6.0 Evaluation

6.1 Purposes of Evaluation

6.1.1 Faculty engage in evaluation of themselves and their peers as a normal part of their professional life. Such evaluation should not be overly intrusive upon the functioning of the faculty member, but should stimulate professional growth as well as provide the basis for personnel action. It must proceed in a manner consistent with principles of academic freedom.

6.1.2 Formal evaluation shall be conducted for the specific purpose of supplying the documentation for personnel action and recommending what the faculty member needs to do in order to be considered for reappointment, tenure, promotion and/or merit increase.

6.2 Areas for Evaluation

6.2.1 Teaching Competence

As specified in Section 2.1.2.1.  A faculty member's teaching evaluation shall not be adversely affected by a reduced teaching load (for example, as a result of sabbatical leave or other assignment.)

6.2.2 Scholarship/Creative Activity/Research

As specified in Section 2.1.2.2, it being understood that the examples offered therein are in no way meant to be exhaustive. Any creative accomplishment that is indicative of a faculty member's professional contribution and vitality may be considered.  Full-Time Regular Status Pre-Tenure-Track faculty will be evaluated primarily on their progress towards obtaining a terminal degree.

6.2.3 Service

As specified in Section 2.1.2.3.  Full-Time Regular Status Pre-Tenure track faculty have no obligations in this area.

6.2.4 Use of American Sign Language (ASL) and Classroom Discourse

Full-time regular status faculty must demonstrate competency in ASL and in classroom discourse as described in Section 6.8.  ASL Diagnostic and Evaluation Services (ASL-DES) has the primary responsibility for the evaluation of ASL and Classroom Discourse.

6.2.5 Professional Integrity

As specified in Section 2.1.2.5. 

6.3 Scope

6.3.1 Regular status faculty, including Department Chairpersons are subject to evaluation. Department Chairpersons will be evaluated by their Department peers on the same basis as all regular status faculty. Administrative responsibilities of Department Chairpersons will be evaluated by the respective Dean, who will query all full-time Department members as to the Chairperson's performance.

6.3.2 Designated administrators with faculty appointments who teach will be subject to peer evaluation of their Teaching Competence and, if applicable, Scholarship/Creative Activity/Research.

6.4 Frequency

6.4.1 Tenure-track, Pre-Tenure Track, and Non-Tenure Track full-time regular status faculty (except non-continuing faculty) will be evaluated each year, which may lead to reappointment, non-reappointment, switching a pre-tenure-track appointment to tenure-track, merit increase, promotion, and/or tenure consistent with their rank and level.

6.4.2 All tenured faculty, except those in an administrative capacity with no teaching responsibilities, shall be evaluated every year, unless they inform the Chair otherwise.  However, tenured faculty must be evaluated at least once every three years. These evaluations may lead to a merit increase and/or promotion. 

6.4.3 For evaluation purposes, faculty with initial appointments in months other than August will be recognized as continuing first-year faculty in the following August.

6.4.4 Department Chairpersons shall receive an evaluation of their performance as an administrator each year.

6.4.5 Evaluation for a merit increase shall be for the past calendar year(s) since a merit increase was last awarded, or since the date of appointment, whichever is later.  The evaluation for a promotion shall cover the whole interval since a promotion was last awarded, or since the date of appointment, whichever is later. 

6.5 Criteria for Evaluation

6.5.1 Evaluation Scale


Evaluation of Teaching, Scholarship/Creative Activity/ Research, and Service is done on a four-point scale: Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Commendable, and Outstanding.
Professional Integrity is to be rated as either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. Criteria for proficiency in ASL are outlined in Section 6.8.6.

6.5.2 Definition of Performance Standards

In the areas of Teaching, Scholarship/Creative Activity/Research, and Service, individual Departments have a responsibility to elaborate minimum standards of performance which will be defined as Satisfactory. Departmental criteria for each level of performance must be clearly stated and reviewed at least triennially by the Department as a whole and approved by the Dean. 
Commendable performance is that which is beyond these minimum standards. Outstanding performance is that which is markedly beyond the minimum and calls for maximum recognition. Failure to meet the minimum standards of performance is considered Unsatisfactory and may result in non reappointment or dismissal as outlined in Sections 7.2 and 7.6.

