A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors : Mentoring and Evaluation in the Online Classroom
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration (2005)
Available from www.westga.edu
or
Abstract
The rapid growth of online learning has mandated the development of faculty evaluation models geared specifically toward the unique demands of the online classroom. With a foundation in the best practices of online learning, adapted to meet the dynamics of a growing online program, the Online Instructor Evaluation System created at Park University serves the dual purpose of mentoring and faculty evaluation. As such, the model contains two distinct phases of interaction: formative reviews and a summative evaluation. Beyond its critical role in instructor retention, program assessment, and accreditation, this faculty evaluation system signals the University's commitment to ongoing professional development. The Online Instructor Evaluation System maximizes the potential of faculty evaluation to inspire reflection and growth; encourages the persistent professional development needs of online instructors; emphasizes the process of teaching as well as product; incorporates multiple perspectives to capture a comprehensive view of instructor performance; and educates key on-ground university constituents about online learning. In the infancy of online instruction, considerable emphasis was given to demonstrating equivalence between online and traditional face-to-face instruction. This movement extended from pedagogy to evaluation as many online programs mirrored established face-to-face processes for faculty evaluation when creating models for the virtual classroom. With the rapid growth of online learning, these early evaluation models have revealed limited relevance to the online environment both in content and implementation. To address the ineffectiveness of traditional faculty evaluation models for use with online faculty, as well as to contribute to the growth of online learning as a field (and not simply a practice), innovative faculty evaluation models that are geared specifically to the unique demands, expectations and requirements of modern online learning must be developed.
Available from www.westga.edu
Page 1
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors : Mentoring and Evaluation in the Online Classroom
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
1 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors:
Mentoring and Evaluation in the Online Classroom
B. Jean Mandernach,
Department of Psychology,
Park University
Parkville , Missouri
mailto:Jean.mandernach@park.edu
Emily Donnelli, Department of English, Park University
Amber Dailey, Department of Education, Park University
Marthann Schulte, Department of Education, Park University
Abstract
The rapid growth of online learning has mandated the development of faculty evaluation models
geared specifically toward the unique demands of the online classroom. With a foundation in the
best practices of online learning, adapted to meet the dynamics of a growing online program, the
Online Instructor Evaluation System created at Park University serves the dual purpose of
mentoring and faculty evaluation. As such, the model contains two distinct phases of interaction:
formative reviews and a summative evaluation. Beyond its critical role in instructor retention,
program assessment, and accreditation, this faculty evaluation system signals the University's
commitment to ongoing professional development. The Online Instructor Evaluation System
maximizes the potential of faculty evaluation to inspire reflection and growth; encourages the
persistent professional development needs of online instructors; emphasizes the process of
teaching as well as product; incorporates multiple perspectives to capture a comprehensive view
of instructor performance; and educates key on-ground university constituents about online
learning.
In the infancy of online instruction, considerable emphasis was given to demonstrating
equivalence between online and traditional face-to-face instruction. This movement extended
from pedagogy to evaluation as many online programs mirrored established face-to-face
processes for faculty evaluation when creating models for the virtual classroom. With the rapid
growth of online learning, these early evaluation models have revealed limited relevance to the
online environment both in content and implementation. To address the ineffectiveness of
traditional faculty evaluation models for use with online faculty, as well as to contribute to the
growth of online learning as a field (and not simply a practice), innovative faculty evaluation
models that are geared specifically to the unique demands, expectations and requirements of
modern online learning must be developed.
Institutional Context
The evaluation model for online faculty at Park University was created to meet the unique
demands of an evolving online program. While Park University was founded as a small, private
liberal-arts college in 1875, the original campus has grown to include graduate programs, 42
nation-wide campus centers, and an extensive online program supporting 45,000 annual student
1 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors:
Mentoring and Evaluation in the Online Classroom
B. Jean Mandernach,
Department of Psychology,
Park University
Parkville , Missouri
mailto:Jean.mandernach@park.edu
Emily Donnelli, Department of English, Park University
Amber Dailey, Department of Education, Park University
Marthann Schulte, Department of Education, Park University
Abstract
The rapid growth of online learning has mandated the development of faculty evaluation models
geared specifically toward the unique demands of the online classroom. With a foundation in the
best practices of online learning, adapted to meet the dynamics of a growing online program, the
Online Instructor Evaluation System created at Park University serves the dual purpose of
mentoring and faculty evaluation. As such, the model contains two distinct phases of interaction:
formative reviews and a summative evaluation. Beyond its critical role in instructor retention,
program assessment, and accreditation, this faculty evaluation system signals the University's
commitment to ongoing professional development. The Online Instructor Evaluation System
maximizes the potential of faculty evaluation to inspire reflection and growth; encourages the
persistent professional development needs of online instructors; emphasizes the process of
teaching as well as product; incorporates multiple perspectives to capture a comprehensive view
of instructor performance; and educates key on-ground university constituents about online
learning.
