The Institution regularly evaluates the effectiveness of each Faculty member in accord with published criteria, regardless of contractual or tenured status.

   X   Compliance                    ___Partial Compliance                       ___Non-Compliance

Narrative

St. Petersburg College is in compliance with this comprehensive standard because it evaluates all Faculty on an annual basis which includes standards that apply to Faculty competence including student learning standards.

SPC Faculty Evaluation Policy and Criteria

St. Petersburg College conducts annual evaluations of all full-time Faculty using criteria specified in the District Board of Trustees’ Rule 6Hx23-2.10 and the Faculty Manual under IIIB, Expectations: Faculty Evaluation.  Since the mission of the College is focused on teaching and learning, the criteria include effectiveness as a Faculty member, contribution to college effectiveness, and professional development and scholarship.  These criteria are sufficiently broad to apply to all disciplines and all modes of delivery.  These criteria are also described on the Faculty evaluation, titled Instructor Evaluation and Professional Development Plan which is used to evaluate all full-time Faculty.

St. Petersburg College has two versions of the annual Faculty Evaluation form, one for full-time Faculty and one for adjunct Faculty.  Both versions contain similar broad criteria applicable to all disciplines, but are tailored for the status (full-time or part-time) of the Faculty member.  The two evaluation forms are worded to be relevant regardless of delivery mode, whether delivering instruction in traditional or distance learning settings.

Evaluation Criteria for Full-Time Faculty

 

Effectiveness as a Faculty Member
1.	Reviews and updates the content of courses and curricula within the discipline.
2.	Develops organized course materials and presentations.
3.	Is available outside of class to help students.
4.	Uses current teaching techniques appropriate for meeting the course objectives.
5.	Incorporates course materials/activities to promote listening, speaking, writing and higher order thinking skills.
6	Demonstrates enthusiasm for learning.
7.	Demonstrates current knowledge of academic discipline.
8.	Demonstrates advanced planning and preparation for instruction.
9.	Keeps accurate records (i.e., grades, attendance rosters, test scores, etc.)
10.	Demonstrates a respect for individual and socio-cultural differences.
11.	Uses current, appropriate technology, materials and tools when available.
12.	Shows consideration for the needs of students.
13.	Contributes to the success of students at risk and to their retention in the College.
14.	Develops course syllabi, handouts, tests, etc. that reflect high quality content and appearance.
15.	Encourages active learning.
16.	Maintains academic standards appropriate to the course.
17.	Maintains professional rapport with students.
18.	Encourages students to pursue appropriate College services (e.g., counseling, financial aid, learning support, etc.)
Contribution to College Effectiveness
1.	Shows consideration for the needs of others.
2.	Is professional in working with Faculty, staff, and administrators.
3.	Completes College responsibilities, assignments, and administrative responsibilities effectively and on time.
4.	Is prompt in keeping appointments with colleagues and students, arriving at work, attending meetings, etc.
5.	Is flexible and adaptable in meeting program needs.
6.	Participates in program meetings, activities, committees and/or special projects.
7.	Follows current College and program policies and procedures.
8.	Participates in site and Collegewide committees, activities, and/or special projects.
9.	Participates in Program Planning Assessment and achievement of outcomes and indicators.

Evaluation criteria for Adjunct Faculty

1.       Teaching Performance - Instructor treats students with respect, shows enthusiasm, encourages questions, and demonstrates flexibility in dealing with diverse learning styles.  For online courses, instructor is prepared for the entire semester when classes begin.

2.       Coverage of Course Content - Instructor covers information in the approved course outline, gives fair tests that apply to course content, effectively presents material to students, communicates high expectations for student performance by giving relevant and challenging assignments, sets clear course deadlines and adheres to those deadlines, etc.

3.       Classroom Enrichment - Instructor participates in and requires students to participate in focused and meaningful discussions; assigns challenging projects and tasks that require active learning and critical thinking.

4.       Support of Student - Instructor provides help to students outside of class through office hours or email; responds to email, discussion postings and phone messages within established time standards*; and encourages students to seek assistance when needed.  (*Online Faculty - see eCampus Instructional Performance Targets)

5.       Associated Administrative Duties and Behavior - Instructor understands and follows College and department policies and procedures, gives adequate notification when substitutes are needed, attends mandatory College or department meetings, treats colleagues and College staff with respect, turns in required documentation and grades on time, etc.

