College of Micronesia-FSM SealCollege of Micronesia-FSM

The Office of Institutional Research and Planning

Memo:
From: Glen Snider, Accreditation Liaison Officer
To: All department and Division Heads
Date: December 9, 2002

Re: Performance Evaluation Inventory

One of our goals as a College and also one of the requirements of the accreditation standards that will come into effect in January 2004 is that the College develop a “culture of continuous improvement.” Simply put we want to be doing the right things, in the most efficient manner with the greatest positive impact.  As a College we already carry on many performance evaluation activities.  However, everyone is not aware of all the evaluation activities or where to access the information on performance evaluation. We also want to ensure that the evaluation information that is gathered is used in a systematic way to actually improve the quality of our instruction and services at the College.

Please take the time to fill out the chart that follows for your academic division or department.  Take into consideration every level of your division and department and try your best to include every performance evaluation process you use.  As part of filling out the form please take the time to ask your staff members about any ways they evaluate the effectiveness of their own activities.

Try to determine what kind of evaluation processes are being used by you or your department or division team members.  Are the evaluations of performance direct or indirect? (See examples below.)

Type of Evaluation Description Example
Direct Actual observation or measurement Classroom observation of teaching Testing the quality of the water in the kitchen
Indirect Opinion or satisfaction information Compiled statistics Registration Survey Completion rates or graduation rates

Thanks for your cooperation in completing the inventory.  Results will be tabulated and circulated. Please return the inventory by Dec. 19, 2002. If you need any assistance in completing the inventory please contact me. (National Campus ext. 119)

Performance Improvement Inventory

What is evaluated? How it is evaluated? By who or whom is it evaluated? How frequently is it evaluated? How are the results of the evaluation documented? How is the information used to improve quality of the instruction or service
1. Faculty  xDirect Method  oIndirect Methods Chair Annually Completion of a professional inventory form to VPIA after a classroom visit. A replacement has been proposed but not adopted.  
2. Faculty  oDirect Method  xIndirect Methods Chair At step increase or contract renewal Completion of Employee Progress Report. A replacement has been proposed but not adopted.  
3. Non-faculty employee evaluation  oDirect Method  xIndirect Methods Chair Annual step increase Completion of Employee Progress Report.  
5. Instructor Evaluation By Student  xDirect Method  oIndirect Methods Student Every Fall term Quly very manually tabulates results. Distributed to chairs, passed on to faculty. Last year I compiled the results and released a anonymous summary.  
6. Student Self Evaluation  xDirect Method  oIndirect Methods Student Each Fall Uncertain. Does not come directly back to chairs or faculty.  
7.          oDirect Method  oIndirect Methods        
  8.           Direct Method  Indirect Methods        
  9.           Direct Method  Indirect Methods        
  10.           Direct Method  Indirect Methods        
  11.           Direct Method  Indirect Methods        
  12.          Direct Method  Indirect Methods