In the infancy of online instruction, considerable emphasis was given to demonstrating
equivalence between online and traditional face-to-face instruction. This movement extended
from pedagogy to evaluation as many online programs mirrored established face-to-face
processes for faculty evaluation when creating models for the virtual classroom. With the rapid
growth of online learning, these early evaluation models have revealed limited relevance to the
online environment both in content and implementation. To address the ineffectiveness of
traditional faculty evaluation models for use with online faculty, as well as to contribute to the
growth of online learning as a field (and not simply a practice), innovative faculty evaluation
models that are geared specifically to the unique demands, expectations and requirements of
modern online learning must be developed.
Institutional Context
The evaluation model for online faculty at Park University was created to meet the unique
demands of an evolving online program. While Park University was founded as a small, private
liberal-arts college in 1875, the original campus has grown to include graduate programs, 42
nation-wide campus centers, and an extensive online program supporting 45,000 annual student
Page 2
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
2 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
enrollments in seven online degree-completion programs and four fully-online graduate
programs. Park University 's culture is as a teaching-oriented institution, with emerging
expectations for faculty scholarship, research, and service. The institutional complexity at Park
University samples challenges found across a host of institutions targeting 2- or 4-year degrees,
public or private settings, and traditional or adult student populations. As such, the University's
online faculty evaluation model is potentially translatable to an equally wide range of
higher-learning institutions. With the increasing popularity and growth of online learning, it is
essential to establish clear, direct, relevant guidelines for evaluating online faculty that maintain
instructional quality and promote best practices in online education.
Rationale for Online Faculty Evaluation System
The legacy online faculty evaluation system at Park University was inadequate for evaluating the
unique expectations and demands faced by online instructors within this system. Prior to the
development of the new online evaluation system, online instructors were evaluated using a
generic instrument designed for face-to-face distance instructors at the University's campus
centers across the country. Because the evaluation was based on traditional classroom concerns,
the instrument's evaluative criteria did not emphasize key competencies for effective online
instruction, such as instructor response rate and availability; frequency and quality of presence in
online classroom; facilitation of discussions in writing; usability of instructor-created
supplemental content; and overall management of the administrative aspects of the course
(approving final examination proctors, connecting students to University support resources,
completing required administrative tasks, etc.).
Also in keeping with traditional face-to-face evaluation models, the evaluator completed his/her
review at the end of the term in a singular exchange with the instructor. While this type of
singular formal interaction may be effective in the more intimate environment of the on-ground
campus, where evaluators have ongoing opportunities to interact informally with instructors
based on proximity, this practice does not translate meaningfully to the virtual classroom. In the
online environment, the evaluation process often proved the first and only time the instructor and
evaluator interacted. The limitations of this model were compounded by the fact that many online
instructors were relatively new to the virtual classroom. Not only were the evaluation and
recommendations for these instructors' online teaching practice being provided after the point at
which suggestions could be effectively implemented into the classroom, the legacy evaluation
instrument did not account for the limited online teaching experience of many of the University's
online instructors. Thus, the assumptions under girding face-to-face faculty evaluation models
limited the effectiveness of an online evaluation system based on traditional models.
In addition to the flaws in the timing and content of the legacy evaluation system, there were
growing concerns about the lack of peer support and professional guidance for instructors
working within a geographically diverse and highly individualized environment. Larger
University concerns present included the need to educate the key departmental leaders who were
expected to work with online learning staff to evaluate online instructors. The legacy evaluation
system did not provide these individuals, only some of whom had experience with online
instruction, with the context and education needed to understand the differences between online
and face-to-face methods. As such, the Online Instructor Evaluation System (OIES) was
developed to reinforce key competencies and expectations unique to online faculty; provide
significant professional development exchanges and resources for online faculty; and ensure a
high-quality learning experience in all virtual classrooms. Moving outward, a tertiary goal of the
OIES was to educate the broader University community about benchmarks and best practices of
online learning to promote reciprocal exchange between online and face-to-face practitioners and
2 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
enrollments in seven online degree-completion programs and four fully-online graduate
programs. Park University 's culture is as a teaching-oriented institution, with emerging
expectations for faculty scholarship, research, and service. The institutional complexity at Park
University samples challenges found across a host of institutions targeting 2- or 4-year degrees,
public or private settings, and traditional or adult student populations. As such, the University's
online faculty evaluation model is potentially translatable to an equally wide range of
higher-learning institutions. With the increasing popularity and growth of online learning, it is
essential to establish clear, direct, relevant guidelines for evaluating online faculty that maintain
instructional quality and promote best practices in online education.