6.6 Documentation 

6.6.1 Sources of Documentation

6.6.1.1 Documentation shall come from the following sources: portfolio, student evaluations, observation, and peer review.

6.6.1.2 The portfolio shall include a vita, a Professional Activities Report, and a list of accomplishments by which the faculty member wishes to be judged, such as off prints, syllabi, course materials, creative work, reviews, recommendations from outside the Department and University, and the like.

6.6.1.3 Individual Departments will determine how they will best solicit students' evaluations of their instructors. In addition to traditional evaluation questionnaires, Department Chairpersons or their representatives may interview randomly selected students. In the case of written evaluations, care must be taken to ensure that the students fully comprehend what is being asked of them. Data should be gathered every semester, if possible, and  preferably from classes differing in level and scope.

6.6.1.4 Observation of teaching shall be performed annually for all faculty prior to tenure. Classroom observation for tenured faculty may be performed at the discretion of the Department Chairperson, or at the request of the faculty member. The observation may be performed either in the classroom or in a lab or practicum setting by a faculty peer observer selected by the faculty member being observed and agreed upon by the Department Chairperson.

6.6.1.5 The peer review shall be performed by members of the Department holding regular status appointments and reported on a Report of Peer Review. Non-Tenure Track faculty shall have the right to participate in the peer evaluation of all regular faculty by providing input appropriate to their areas of expertise and experience. Peer review shall include specific recommendations for reappointment, tenure, promotion, and merit increase. In accordance with Sections 7.4 and 7.5, only Department members holding tenure shall make recommendations regarding tenure decisions; only faculty members higher in rank than the faculty member to be evaluated shall make recommendations regarding promotion.  Departments may, at their option, solicit evaluations from outside the Department or the University.

6.6.1.6 The Faculty Welfare Committee will be responsible for designing and distributing prototypes of the various forms needed for the above documentation and will issue recommendations as to their use.  Subject to the approval of the Faculty Welfare Committee, individual Departments may modify the forms to suit their particular needs. 

6.6.2 Report of Evaluation

The Chairperson shall use the documentation in Section 6.6.1 to prepare a Report of Evaluation. This Report shall include summaries of peer reviews, observation reports, and student evaluations and shall make recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion, tenure, or merit increase. It shall also contain specific recommendations for continued development toward eligibility for future personnel action.  In formulating his/her recommendation, the Department Chairperson shall take peer consensus under advisement but shall not be bound by it. Should there be a divergence between the Chairperson's recommendation and peer consensus, the report of evaluation should so state.

6.7 Procedures

6.7.1 At the Departmental Level

6.7.1.1 Each Department will determine its evaluation procedure and will set forth a clear written statement of this procedure to include details of the process, types of documentation required, and deadlines for applying for personnel action and submitting supporting materials. This procedure should be reviewed periodically by the Department and the Dean.

6.7.1.2 At least triennially, Department Chairpersons will forward the current Department evaluation procedures to the Faculty Welfare Committee to assure compliance with the University Faculty Guidelines.

6.7.1.3 When written student evaluations are used, they should be collected anonymously, then delivered to the Department Chairperson 

6.7.1.4 It is the responsibility of the Department Chairperson to see to the preparation of the Report of Evaluation. He/she shall discuss such report with the faculty member being evaluated. During this conference, the faculty member will have an opportunity to point out any omissions and to produce any material evidence which may have a bearing on the recommendation. Should the faculty member wish to disagree with the report or recommendation, he/she will have up to five working days to do so in writing, and will then affix his/her signature. (A faculty member's signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the contents of the report.) The Chairperson shall then sign and forward to the Dean each Report of Evaluation, which must include the faculty member's response, if any. When the requested Personnel Action is for tenure or promotion, the Dean will make the abridged file* and portfolio available to the Tenure and Promotion Committee. 

* The abridged file will contain  the appropriate A series forms, copies of all  D-REs during the period of review, a copy of the faculty appointment letter, the faculty member's letter to the department (in English or ASL) requesting the faculty action, and the CV.

