Collective Agreement Part 7 – Evaluation

Collective Agreement Part 7 – Evaluation

7.         EVALUATION

 

7.1       Purpose of Evaluation

 

The overarching purpose of faculty evaluation is to maintain excellence of instruction, and of service, at the university.

 

In order to achieve this purpose, several processes are available.

 

7.1.1    TERMINOLOGY

 

The following definitions are intended to provide clarity around the terms, and the relations between the processes, described here in Article 7.

 

“Formative evaluation”: evaluation undertaken with the aim of assessing a faculty member’s current practice and improving it as deemed appropriate.

 

“Summative evaluation”: an evaluation, the results of which contribute to a decision regarding continued employment.

 

“Self-directed evaluation”: an evaluation utilizing a tool or process chosen by the faculty member as part of his/her ongoing formative evaluation and the results of which go only to the faculty member, to be shared only at the discretion of the faculty member.

 

“Supervised evaluation”: an evaluation, whether formative or summative, the results of which go to the faculty member’s supervisor.

 

7.2       EVALUATION OF NEW REGULAR INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY

 

7.2.1    New faculty shall receive an initial two-year appointment and shall be on   probation during this period. New regular faculty who have prior experience at VIU performing the duties of their regular appointment as limited term contract faculty can, at their request and at the beginning of their regular appointment, have that work counted as one year of the probationary period, if that work accumulates to 1.0 FTE. With the agreement of the Dean, this abbreviated probationary period can be extended to non-regular faculty upon appointment to a regular position.  A Supervised Formative Evaluation will be completed by no later than the end of the first year or shortly after hire if the faculty member opts for the abbreviated probationary period.  A Summative Evaluation will be completed by the end of the probation period.

 

7.2.2    The primary professional responsibilities of the Professor/Instructor are to      prepare and to teach courses and programs within his or her area of      competence, and to tutor, advise and evaluate students.  As well, all     faculty are required to fulfill the following core duties:

 

  1. a) maintain posted office hours and be available to meet with individual students at other mutually agreed upon times;

 

  1. b) provide additional assistance to students in areas such as study skills, academic advising, special events, as well as recruitment and admission of students;

 

  1. c) remain current in his or her field;

 

  1. d) demonstrate participation in professional development and/or scholarly activity;

 

  1. e) participate in departmental and institutional activities.

 

7.2.3    In their first and second years, a review of performance will assess overall       performance based on suitability and will include student surveys as well   as any of the following in order to assess performance:

 

  1. a) Classroom observation. The timing of the classroom observations shall be subjected to agreement between the faculty member and the Appropriate Senior Administrator.

 

  1. b) Where applicable, interview with students. The students to be interviewed shall be randomly selected. The interviews shall be done either individually or in groups of no more than five (5) students.  The faculty member may send an observer to the interviews.

 

  1. c) Review of course materials.

 

  1. d) Discussion with Department Chair.

 

7.2.4    If in the summative evaluation, the Appropriate Senior Administrator determines that a faculty member’s overall performance is unsatisfactory, the Appropriate Senior Administrator may invoke the terms of Article 7.2.7 or may indicate that the faculty member will be required and assisted to address the areas identified in the evaluation as requiring improvement by a development program specifically designed for the member.  This program, as well as the timetable for implementing it, will be determined through a meeting between the faculty member and the Appropriate Senior Administrator.  The faculty member may elect to invite a VIUFA shop steward or a colleague chosen by the faculty member.  In such cases, the Appropriate Senior Administrator will Chair the meeting.  At this meeting the Appropriate Senior Administrator will determine the time of a follow-up evaluation to determine whether the faculty member has been successful in addressing the areas identified as requiring improvement.

 

7.2.5    The probationary period for a probationary faculty member may be extended for up to a maximum of one (1) year if deemed necessary by the employer for exceptional circumstances.

 

7.2.6    If at the end of the two-year probationary appointment or the extended probationary appointment the faculty member’s performance is satisfactory, then the faculty member will be given an ongoing appointment.

 

7.2.7    If at the end of the two-year probationary appointment or extended probationary appointment the faculty member’s performance is determined by the Appropriate Senior Administrator to be unsatisfactory, the appointment will be terminated.

 

7.2.8    Nothing in this provision prevents the early termination of a probationary appointment for reasons of professional unsuitability/incompetence.

 

7.3       EVALUATION OF NEW REGULAR NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY

 

New faculty shall receive an initial two-year appointment and shall be on probation during this period.

 

Evaluation shall be carried out using methods appropriate to the particular assignment. Interviews with or questionnaires of students, clients and colleagues (where appropriate) and the relevant Appropriate Senior Administrator’s assessments based on relevant job related activities shall constitute the basis of the evaluation process.

 

Whenever appropriate the provisions of Article 7.2 shall also apply to non-instructional faculty.

 

7.4       FACULTY SELF-DIRECTED FORMATIVE EVALUATION

 

The parties support periodic formative self-directed evaluation of faculty as a means of collective valuable feedback in order to continue to provide high quality instruction and service.

 

The approaches to periodic faculty self-directed formative evaluation shall be governed by the following general principles, applicable to both instructional and non-instructional faculty;

 

7.4.1    VIUFA faculty and university administration are committed to formative evaluation and promoting a culture of evaluation in a non-threatening environment.