Rationale for Online Faculty Evaluation System
The legacy online faculty evaluation system at Park University was inadequate for evaluating the
unique expectations and demands faced by online instructors within this system. Prior to the
development of the new online evaluation system, online instructors were evaluated using a
generic instrument designed for face-to-face distance instructors at the University's campus
centers across the country. Because the evaluation was based on traditional classroom concerns,
the instrument's evaluative criteria did not emphasize key competencies for effective online
instruction, such as instructor response rate and availability; frequency and quality of presence in
online classroom; facilitation of discussions in writing; usability of instructor-created
supplemental content; and overall management of the administrative aspects of the course
(approving final examination proctors, connecting students to University support resources,
completing required administrative tasks, etc.).
Also in keeping with traditional face-to-face evaluation models, the evaluator completed his/her
review at the end of the term in a singular exchange with the instructor. While this type of
singular formal interaction may be effective in the more intimate environment of the on-ground
campus, where evaluators have ongoing opportunities to interact informally with instructors
based on proximity, this practice does not translate meaningfully to the virtual classroom. In the
online environment, the evaluation process often proved the first and only time the instructor and
evaluator interacted. The limitations of this model were compounded by the fact that many online
instructors were relatively new to the virtual classroom. Not only were the evaluation and
recommendations for these instructors' online teaching practice being provided after the point at
which suggestions could be effectively implemented into the classroom, the legacy evaluation
instrument did not account for the limited online teaching experience of many of the University's
online instructors. Thus, the assumptions under girding face-to-face faculty evaluation models
limited the effectiveness of an online evaluation system based on traditional models.
In addition to the flaws in the timing and content of the legacy evaluation system, there were
growing concerns about the lack of peer support and professional guidance for instructors
working within a geographically diverse and highly individualized environment. Larger
University concerns present included the need to educate the key departmental leaders who were
expected to work with online learning staff to evaluate online instructors. The legacy evaluation
system did not provide these individuals, only some of whom had experience with online
instruction, with the context and education needed to understand the differences between online
and face-to-face methods. As such, the Online Instructor Evaluation System (OIES) was
developed to reinforce key competencies and expectations unique to online faculty; provide
significant professional development exchanges and resources for online faculty; and ensure a
high-quality learning experience in all virtual classrooms. Moving outward, a tertiary goal of the
OIES was to educate the broader University community about benchmarks and best practices of
online learning to promote reciprocal exchange between online and face-to-face practitioners and
Page 3
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
3 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
practices.
Theoretical and Institutional Foundations
When evaluating the effectiveness of an online course, two distinct components are under
review: the content (curriculum) provided within the online course and the instructor's facilitation
of the learning experience. At Park University , the core content of each course is created by a
content-expert. Once the core content is reviewed and approved by the relevant department chair,
all instructors teaching that course utilize the same core content. In addition to ensuring
compliance with University-wide learning outcomes and promoting academic equivalence and
curricular coherence between delivery methods, this type of standardized curriculum allows the
evaluation of online faculty to emphasize the facilitation and instructional skills of faculty
members rather than their ability as instructional designers. This curriculum development model
also acknowledges the realities of developing and facilitating content within an accelerated
format by providing instructors with a full course of instructional materials they can then
supplement as desired to reflect their expertise and to suit learner needs. Since Park University
utilizes a standardized curriculum, there is less emphasis during evaluation on the content of a
course. As such, the Online Instructor Evaluation System (OIES) was designed to focus
exclusively on online pedagogy while relying on departmental oversight to ensure content
quality.
The OIES was developed out of a comprehensive review of the literature on benchmarks and best
practices of online pedagogy (for more detailed information on these standards, see Council for
Regional Accrediting Commissions, 2001; Graham, Cagiltay, Lim, Craner, & Duffy, 2000; Luck,
2001; Fitch & Montambeau, 2000; Reeves, 1997; Romans, n.d.; and Weiss, Knowlton & Speck,
2004) to achieve the goals of educating online instructors concerning accepted standards in
online education and holding them accountable to these best practices through evaluation and
professional development. Based upon Chickering and Ehrman's guidelines for integrating
principles of good practice in undergraduate education (1996) into technology-enabled learning
environments, the OIES emphasized reciprocal student-faculty contact, inclusion of active
learning strategies, prompt feedback, promotion of student time-on-task, clear communication of
high expectations, and respect for diversity in student talents and ways of learning.