6.7.1.5 The Department Chairperson is responsible for ensuring equity among Department members and for seeing that each Report of Evaluation is adequately supported before forwarding to the Dean.

6.7.1.6 When the person being evaluated is the Chairperson, the Dean of the School shall be responsible for coordinating all of the above-outlined procedures.

6.7.1.7 When the person being evaluated is the Dean, the Department Chairperson shall forward his/her Report of Evaluation directly to the Provost after sharing it with the Dean. Such an evaluation may lead to tenure and/or promotion.

6.7.1.8 When the person being evaluated is the Provost, the Department Chairperson shall forward his/her Report of Evaluation directly to both the President and the Dean after sharing it with the Provost. Such an evaluation may lead to tenure and/or promotion. 

6.7.2 Above the Departmental Level

6.7.2.1 The Dean is responsible for ensuring fairness and consistency of application of evaluation criteria within and among Departments.  In order to promote such fairness and consistency, the Dean may, at his/her discretion, consult with a school-wide faculty committee. This committee shall act in an advisory capacity only. Should such a committee be established, its composition and function shall be made known to faculty within the school.

6.7.2.2 The Dean shall review all Reports of Evaluation, except in the case of the Dean and Provost as provided for in Sections 6.7.1.8 and 6.7.1.9. When the requested Personnel Action is for tenure or promotion, the Dean will make the abridged file and portfolio available to the Tenure and Promotion Committee, which will then review the abridged file and portfolio and make a recommendation to the Dean.  The Dean will take the Tenure and Promotion Committee's recommendation into consideration prior to approving or rejecting requests for promotion or making a recommendation to the Provost regarding requests for tenure.  Copies of the Dean's recommendations will be provided to the Department Chairperson, the Tenure and Promotion Committee, and to the faculty member.  The Provost is responsible for ensuring fairness of evaluation among schools.

6.7.3 Notification of Adverse Criticism

6.7.3.1 It is the duty of the Chairperson and/or any administrator to fully inform a faculty member, in writing, as soon as possible (normally within five working days) of any criticism that could reasonably be expected to adversely affect the evaluation outcome. 

6.8  American Sign Language Proficiency and Classroom Discourse

The University is committed to providing training and resources as needed to support faculty competence in ASL and classroom discourse. The desired outcomes of this policy are excellence in classroom discourse, full participation by members in all aspects of campus life, and continued and ongoing growth of faculty members' ASL proficiency and competence in classroom discourse.

Competency in ASL and classroom discourse, will be determined through the use of (1) the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI), (2) the Classroom Discourse Observation, (3) the Student Rating of the Instructor's Classroom Communication, and (4) the faculty member's self-report of efforts to improve ASL and classroom discourse.

The ASLPI will be used to assess the ASL proficiency of the faculty member. The Classroom Discourse Observation and the Student Rating of the Instructor's Classroom Communication will be used to provide feedback to the faculty member on their classroom discourse. (See http://www.gallaudet.edu/aslpi.xml for the Classroom Discourse Observation Checklist and Appendix A for  the Student Rating of Instructor's Classroom Communication form.)

All faculty members are required to take the ASLPI prior to academic year 2014-2015 and the Classroom Discourse Observation prior to academic year 2015-2016. Priority for taking the Classroom Discourse Observation will be given to new faculty, non-tenured faculty, and faculty with ASLPI levels below 3.

Faculty are encouraged, but not required, to report the results of the Classroom Discourse Observation for faculty actions (e.g., merit increases, tenure or promotion). The results of the Classroom Discourse Observation will not affect any personnel actions until academic year 2016-2017.

A minimum acceptable level of competency for the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI) for faculty actions (e.g. appointment, merit increases, tenure, and promotion) will be established by the end of academic year 2014-2015. Minimum acceptable performance for classroom discourse will be established by the end of academic year 2016 - 2017. Please refer to 6.8.6 for description on level of competency.

In the event that a faculty member does not use ASL in the classroom (i.e., new signers with interpreters or faculty in classrooms with all hearing students), the Classroom Discourse Observation and the Student Rating of Instructor's Classroom Communication are not applicable.