Student Surveys of Instruction

In Fall and Spring, all full-time instructors administer a Student Survey of Instruction (SSI) to collect student feedback in all of the classes they teach.  In the Summer session, student feedback is collected on a voluntary basis in traditional classrooms except when directed by the program director or provost.  Part-time instructors use the Student Survey of Instruction (SSI) in all of the classes they teach during the year.  Reports are generated for each faculty member, each program, each campus, and institution-wide.  The survey includes questions in four areas:  Faculty/Student Interaction, Organization, Presentation, and Evaluation.

Full-time Faculty.  Full-time Faculty members meet annually with their Program Directors or Deans to evaluate their own performance, receive feedback, and discuss and finalize an individual professional development plan proposed by the Faculty member for the next two-year period.  Each Faculty member must complete at least one major and two minor activities described in District Board of Trustees’ Procedure P6Hx23-2.022 during the two-year period.  The professional development plan is described more fully in 3.7.3.

The annual evaluation, using multiple sources of information including grade distribution reports, feedback from Student Surveys of Instruction (SSIs), student comments, personal observation from the Program Director or Dean, and input from the Faculty member on professional needs, is used to document revisions to the professional development plan each year.  In the year following each evaluation, the supervisor carefully monitors the Faculty member’s progress on achieving these goals, especially in terms of the Faculty members’ effectiveness in promoting student learning.  The first part of the form used to document the Instructor Evaluation and Professional Development Plan is completed by the instructor.  The instructor rates his/her own effectiveness as an instructor, contribution to college effectiveness and documents professional development and scholarship.  The instructor may also include comments in this section.  The instructor evaluates his/her personal goals from the previous year along with an assessment of the progress toward completion of those goals.  The instructor returns the completed form to the Program Director, who reviews the instructor’s ratings and comments.  The Program Director evaluates the instructor on each of the three areas, assigning a rating of exceeds expectations, meets expectations, below expectations or unsatisfactory.  The instructor and Program Director review the evaluation form together and decide upon goals for the coming years.  The Program Director signs the completed form and the instructor is given an opportunity to indicate his/her agreement or disagreement with the evaluation and additional comments may be added by the instructor.  The completed form is forwarded to the campus Provost for review and signature.  The completed form is maintained in Human Resources in a separate file from the Faculty member’s other personnel records.

Excerpt from Faculty Evaluation

FACULTY SELF-ASSESMENT SCALE			SUPERVISOR’S SCALE
ST        =          This is a real strength of mine.			EE   =  Exceeds Expectations.
P          =          I am proficient in this area.			ME  =  Meets Expectations.
NP        =          Not as proficient as I would like to be.			BE  =  Below Expectations.
NA        =          Not Applicable.			U       =    Unsatisfactory
Effectiveness as a Faculty Member		Self Assessment	Additional Comments
1.	Reviews and updates the content of courses and curricula within the discipline.
2-10	(Additional criteria)
Supervisor’s Evaluation:   (e.g., EE, ME)

Adjunct Faculty.  Program Directors use the Adjunct Faculty Evaluation Form to evaluate part-time Faculty in the first semester the Faculty member is hired each academic year.  Adjunct Faculty are evaluated at all sites and using all delivery technologies.  These ratings are based on student evaluations, student comments, materials provided to the program director by instructors pertaining to their instructional activities during the session(s), and classroom visits as necessary.  Adjunct Faculty are counseled by Program Directors on areas for improvement or if deficiencies are significant, the adjunct Faculty member would not be rehired.  The completed Adjunct Faculty Evaluation Forms are maintained in the Provost’s Office at each campus.

In addition to adjuncts employed by the College part-time, full-time Faculty may be hired by eCampus as adjuncts to teach additional online courses if the Faculty member applies and is hired for an adjunct posting.  Program Directors or Deans hiring full-time employees as adjuncts provide feedback as needed on their instruction to the instructors’ primary Program Director or Dean for inclusion in their annual full-time Faculty evaluation.