It is important to note that the OIES was not founded solely on the literature and research
findings. Rather, these generalized best practices in online education were considered and
adapted in ways that reflected Park University's institutional history, current context, and future
goals, as synthesized in the University's “Online Course Standards and Principles” (Park
University, 2004). The development of the OIES occurred simultaneously with the conversion of
the online program to a different online course delivery platform, a platform which provided
increased instructional resources and thus allowed evaluators to expect more rigorous and varied
interaction in the online classroom from instructors. At the same time, the initial training of
online instructors was streamlined and condensed into a self-paced, individualized online format,
opening up an opportunity to extend the instructor training and orientation processes with an
individualized first-term evaluation. All of these programmatic changes were implemented
during a paradigm shift in which there was increased emphasis on faculty collaboration,
communication and integration across all modes of course delivery. As such, the OIES at Park
University was developed in light of institutionally-specific dynamics combined with an
empirical basis of online pedagogy. The effectiveness of the OIES is a direct result of this type of
tailoring; in order for an evaluation system to be effective, it must have a foundation in
generally-accepted practices, but these best practices must be tailored to meet the needs of the
particular institution.
3 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
practices.
Theoretical and Institutional Foundations
When evaluating the effectiveness of an online course, two distinct components are under
review: the content (curriculum) provided within the online course and the instructor's facilitation
of the learning experience. At Park University , the core content of each course is created by a
content-expert. Once the core content is reviewed and approved by the relevant department chair,
all instructors teaching that course utilize the same core content. In addition to ensuring
compliance with University-wide learning outcomes and promoting academic equivalence and
curricular coherence between delivery methods, this type of standardized curriculum allows the
evaluation of online faculty to emphasize the facilitation and instructional skills of faculty
members rather than their ability as instructional designers. This curriculum development model
also acknowledges the realities of developing and facilitating content within an accelerated
format by providing instructors with a full course of instructional materials they can then
supplement as desired to reflect their expertise and to suit learner needs. Since Park University
utilizes a standardized curriculum, there is less emphasis during evaluation on the content of a
course. As such, the Online Instructor Evaluation System (OIES) was designed to focus
exclusively on online pedagogy while relying on departmental oversight to ensure content
quality.
The OIES was developed out of a comprehensive review of the literature on benchmarks and best
practices of online pedagogy (for more detailed information on these standards, see Council for
Regional Accrediting Commissions, 2001; Graham, Cagiltay, Lim, Craner, & Duffy, 2000; Luck,
2001; Fitch & Montambeau, 2000; Reeves, 1997; Romans, n.d.; and Weiss, Knowlton & Speck,
2004) to achieve the goals of educating online instructors concerning accepted standards in
online education and holding them accountable to these best practices through evaluation and
professional development. Based upon Chickering and Ehrman's guidelines for integrating
principles of good practice in undergraduate education (1996) into technology-enabled learning
environments, the OIES emphasized reciprocal student-faculty contact, inclusion of active
learning strategies, prompt feedback, promotion of student time-on-task, clear communication of
high expectations, and respect for diversity in student talents and ways of learning.
It is important to note that the OIES was not founded solely on the literature and research
findings. Rather, these generalized best practices in online education were considered and
adapted in ways that reflected Park University's institutional history, current context, and future
goals, as synthesized in the University's “Online Course Standards and Principles” (Park
University, 2004). The development of the OIES occurred simultaneously with the conversion of
the online program to a different online course delivery platform, a platform which provided
increased instructional resources and thus allowed evaluators to expect more rigorous and varied
interaction in the online classroom from instructors. At the same time, the initial training of
online instructors was streamlined and condensed into a self-paced, individualized online format,
opening up an opportunity to extend the instructor training and orientation processes with an
individualized first-term evaluation. All of these programmatic changes were implemented
during a paradigm shift in which there was increased emphasis on faculty collaboration,
communication and integration across all modes of course delivery. As such, the OIES at Park
University was developed in light of institutionally-specific dynamics combined with an
empirical basis of online pedagogy. The effectiveness of the OIES is a direct result of this type of
tailoring; in order for an evaluation system to be effective, it must have a foundation in
generally-accepted practices, but these best practices must be tailored to meet the needs of the
particular institution.
Page 4
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
4 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Overview of the Online Instructor Evaluation System
The Online Instructor Evaluation System (OIES) serves the dual purpose of mentoring and
faculty evaluation. As such, the model contains two distinct phases of interaction: formative
reviews and summative evaluation.
The purpose of the formative reviews is to provide feedback and guidance to instructors on
critical online learning components essential to successful facilitation of an online course. The
formative reviews are “no stakes” evaluations in which the evaluator provides detailed feedback
relevant to the instructor's online course as well as suggestions for overall enhancement of the
online learning experience. While the formative reviews are shared with the instructor (and
instructors are encouraged to use reviews as a starting point for further dialogue), they are not
included in the overall course review sent to the instructor's academic department.