 

7.4.2    As this is self-directed formative evaluation, access to and control over information gathered in the evaluation process shall remain with the faculty member.

 

7.4.3    The evaluation process will follow a minimum 3-5 year cycle.

 

7.4.4    Faculty members will design their own evaluation process. To accommodate differences in work, program, and discipline, a “menu” of evaluation options, including an “other” category, should be available for each Faculty, department, or administrative unit.

 

7.4.5    The periodic evaluation should not be onerous.

 

7.4.6    The faculty member’s conclusions based on information gathered from the evaluation may inform the faculty member in the design of his/her professional development plan for the following cycle.

 

7.4.7    As this is self-directed formative evaluation, access to and control over conclusions drawn or reports to be made shall remain with the faculty member. No adverse inference can be drawn from the failure of the faculty member to report on the results of periodic evaluations.

 

7.5       SUPERVISED EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY ON REGULAR APPOINTMENTS

 

7.5.1    The Appropriate Senior Administrator may initiate and carry out evaluation procedures for a faculty member about whom a professional concern has arisen.

 

7.5.2    The following procedures will apply to a faculty member for whom an evaluation procedure is initiated pursuant to Article 7.5.1 above:

 

  1. a) The faculty member will be advised by the Appropriate Senior Administrator that a professional concern(s) has (have) arisen and that an evaluation procedure will be initiated. The faculty member will be given a summary description of the nature of the professional concern(s) that has (have) given rise to the evaluation procedures pursuant to Article 7.5.1

 

  1. b) The Appropriate Senior Administrator will identify suggestions and/or resources which the faculty member may access or utilize in an effort to address the professional concern(s) giving rise to the invoking of the evaluation procedures pursuant to Article 7.5.

 

  1. c) The Appropriate Senior Administrator shall, at the end of the semester in which the notice was given pursuant to Article 7.5.2 a) above, consider whether or not the faculty member has sufficiently addressed the professional concern(s). If the Appropriate Senior Administrator determines that there is no longer any professional concern(s) a Supervised Formative Evaluation pursuant to Article 7.5.3 will not be required.

 

7.5.3    Supervised Formative Evaluation

 

  1. a) Commencing in the semester next following the semester in which notice was given to initiate evaluation procedures under Article 7.5.1 a Supervised Formative Evaluation will be conducted by the appropriate Senior Administrator. The intent of this evaluation is to be formative and will identify areas requiring improvement. This evaluation will be concluded after two semesters of teaching following the semester in which the evaluation procedures were initiated in Article 7.5.2.

 

  1. b) The supervised evaluation pursuant to Article 7.5.3 will be based on the professional responsibilities outlined in Article 7.2.2 and assessed in accordance with Article 7.2.3. By agreement between the faculty member and the Appropriate Senior Administrator, the above may be supplemented by compendia of activities compiled by the faculty member and the Appropriate Senior Administrator.

 

  1. c) The Supervised Formative Evaluation will conclude with a meeting with the faculty member in which the faculty member will provide to the Appropriate Senior Administrator a proposed performance improvement plan addressing the areas requiring improvement. The faculty member may elect to invite an Association Shop Steward or a colleague chosen by the faculty member. This proposed plan shall be reviewed and every effort shall be made by those in attendance to provide input to the Appropriate Senior Administrator in the development of a performance improvement plan specifically designed for the faculty member, which shall be mutually acceptable to the Appropriate Senior Administrator and the faculty member.  The faculty member shall not unreasonably refuse such agreement

 

7.5.4    Summative Evaluation

 

7.5.4.1 A Summative Evaluation shall be commenced in the first semester               in which he or she is teaching following the conclusion of the evaluation referred to in Article 7.5.3 above.  This evaluation shall be concluded in the second semester following the semester in which the evaluation pursuant to Article 7.5.3 was concluded.

 

7.5.4.2 The basis of the Summative Evaluation shall be the same as                                    outlined in Article 7.5.3 (b) above.

 

7.5.4.3             a) If the Summative Evaluation results in a satisfactory assessment                                   the faculty member will continue with his or her ongoing                                   appointment.

 

  1. b) If the Summative Evaluation results in an unsatisfactory assessment the faculty member’s appointment shall be terminated.

 

7.6       SUPERVISED EVALUATION OF NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY ON REGULAR APPOINTMENTS

 

The Appropriate Senior Administrator may initiate and carry out evaluation procedures for a faculty member about whom a professional concern has arisen.

 

All of Article 7.3 shall also apply except for 7.3.3 (b).  Interviews with or questionnaires of students, clients and colleagues (where appropriate) and the relevant supervisor’s assessments based on relevant job related activities shall constitute the basis of the evaluation process.

 

7.7       SUPERVISED EVALUATION OF NON-REGULAR FACULTY MEMBERS

 

A non-regular faculty member may be evaluated at the Appropriate Senior Administrator’s discretion or upon the request of the Program Coordinator or Department Chair.

 

Evaluation shall be carried out using methods appropriate to the particular assignment.  (See Articles 7.2 and 7.3)

2018-06-12T14:59:10-07:00June 8th, 2018|