Other feedback.  In addition to the annual evaluation by Program Directors or Deans, all Faculty are periodically observed throughout their career with the College.  Deans, Program Directors, and Instructors-in-Charge assess the quality of the delivery of curriculum through in-class observations and evaluation of full-time and adjunct Faculty members using the following criteria:

• Organization of course or program of study.
• Explanation of course outline and objectives, student assessments, and course content.
• Presentation of course or program of study (Pedagogical Methods).
• Knowledge of subject taught

Full-time Faculty members in the first three years of employment and new adjunct Faculty are monitored very closely, using observation forms for immediate feedback to the Faculty member, to ensure student learning is optimized.  This includes distance learning Faculty, who are observed by Program Directors or Deans making virtual “visits” to their course sites to view the promptness and quality of instructor communication with students.  If feedback from supervisor observations and student comments does not have the desired effect of improvement in instructional performance, a new full-time Faculty member’s contract is not renewed or an adjunct is not re-hired.  After three years, full-time Faculty members are offered continuing contract if recommended by their Program Director or Dean and Provost and if the Faculty member has completed the required professional development.

Faculty evaluation procedures for both full-time and part time Faculty are publicized through the Faculty Manual in Section III, Expectations, sub-section B. Faculty Evaluation.  The Faculty Manual includes the criteria by which Faculty are evaluated, the process used to ensure consistency across campuses and disciplines, and the procedure for maintaining the documentation.  Links to the forms and the Board of Trustees Rule governing evaluations are provided in the document.  Blank forms are available to employees at all times on the Collegewide Forms page found on Staff Central, the employees’ intranet Web page.

Results

The results of Faculty evaluation and feedback can be seen in student satisfaction scores on the Student Survey of Instruction (SSI) and in student performance.  Over four semesters, the mean for student satisfaction in traditional lecture classes for every semester and every category was 6.41 or higher on a 7-point rating scale.  For online courses, the mean score for every semester and every category was 6.06 or higher.  The scores for all categories have been steadily increasing in online classes since Fall 2003.  All of these scores are impressive since other college student surveys strive for a mean score of 5 or higher on a 7 point scale.  The results suggest that students felt that the courses and Faculty were more than satisfactory.

Example of SSI data (note: display shows from 5.0-7.0 on a 0-7 scale in order to see variation)

Student performance can be shown in several ways, including performance after transferring to another institution, licensure passing rates, and employer satisfaction.  SPC students do well when they transfer into the State University System (SUS).  SPC’s mean GPA of students in the SUS of 2.91 was slightly lower than the statewide GPA of 2.92. Statewide 74.2% of the A.A. degree transfer earned GPA’s >=2.5, while 73.9% of SPC student met that standard.

A. A. Degree Transfer Performance

 

Reporting year 2001-02	White	Black	Hispanic	Asian	Indian	Total
St. Petersburg College
Number of Graduates in SUS	562	33	39	41	0	675
Mean GPA	2.95	2.34	2.94	2.77	0	2.91
Number with GPA’s >=2.5	423	14	32	16	0	485
Percent with GPA’s>=2.5	75.27	42.42	82.05	73.17	0	73.93
State-Wide
Number of Graduates in SUS	7,403	1,281	2,027	518	42	11,393
Mean GPA	3.0	2.63	2.84	2.83	3.0	2.92
Number with GPA’s >=2.5	5,720	793	1,462	366	33	8,457
Percent with GPA’s>=2.5	77.27	61.90	72.13	70.66	78.57	74.23

For licensure passing rates, no statewide data are available; however, institutional data shows SPC students perform well on state licensure examinations.  The pass rate for each exam was 81.1% or higher.  The table below provides a two-year comparison for SPC passing rates.

Licensure Passing Rates

Employers indicated very high levels of satisfaction with SPC graduates’ technical and performance skills.  All 10 skills received a mean score of 6 or higher on a 7-point scale, where 7 equals excellent.  The percentage of employers responding to the identified skills ranged between 74.5% and 88.1%.  Ninety-three percent (93.6%) of the employers would hire another SPC graduate.

References