During an eight-week course term, the instructor is evaluated with five formative reviews, each
focusing on a critical aspect of online instruction. The topics for each review were selected based
on the guiding principles outlined in the best practices for online education and were sequenced
according to logical use within the course/term. The formative reviews include:
• Preterm review – The preterm review (see Appendix A) is completed prior to the start of the
term and focuses on the set-up of the online course. While completing the Preterm Review, the
evaluator ensures introductory items (i.e., course homepage, homepage content items and
syllabus) are updated, personalized and reflect University requirements. These set-up activities
are especially important in orienting learners in an accelerated format, where students often
access their online classrooms prior to the start of the term to obtain textbook ordering
information and other prepatory materials. In addition, the evaluator provides targeted
suggestions for enhancements related to course organization and the utilization of course tools
and features.
• Review #1 – Review #1 (see Appendix B), which is completed at the end of the second week,
examines community building and promotion of an interactive climate. The purpose of this
review is to e xamine the use and implementation of discussion threads, including an overview of
participation expectations, tips for grading discussion items, instructor availability, instructor
presence, and student-to-student interaction.
• Review #2 – Review #2 (see Appendix C) is completed during the fourth week and focuses on
discussion facilitation, feedback and grading. During this review, the evaluator provides guidance
on instructor interactions, specifically addressing feedback and participation in the discussion
threads as well as comments and use of the grade book. Reviews #1 and #2 both emphasize
discussion facilitation and feedback, as meaningful, consistent instructor interaction is an
ongoing essential of effective online learning.
• Review #3 – At the end of week six, Review #3 (see Appendix D) examines assessments and
final exam preparation. The evaluator r eviews the implementation of formative and summative
assessments as well as preparation for final exam and the proctored exam process. In addition,
interactions include an opportunity to share ideas about supplemental formative assessments that
may be added to the course. Although instructors are expected to use the core curriculum
provided, they are also encouraged to add supplemental content to their courses.
• Review #4 – Implemented during the final weeks of the term, Review #4 (see Appendix E)
focuses on i nstructional materials and overall course climate/organization. As such, evaluators
4 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Overview of the Online Instructor Evaluation System
The Online Instructor Evaluation System (OIES) serves the dual purpose of mentoring and
faculty evaluation. As such, the model contains two distinct phases of interaction: formative
reviews and summative evaluation.
The purpose of the formative reviews is to provide feedback and guidance to instructors on
critical online learning components essential to successful facilitation of an online course. The
formative reviews are “no stakes” evaluations in which the evaluator provides detailed feedback
relevant to the instructor's online course as well as suggestions for overall enhancement of the
online learning experience. While the formative reviews are shared with the instructor (and
instructors are encouraged to use reviews as a starting point for further dialogue), they are not
included in the overall course review sent to the instructor's academic department.
During an eight-week course term, the instructor is evaluated with five formative reviews, each
focusing on a critical aspect of online instruction. The topics for each review were selected based
on the guiding principles outlined in the best practices for online education and were sequenced
according to logical use within the course/term. The formative reviews include:
• Preterm review – The preterm review (see Appendix A) is completed prior to the start of the
term and focuses on the set-up of the online course. While completing the Preterm Review, the
evaluator ensures introductory items (i.e., course homepage, homepage content items and
syllabus) are updated, personalized and reflect University requirements. These set-up activities
are especially important in orienting learners in an accelerated format, where students often
access their online classrooms prior to the start of the term to obtain textbook ordering
information and other prepatory materials. In addition, the evaluator provides targeted
suggestions for enhancements related to course organization and the utilization of course tools
and features.
• Review #1 – Review #1 (see Appendix B), which is completed at the end of the second week,
examines community building and promotion of an interactive climate. The purpose of this
review is to e xamine the use and implementation of discussion threads, including an overview of
participation expectations, tips for grading discussion items, instructor availability, instructor
presence, and student-to-student interaction.
• Review #2 – Review #2 (see Appendix C) is completed during the fourth week and focuses on
discussion facilitation, feedback and grading. During this review, the evaluator provides guidance
on instructor interactions, specifically addressing feedback and participation in the discussion
threads as well as comments and use of the grade book. Reviews #1 and #2 both emphasize
discussion facilitation and feedback, as meaningful, consistent instructor interaction is an
ongoing essential of effective online learning.
• Review #3 – At the end of week six, Review #3 (see Appendix D) examines assessments and
final exam preparation. The evaluator r eviews the implementation of formative and summative
assessments as well as preparation for final exam and the proctored exam process. In addition,
interactions include an opportunity to share ideas about supplemental formative assessments that
may be added to the course. Although instructors are expected to use the core curriculum
provided, they are also encouraged to add supplemental content to their courses.
