning, and analysis of the outcome. (This replaces the Course Commentary from previous years.)
  • Peer Dialog (submitted by full-time faculty only) – The Peer Dialog is meant to provide an additional perspective in a 360° evaluation. It should lead to a more formative assessment with peer feedback and learning about teaching and learning. This is an unevaluated activity that is meant to encourage faculty to support, learn from, share, and provide formative feedback for each other about teaching and student learning. Faculty will report upon this in their Peer Dialog report, but the results will not be rated or used in the evaluation. (Activities may include mutual class observations, participation in Faculty Interest Groups or Learning Communities, or as approved by the department.)
  • Values Framework (submitted by full-time faculty only) – The Values Framework provides faculty an opportunity to reflect upon their current work and how it connects to ACC Faculty Values. During the first 3 years of teaching at the college, faculty may choose to develop a statement of teaching philosophy instead of the Values Framework, if approved by the department. (This replaces the Statement of Teaching Philosophy from previous years.)
  • Goals for Professional Development and Growth (submitted by full-time faculty only) – Professional Development Goals are intended to encourage faculty to reflect upon their current career goals and what additional training they might need to pursue those. The Professional Development and Growth Plan is due during your third year of the 3-year faculty evaluation cycle. Faculty will set overall goals for their professional development activities for the next three years at this time. Changes in these plans during that time period should be documented in the Faculty Reflection Forms.

In addition to the required evaluation components submitted by faculty, the following information will also be collected:

• • Class Grade distributions and Student Course Evaluations (distributed by the Office of Faculty Evaluation) – This information will be used in conjunction with other review documents to provide additional insight into Instructional Performance. Faculty will be able to address these directly in the Faculty Reflection Form. Departmental expectations for grade distributions, if any, should be communicated to all faculty. Since these expectations can reasonably vary not only between departments but also between courses, there is no college-wide standard for this, but it is strongly recommended that expectations take into account that grades in a single class might vary from expectations due to the specific makeup of that class.
  • Student complaints that have been investigated and substantiated, faculty discipline information, and information on faculty absences
  • List of Professional Development Hours
  • Lighthouse/Office Hours Compliance Data
  • Prior-Year Annual Summary Evaluation Forms for all returning faculty, as well as any active Performance Improvement Plans from prior evaluations
  • Other Departmental Required Information