Faculty Assessment

1. Faculty Evaluation Rubric:

1.1- Background and Policy:
The Faculty Evaluation Rubric (see Appendix A) provides an anchored list to categorize faculty performance into four levels within each of the three basic activity categories. A faculty member’s performance will be ranked at highest of these levels where a significant amount (in quantity or quality) of their activity matches the activities listed at that level. The following policy will be implemented.

General Policy:

• The Faculty evaluation rubric will be used twice per year; the data will be collected and scoring will be done for each semester.
• The annual score will be the average of the semester scores.
• The Faculty Evaluation Rubric will be reviewed yearly basis in order to adjust and modify it according to the development of KUST’s structure and needs.
• By request from the President Office, the OQAA has to report about the progress of Faculty Evaluation Rubric status in any time during the semester.
• The OQAA has to report the results periodically to the President Office, after sharing the results with the faculty members.

Contributors: the participants in the assessment process are:
• Faculty members
• Students
• Heads of department, deans
• OQAA
• External peer
• OSAR
• HR and Admin
• Committees’ coordinators.

Evidence and Data:
• All the records and data and evidences as well as the semester and annual FER report should be kept in the OQAA archive and faculty folders.
• In case of existence of different scores for each sub- area (due to the diversity of evidences), the final score will be the average.
• In case of non-availability of one evidence, it will not interrupt the process. However the availability of all evidence make the final score more realistic.
• The OQAA or President Office could assign the senior faculty in the concerned department or any chairmen of other department could manage some sections of the rubric.
• In case when the role of chairmen is unavoidable, the President office or the OQAA could invite an external peer from another university to manage some sections of the rubric.

Appeals:
• The faculty members have right to appeal during the first 10 days from receiving his/her report.
• The OQAA will review the appeals and reply with 10 days from receiving the appeal from the faculty member.
• In case of disagreement, the case will be forwarded to the faculty committee and the President Office.

1.2- Methodology:

The Faculty Evaluation Rubric (FER) was designed based on the qualitative scoring system. Four levels for each area, there are five (05) areas. The four levels are:
• The Highly Effective level is reserved for truly outstanding teaching that meets very demanding criteria; there will be relatively few ratings at this level. (Score 4)
• The Effective level describes solid, expected professional performance; teachers should feel good about scoring at this level. (Score 3)
• Improvement Necessary indicates that performance has real deficiencies; no teacher should be content to remain at this level (although some novices might begin here). (Score 2)
• Does Not Meet Standards level is clearly unacceptable should lead to dismissal if it is not improved immediately. (Score 1)

1.3- Process and Roles: The evaluation process is a systematic, means that is continuous during all the semester. The whole process consists in three main phases:

Phase 1: Collecting evidences and generating data:
This phase takes a big portion of the process because it begins with the semester till the end. Here we distinguish between two types of evidences:
• Primary Evidences: They consist on four main evidences:
- Students’ Feedback: The OQAA has the crucial role to conduct the surveys and analyze the data and generating the reports.
- Faculty questionnaire: The questionnaire was extracted from the FER. The aim is to get the inputs of the instructor about the teaching methodology and philosophy. The questionnaire will be conducted by the OQAA and the scores will be earned according to the FER.
- Class visit report: using the class visit rubric, which is extracted basically from the FER. The rubric focuses on the class management and delivery of instructions. The role is assigned to the chairmen of departments. In case there is no chairman the OQAA will assign a senior faculty in the department or invite an external peer for this purpose.
- Monthly reports; the OQAA has the crucial role to monitor the progress of the course syllabus and generate monthly reports.
• Secondary Evidences: by request from the OQAA the following documents are needed.
- Committees’ reports: received at the end of the semester by the coordinator of the committee.
- OSAR report or statement: received from the OSAR about the faculty behavior and students complains.
- HR and Admin report: received from the human resource about the faculty professional behavior, absences, leaves or any special thing should be reported.
- Workshop and seminars; by checking the faculty folders and asking the faculty members to inform the OQAA about any scientific events they attended or contribute in any intellectual work.