• Review #4 – Implemented during the final weeks of the term, Review #4 (see Appendix E)
focuses on i nstructional materials and overall course climate/organization. As such, evaluators
Page 5
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
5 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
will r eview all supplemental information to ensure adherence to general instructional design
principles and specific University curriculum standards and expectations.
These formative assessments provide an avenue for peer-mentoring and professional growth by
promoting ongoing reflection and dialogue about practice. While the formative reviews are not
explicitly presented as an informative/prescriptive resource, they serve as consistent and concrete
mechanisms to educate instructors about best practices and serve as a valuable professional
development resource.
In contrast to the low-stakes nature of the formative reviews, the final Summative Evaluation
(see Appendix F) is an overall reflection of the course and is used to inform both the instructor
and the academic department (who will use the summative evaluation along with the instructor's
self-review, Appendix G, and student evaluations to make final decisions concerning instructor
retention). While the Summative Evaluation is focused on an overall evaluation of the course, it
emphasizes the instructor's ability to incorporate suggested changes and required modifications
(including an evaluation of instructor responsiveness and adherence to administrative
requirements) from the formative reviews; although the formative reviews, in keeping with their
function, are not included in the summative package, the particulars of those reviews are
generalized to reflect either the instructor's strengths as a reflective, improved practitioner or to
note unresponsiveness and lack of participation in the process. The summative evaluation
package is particularly effective as a means of online faculty evaluation as it incorporates
multiple perspectives to present to the department a comprehensive portrait of the instructor. This
integrative evaluation emphasizes an instructor's growth throughout a term rather than simply
highlighting the mistakes made throughout the instructional process.
Implementation
The Online Instructor Evaluation System is implemented by designated instructor evaluators. The
instructor evaluator position is a full-time, faculty-classified role, with 50% administrative
release time granted to evaluate/mentor approximately 15 instructors per eight-week term. The
faculty classification of the evaluators allows them to be fully integrated into the life of the
campus, participating on curriculum and other university-wide committees and meeting
institutional expectations for research, scholarship, and service. A dual benefit of this
classification is that the online learning program gains faculty representatives in the disciplines,
faculty who can serve as ready sources of accurate information about the online learning
program, its academic oversight, and the processes related to developing and teaching courses
online. The representative/liaison function of the evaluator role enables stronger relationships
between the online learning program and the disciplines, paving the way for increased
collaboration. Pragmatic implications of structuring the position in these ways include working
with university academic administration and candidates' departments in the hiring process to
ensure that the candidates possess appropriate credentials and the hires respond to departmental
needs in addition to needs within the online learning program.
Since the inception of the OIES in the fall of 2004, 102 separate faculty evaluations have been
completed. In order to ensure that the OIES was an effective evaluation system, responsive to
programmatic needs and institutional culture, the initial pilot implementation was intentionally
restricted to allow for necessary revisions and modifications. During the first academic year of
implementation, the following evaluations were completed:
Fall I 04 - 22 instructors evaluated
Fall II 04 - 27 instructors evaluated
5 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
will r eview all supplemental information to ensure adherence to general instructional design
principles and specific University curriculum standards and expectations.
These formative assessments provide an avenue for peer-mentoring and professional growth by
promoting ongoing reflection and dialogue about practice. While the formative reviews are not
explicitly presented as an informative/prescriptive resource, they serve as consistent and concrete
mechanisms to educate instructors about best practices and serve as a valuable professional
development resource.
In contrast to the low-stakes nature of the formative reviews, the final Summative Evaluation
(see Appendix F) is an overall reflection of the course and is used to inform both the instructor
and the academic department (who will use the summative evaluation along with the instructor's
self-review, Appendix G, and student evaluations to make final decisions concerning instructor
retention). While the Summative Evaluation is focused on an overall evaluation of the course, it
emphasizes the instructor's ability to incorporate suggested changes and required modifications
(including an evaluation of instructor responsiveness and adherence to administrative
requirements) from the formative reviews; although the formative reviews, in keeping with their
function, are not included in the summative package, the particulars of those reviews are
generalized to reflect either the instructor's strengths as a reflective, improved practitioner or to
note unresponsiveness and lack of participation in the process. The summative evaluation
package is particularly effective as a means of online faculty evaluation as it incorporates
multiple perspectives to present to the department a comprehensive portrait of the instructor. This
integrative evaluation emphasizes an instructor's growth throughout a term rather than simply
highlighting the mistakes made throughout the instructional process.
