Presented by
James Telles
Belinda Lum
Rebecca Goodchild
Excellent Reviewer’s Workshop
10/5/23 via Zoom
Agenda:
Purpose of Performance Review
The primary goal of faculty performance review is to improve the quality of the educational program. The process should promote professionalism, encourage reflection, enhance performance, and be effective in yielding a genuinely useful and substantive assessment of performance.
To achieve this goal, it is necessary to identify, recognize and nurture excellence; to identify standard performance; to encourage regular and substantive faculty student interaction; and to indicate areas where improvement is necessary or desirable. While formal performance review as described in this article occurs on a cyclical basis, informal review by colleagues and supervisors occurs on a continuous basis, and, as such, communication should also be continuous.
Responsibilities of Faculty Reviewers
Important Contract Articles:
Documents From Your Reviewee
Peer Review Documents, cont.
Workstation Reviews: Instructional Faculty
Workstation Reviews: Non-Instructional Faculty
Accessibility
Accessibility, cont.
Recommendations
In all reviews, the reviewer(s) shall cite specific examples and recommendations for improvement in writing for each “needs improvement” and “unsatisfactory” mark. The faculty member under review shall have an opportunity to append any written rebuttal or explanations to the review form. 8.6.2.i.
[Discussion of examples at the end]
Recommendations ≠ Suggestions
The recommendations are meant as a place to address serious issues. It is not a place to put friendly suggestions.
By contract, faculty must address any recommendations from their last review in their current review.
What is Evidence?
Issues that have not been raised formally and documented during the performance review may not be used negatively in the performance review. 8.15.1.2
In other words - don’t put random stuff in recommendations.
Best Practices:
Reviewer Responsibilities: Things to Avoid
General Tips and Information
Is this a good example of how a reviewer should write their recommendation?
Professor Smith is encouraged to continue with professional development opportunity provided to him through Los Rios, as well as the SCC campus. Their contributions and leadership are appreciated by the committee. Prof Smith is cautioned to confer with their department chair and dean prior to committing to involvement with groups outside of the department. This is to ensure that new initiatives related to Strong workforce and other grants, and outside agencies are take in into consideration as well as the professional development opportunities in considering their time commitments. First priorities should be to achieve the degree they’re working on and then instruction within the Department. This will also help avoid potential burn out.
No!
Is this a good example of how a reviewer should write their recommendation?
During the workstation observation, Professor Johns arrived 10 minutes late. They indicated they had personal reasons for being late. In over half of the student reviews, students noted that Professor Johns frequently arrived late for class and dismisses class early. One student wrote, “It’s rare that we spend more than an hour in each class.” The committee recommends that Professor Johns take measures to ensure timely arrival in class. In addition, Professor Johns should adhere to the course outline of record and cover the expected hours of instruction.
Yes!
Is this a good example of how a reviewer should write their recommendation?
Our department uses John Steinbeck’s, The Grapes of Wrath for our Writing 300 class. Professor Rayden chose to use Sandra Cisnero’s, The House on Mango Street. It is recommended that Professor Rayden comply with the Department’s book choice and lesson plans.
No!
Questions?