Phase 2: Converting the evidences in scores:
This phase consists in converting the evidence in scores using the score provided by the faculty evaluation rubric.

Phase 3: Generate the reports and mapping the results:
This phase covers closing the rubric and finalizing the individual reports for the faculty members and the executive summary for the president office.

2. Areas of Faculty assessment: The assessment consists on five areas:

• Planning and preparation for learning.
• Classroom management.
• Delivery of instructions.
• Monitoring of assessment.
• Professional and responsibilities development.

2.1- Planning and Preparation for Learning:
This area consists of six sub-areas as follow: Knowledge, Standards, lessons, engagement, materials and environment. The best score for this area is 24, the worse score is 6.

The evidences are:
- Course syllabus. (OQAA)
- Class visit report (Chairman, Senior faculty or External peer)
- Faculty questionnaire (Faculty members)
- Students’ feedback. (Students)
2.2- Classroom Management:
This area consists of six sub-areas as follow: Time management, managing students’ behavior, organizing physical space, establishing a culture of learning, discussion and collaboration in the class and respect. The best score for this area is 24, the worse score is 6.

The evidences are:
- Class visit report (Chairman, Senior Faculty or External peer)
- Faculty questionnaire (Faculty members)
- Students’ feedback. (Students)

• The senior faculty in the concerned department or any chairmen of other department could manage this section.

2.3- Delivery of instructions:
This area consists of six sub-areas as follow: expectations, mindset, goals, connections, clarity and flexibility. The best score for this area is 24, the worse score is 6.

The evidences are:
- Class visit report (Chairman, Senior Faculty or External peer)
- Faculty questionnaire (Faculty members)
- Students’ feedback. (Students)

2.4- Monitoring, Assessment and follow-Up:
This area consists of five sub-areas as follow: Criteria, self-assessment, recognition, support and analysis. The best score for this area is 20, the worse score is 5.

The evidences are:
- Class visit report (Chairman, Senior Faculty or External peer)
- Faculty questionnaire (Faculty members)
- Students’ feedback. (Students)
- Exam approval report (OQAA)
- Post exam survey (OQAA)
2.5- Professional responsibilities and Development:
This area consists of seven sub-areas as follow: Attendance, language, professionalism, leadership, openness, growth, committees and after work activities. The best score for this area is 28, the worse score is 7.

The evidences are:
- Class visit report (Chairman, Senior Faculty or External peer)
- Students’ feedback. (Students)
- Committees report
- OSAR statement
- HR statement

3. Evaluation Summary and Report: the individual report should include the following items:
3.1- Score on individual rubric:

• An accumulated score in each area should be included in one statement.
• The score for each sub-area should be included in a separate statement.
• If the score was a result of an average of different scores due to the diversity of the evidences, the appendix of the individual report should clarify all the scores per evidence.

3.2- Overall score: The overall score is a sum of the accumulated scores of the five areas: Planning and preparation for learning, classroom management, delivery of instructions, monitoring and assessment and professional responsibilities and development. The best score is 120 and the worse score is 30.
3.3- The Comments: The language should be professional not personal, brief and clear, and cover one of the following status:
• Completely positive
• Positive with suggestions.
• Negative with suggestions.
• Negatives with warning from the chairmen, deans or President Office.

3.4- Signature:
• The OQAA director and the concerned faculty should sign the report.
• The teacher’s signature indicates that he/she has seen and discussed the evaluation; it doesn’t denote agreement with the report.
• In case the teacher refuse to sign the report, the case will be forwarded to the President Office.

3.5- Executive summary: the executive summary should include (but not limited) the following items:
• A brief introduction of the process.
• Circumstances of the assessment (data collection, contributors, faculty interaction…. etc.)
• Faculty performance rating per faculty and area.
• The average score for each college.
• Conclusion and recommendations.