Implementation
The Online Instructor Evaluation System is implemented by designated instructor evaluators. The
instructor evaluator position is a full-time, faculty-classified role, with 50% administrative
release time granted to evaluate/mentor approximately 15 instructors per eight-week term. The
faculty classification of the evaluators allows them to be fully integrated into the life of the
campus, participating on curriculum and other university-wide committees and meeting
institutional expectations for research, scholarship, and service. A dual benefit of this
classification is that the online learning program gains faculty representatives in the disciplines,
faculty who can serve as ready sources of accurate information about the online learning
program, its academic oversight, and the processes related to developing and teaching courses
online. The representative/liaison function of the evaluator role enables stronger relationships
between the online learning program and the disciplines, paving the way for increased
collaboration. Pragmatic implications of structuring the position in these ways include working
with university academic administration and candidates' departments in the hiring process to
ensure that the candidates possess appropriate credentials and the hires respond to departmental
needs in addition to needs within the online learning program.
Since the inception of the OIES in the fall of 2004, 102 separate faculty evaluations have been
completed. In order to ensure that the OIES was an effective evaluation system, responsive to
programmatic needs and institutional culture, the initial pilot implementation was intentionally
restricted to allow for necessary revisions and modifications. During the first academic year of
implementation, the following evaluations were completed:
Fall I 04 - 22 instructors evaluated
Fall II 04 - 27 instructors evaluated
Page 6
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
6 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Spring I 05 - 27 instructors evaluated
Spring II 05 - 26 instructors evaluated
Summer 05 - no evaluations completed
Fall I 05 - currently 30 evaluations in progress
At the conclusion of the first year of the OIES pilot, extensive reflection on the evaluation system
resulted in the creation of a University Review Board comprised of full-time faculty,
administrators and adjunct instructors to provide annual feedback and guidance on the faculty
evaluation system. As part of the first Review Board process, additional instructor evaluators
were hired to meet the demands of the University's pool of approximately 300 active online
instructors and to ensure sound evaluation loads. Based on pilot analysis, it was determined that
five instructor evaluators were needed to mentor/evaluate 15 faculty members per eight-week
term, four terms each academic year. This load would allow each instructor evaluator to complete
60 OIES evaluations in one academic year, resulting in a total of 300 evaluations completed
across the University each year. While there exist ongoing budgetary considerations associated
with the additional faculty members hired as instructor evaluators, these costs are offset by the
economic value of retaining qualified instructors compared to the high-cost of faculty turnover.
Results and Reflections
Like all effective evaluation systems, the OIES is continually monitored and adjusted to adapt to
the dynamic nature of higher-education and the emergent quality of online education in
particular. The initial implementation of the OIES exposed a number of strengths and
weaknesses related both to faculty readiness for and response to the evaluation process and
administrative concerns over its implementation. Reflecting on these initial concerns has enabled
continued refinement of the evaluation materials and process.
Instructor feedback to the OIES indicated a noticeable contrast between the perceptions and
reactions of existing faculty and new instructors. While most new instructors were very receptive
to and appreciative of the review process, noting that the additional resources usefully expanded
their initial training, existing faculty members displayed some resistance to the evaluative
dimension of the system. New instructors indicated an appreciation for the extensive guidance
and the way in which the formative reviews provided them with a measure of their performance
as facilitators of learning online. Representative of this category of feedback, one new instructor
commented, “I love the constructive criticism and since this is my first time teaching online
courses, it is greatly appreciated.” Furthermore, new instructors considered the evaluation to be a
collaborative process between themselves and the evaluator. One respondent noted, “I really
appreciate your mentorship and suggestions this semester as this has facilitated me to become a
better instructor for future Park Classes. Again, thank you for your time and guidance over the
past 8 weeks!” Overwhelmingly, new instructors valued the mentorship and suggestions for
improvements offered through the evaluation process. As one first time instructor echoed, “This
being my first course online [for Park University] has been a great experience, learning as I go as
well as generating ideas for me on how to make changes in the course materials, supplements,
etc.”
In contrast, many of the online instructors with experience in the University's program, while
appreciative of the OIES formative feedback, expressed concerns about the evaluative
component. The seasoned online instructors' suspicions often resulted in questions about the
purpose of the evaluation, how the information would be reported to their academic departments,
and the credentials of the instructor evaluators. One instructor suggested the evaluation was
viewed by some as a sort of surveillance by stating, “Thank you, it has been a pleasure having
6 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Spring I 05 - 27 instructors evaluated
Spring II 05 - 26 instructors evaluated
Summer 05 - no evaluations completed
Fall I 05 - currently 30 evaluations in progress
At the conclusion of the first year of the OIES pilot, extensive reflection on the evaluation system
resulted in the creation of a University Review Board comprised of full-time faculty,
administrators and adjunct instructors to provide annual feedback and guidance on the faculty
evaluation system. As part of the first Review Board process, additional instructor evaluators
were hired to meet the demands of the University's pool of approximately 300 active online
instructors and to ensure sound evaluation loads. Based on pilot analysis, it was determined that
five instructor evaluators were needed to mentor/evaluate 15 faculty members per eight-week
term, four terms each academic year. This load would allow each instructor evaluator to complete
60 OIES evaluations in one academic year, resulting in a total of 300 evaluations completed
across the University each year. While there exist ongoing budgetary considerations associated
with the additional faculty members hired as instructor evaluators, these costs are offset by the
economic value of retaining qualified instructors compared to the high-cost of faculty turnover.