6.8.1   American Sign Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI).
All full-time regular status faculty shall take the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI). The interview, lasting approximately 30 minutes, will cover a variety of topics of interest to the candidate, both professional and non-professional in nature. The interview is designed to have the candidate demonstrate the highest level of ASL skill of which he/she is capable.  See the ASL-DES website (http://www.gallaudet.edu/aslpi.xml) for ASLPI Level Descriptions, ASLPI Rating Procedures, and Scheduling.

6.8.2   Faculty Classroom Discourse Observation 
Faculty competence in classroom discourse using the Classroom Discourse Observation checklist shall be phased in by academic year 2016-2017. Classroom observations will be videotaped. Faculty members shall be observed by ASL-DES evaluators in a typical classroom environment at a time mutually agreed upon with ASL-DES.

6.8.2.1 ASL-DES will provide feedback to the observed faculty member based on the Classroom Discourse Observation checklist and observation. A DVD will also be provided to the observed faculty as part of this feedback.  6.8.2.2  The Office of Bilingual Teaching and Learning (OBTL) shall       provide an annual report on faculty  development and ASL Diagnostic and Evaluation Services (ASL-DES) will provide ongoing research outcomes on the validity and reliability of the ASLPI and the Classroom Discourse Observation to the Faculty Welfare Committee by January 31st of each year. 

6.8.3   Student Rating of Instructor's Classroom Communication  Students' rating of faculty classroom communication skills will be performed each semester for each course for all faculty.  Students will rate their instructor's classroom communication skills using the student rating form.  Department chairs should ensure that this form is distributed along with the course evaluation form at the end of each semester.  The Student Rating of Instructor's Classroom Communication  will provide information about the faculty's classroom communication skills from the students' perspective.  The results of the Student Rating of Instructor's Classroom Communication will not affect any personnel action until academic year 2016-2017.

6.8.4  Faculty Efforts to Improve ASL and Classroom Discourse
Faculty who have not achieved a target level of 3 on the ASLPI shall provide evidence of efforts to improve their ASL and classroom discourse competence as part of their annual faculty evaluation. 
Faculty who have achieved a level of 3 or above are strongly encouraged to submit evidence of efforts to improve their competence in ASL and classroom discourse. Evidence will include such things as professional development activities, observations, or tutoring that support an informed decision about reappointment, awarding tenure, recommending promotion, or merit increase. To help determine appropriate professional development activities, faculty members can refer to feedback from the Classroom Discourse Observation and discuss possible activities with the Department chair. 

6.8.5   American Sign Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI) Administration and Evaluation

6.8.5.1   ASL-DES will report annually in the spring semester to the Senate, Deans, and Administrators on 1) the average levels and success rate of faculty in each cohort of new signers and improving signers, and on the attainability of the required levels; and 2) the ongoing research on the reliability, validity and evidence base of the ASLPI and the Classroom Discourse Observation.  The Faculty Welfare Committee will review the annual data and recommend to the Senate possible revisions of the University Faculty Guidelines based on this report.

6.8.5.2  In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, faculty with disabilities that could affect the evaluation of their ASL skills may identify themselves to the ASL-DES and explain their need for reasonable accommodations.

6.8.5.3  All ASLPI evaluations will be videotaped.

6.8.5.4  The ASL-DES Coordinator shall assign and schedule evaluators and interviewees.

6.8.5.5  No ASLPI evaluator will interview the same person twice in succession.

6.8.5.6  Ratings shall be determined by a team of three (3) qualified raters selected from the pool of approved evaluators who will evaluate the interview within ten business days.  Interviews will be prioritized for rating work if a faculty needs immediate results for pending administrative or employment related decisions. 

6.8.5.7  ASLPI ratings will be given on a 0-5 scale that considers: 1) visual-gestural production; 2) ASL grammar; 3) sign vocabulary; 4) fluency; and 5) comprehension. 

6.8.5.8  In addition to receiving the overall proficiency level (0-5), faculty will receive mean scores for each category evaluated.  

6.8.6   American Sign Language Proficiency and Classroom Discourse Competence 

6.8.6.1  Starting in academic year 2013 - 2014, faculty who have received an ASLPI level below 3 must take the ASLPI every year until he/she achieves 3 or better. Faculty who have ASLPI levels that include decimals will have their levels converted to a result with or without a plus (+) by ASL-DES. 

