Project Background Project Committee Project Endorsements

*Requires MS Power Point installed on your computer

**Requires the Adobe Reader plugin for your browser,
available free from Adobe

Step 4: Determining Role Component Weights

Role Definitions, Components Areas & Descriptors, Developed by/for Faculty (4/15/08)

In Step 4, the role components defined in Step 3 are given weighted values. For example, in the teaching role, the relative importance of course delivery vs. design vs. content are determined.

The following is the Evaluation Committee's letter to Department Chairs
with regard to beginning Step 4. The completion date for this step is January 29, 2008.

Revised March 18, 2009

Dear Department Chairs and Faculty:

On behalf of our Evaluation Committee, we extend our appreciation to those of you who participated in the Evaluation workshops which were held on January 14th and 15th. The outcome was immensely successful. The following institutional minimum and maximum role parameter values were discussed and revised based on recommendations from various workshop participants. In addition, the roles were defined by faculty groups and approved by Dr. McFarlane, Vice President of Academic Affairs. The definitions and role parameters will be submitted as action items at the Faculty Senate meeting on January 25th.

Great Basin College Dynamic Faculty Role Model
Minimum Weight (%) Faculty Role Maximum Weight (%)
40% Teaching
Delivery (IDEA Form), Design, Assessment,
and Course Management
5% Professional
Proficiency, Creative/Scholarly
0% Management
Department Chairs, Program Supervisor
10% Service
To the Institution, the Students, and the Community

Our committee is ready to undertake Step 4.  The objective of Step 4 is to consider how much weight or relative importance the various components of each role should have in the overall evaluation of that specific role. We are asking that each department express the proportion or weight that will be given to the performance of each component in the evaluation of the total role.

In this letter, you will find the range of weights for the roles in the faculty evaluation system (see above) and, separately, the worksheets for Step 4. These worksheets include the definition for each role.

The range of weights and the definitions are from Steps 2 and 3. These are informational. Please do not use the range of weights from Step 3 as you complete the work in Step 4.

In Step 4, you are creating a range of weights for various components identified as belonging to each role. If a role has only one component, then that role has only one weight -- 100%. In our case, Community Service is the only such role.

If the role is not required for every faculty member, then the lowest weight assigned to each component must be 0%. Management represents that role for GBC. Your department must decide what the highest weight is for each component in management, but 0% must be the low end of the range.

You'll notice that several role worksheets have components that are listed as required. Those components must have a weight of at least 1% because each faculty member is required to be rated on that component in their evaluation. Instructional delivery is one such component. The lower weight may be more than 1%; your department should decide what the highest weight is for those components.

In the role, Creative/Scholarly Activity, a suggested low weight for Proficiency is 25%. In a discussion with committee members, administration suggested that percentage because proficiency includes all professional development activities. These would include professional workshops, in-service trainings and recertification. If your department believes that 25% is too high, change the number, but please include support for reducing the percentage.

The evaluation committee is requesting that the work for Step 4 be completed by February 29nd.   Please contact Lynette and/or Linda if you need personal assistance in completing this step during your department meetings.  

If you have any questions, please call or e-mail Lynette Macfarlan or Linda Uhlenkott.   The completion for Step 4 is essential for completing the foundation in building the GBC Evaluation system. The new and improved system is designed for faculty by the faculty.   We can can't move forward without you!   Thank you for your continuing support.  


Evaluation Committee Members

The Faculty Evaluation Process at GBC is based on the work of Dr. Raoul Arreola, specifically Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System: A Guide to Designing, Building, and Operating Large-Scale Faculty Evaluation Systems, 3rd Edition, ISBN: 978-1-933371-11-5, copyright ©2007, Anker Publishing Company, Inc., 563 Main Street, P.O. Box 249, Bolton, MA 01740-0249. Forms used on this website are taken from that guide with the permission of the author and may not be further reproduced without his permission.