6.8.6.2  Starting in academic year 2016 - 2017, for promotion and merit increase decisions, performance and improvement in ASL and classroom discourse competence will be considered using the following information sources: ASLPI (target level 3), Classroom Discourse Observation, feedback to the faculty member, Students' Ratings of Instructor's Classroom Communication, and documentation of faculty member's efforts to improve ASL and classroom discourse. (See Section 6.8.4). Departments may establish higher (but not lower) ASLPI target levels for promotion and merit increase according to the requirements of their academic discipline. The Department chair may submit additional evidence as necessary.

6.8.6.3   Starting in academic year 2016-2017, for third year re-appointment, performance and improvement in ASL and classroom discourse will be considered using the following information sources:  ASLPI (target level 2+), Classroom Discourse Observation feedback, Students' Rating of Instructor's Classroom Communication, and evidence of faculty member's efforts to improve ASL and classroom discourse competence.  The Department chair may submit additional evidence as necessary.

6.8.6.4   Starting in academic year 2016 - 2017, for tenure decisions, performance and improvement in ASL and classroom discourse competence will be considered using the following information sources: ASLPI (target level 3), Classroom Discourse Observation feedback, Students' Ratings of Instructor's Classroom Communication, and documentation of efforts to improve ASL and classroom discourse. The Department chair may submit additional evidence as necessary.

6.8.6.5 Faculty who received tenure or were promoted by satisfying the Sign Communication Proficiency (SCPI) requirements under the SCPI system (Advanced: tenure; Intermediate Plus: promotion) are not required to demonstrate ASL and classroom discourse competence on the ASLPI or Classroom Discourse Observation to maintain tenure or their faculty rank.

6.8.7   Reporting Procedures

ASL-DES shall be responsible for sharing the rating results of the ASLPI and feedback on the Classroom Discourse Observation with the individual faculty member, the chair of the faculty member's department, and the Dean.  In no other instance will the results be released without the written permission of the individual faculty member. 

6.8.8   Procedure for Requests for Review

6.8.8.1   If a faculty member does not agree with the rating received on an ASLPI, that person shall have the right to request a review. The request for a review of the results must be made to ASL-DES in writing within 20 days of receipt of the ASLPI report.  Each request will be reviewed and an appropriate course of action will be taken. If a new evaluation team is selected to rate the interview that results in a different ASLPI rating, the higher rating will stand.

6.8.8.2   Alternatively, if something inappropriate or uncomfortable occurs during the interview (e.g. offensive or inappropriate questions or comments), a new interview may be requested.  If this occurs, the examinee must notify the Coordinator in writing within 48 hours of the interview date and provide justification for a new interview.  The original interview will not be rated and another interview will be scheduled with a different interviewer. 

6.8.9   Faculty Instruction

6.8.9.1   American Sign Language and classroom discourse development will be provided by the appropriate unit charged with this responsibility.  Professional development will be provided for new faculty during the summer New Faculty Orientation program, and will be available to the faculty each semester and summer session. The primary purpose of this training will be to assist the faculty in their development of American Sign Language and classroom discourse skills so that they may meet the requirements set forth in these Guidelines. A secondary purpose shall be to assist in improving day-to-day communication in a bilingual setting, both in and outside the classroom.

6.8.9.2   Faculty members shall be granted release time from teaching and departmental duties specifically to pursue intensive study in American Sign Language during their first three years of appointment, if needed, including summer sessions. This release time, equivalent to one three credit course, shall be stipulated in the faculty member's initial letter of appointment and shall be specifically geared toward assisting the individual in achieving an ASLPI rating of 2 before February 15th of the third full academic year of service.

6.8.9.3   Full-Time regular status faculty members who have demonstrated an ASLPI proficiency rating of 3 or better at any time before the end of their second year of appointment shall be expected to carry a normal teaching load.

6.8.9.4   All faculty members are expected to continue to improve their American Sign Language and classroom discourse competence throughout their tenure at the University. It is the responsibility of the Deans to ensure that all faculty members have a reasonable opportunity to pursue such improvement.