Results and Reflections
Like all effective evaluation systems, the OIES is continually monitored and adjusted to adapt to
the dynamic nature of higher-education and the emergent quality of online education in
particular. The initial implementation of the OIES exposed a number of strengths and
weaknesses related both to faculty readiness for and response to the evaluation process and
administrative concerns over its implementation. Reflecting on these initial concerns has enabled
continued refinement of the evaluation materials and process.
Instructor feedback to the OIES indicated a noticeable contrast between the perceptions and
reactions of existing faculty and new instructors. While most new instructors were very receptive
to and appreciative of the review process, noting that the additional resources usefully expanded
their initial training, existing faculty members displayed some resistance to the evaluative
dimension of the system. New instructors indicated an appreciation for the extensive guidance
and the way in which the formative reviews provided them with a measure of their performance
as facilitators of learning online. Representative of this category of feedback, one new instructor
commented, “I love the constructive criticism and since this is my first time teaching online
courses, it is greatly appreciated.” Furthermore, new instructors considered the evaluation to be a
collaborative process between themselves and the evaluator. One respondent noted, “I really
appreciate your mentorship and suggestions this semester as this has facilitated me to become a
better instructor for future Park Classes. Again, thank you for your time and guidance over the
past 8 weeks!” Overwhelmingly, new instructors valued the mentorship and suggestions for
improvements offered through the evaluation process. As one first time instructor echoed, “This
being my first course online [for Park University] has been a great experience, learning as I go as
well as generating ideas for me on how to make changes in the course materials, supplements,
etc.”
In contrast, many of the online instructors with experience in the University's program, while
appreciative of the OIES formative feedback, expressed concerns about the evaluative
component. The seasoned online instructors' suspicions often resulted in questions about the
purpose of the evaluation, how the information would be reported to their academic departments,
and the credentials of the instructor evaluators. One instructor suggested the evaluation was
viewed by some as a sort of surveillance by stating, “Thank you, it has been a pleasure having
Page 7
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
7 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
you ‘look over my shoulder'; I promise to do better in the future.” Feedback from experienced
instructors emphasized the reality that implementing a new process often involves enacting a
cultural change. This realization led to the development of a more explicit introduction of the
evaluation system in the University's online instructor training course among the development of
other communications sent out pre-term to introduce instructors to the evaluation system and to
their mentor-evaluator. As the existing instructors became familiar with the review process and
participated in the mentoring discussions with the instructor evaluator, they became more
receptive to the interactive nature of the formative reviews, recognizing their role in shaping the
evaluation of their teaching.
Most important, the evaluation process yielded opportunities for instructor reflection and
subsequent revision and improvement of teaching practice. At the broadest level, one instructor
wrote, “I have enjoyed this faculty evaluation. You have given me a lot to think about, and some
great ideas on how I might approach my teaching style and my classroom.” However, the
summative instructor self-review also sought to facilitate more specific reflection through the
prompt: “Create a priority list of your top 3 plans for improving your instruction in this course.
How will you carry out these plans?” Characteristic of many responses, one instructor noted,
“[Based on the feedback this term,] I want to provide additional communication opportunities
between students and instructors. I have added weekly virtual office hours where students can
come “chat” with me. They will be held 2 days a week during specified time periods. I will
continue to send weekly e-mail to my students. I have asked that they send me an e-mail
confirmation by the first week of the term letting me know they received the e-mail and that their
[University email] is functioning and they know how to access it.”
In addition to feedback from instructors, the evaluators' reflections on the administrative aspects
of the evaluation process provided valuable insight for continual enhancements of the OIES. The
most prominent issues related to the OIES administration included the extensive time involved in
completing each formative review; managing the schedule of reviews against the accelerated,
eight-week format of the online courses; and maintaining consistency in the subjective marginal
and end-commentary provided by evaluators to explain the criteria rankings. As additional
instructor evaluators were hired, it became important to maintain consistency in the evaluators'
interpretation of the evaluative criteria and thus the language used by the evaluators to explain
the criteria rankings. The evaluators worked together to create a standardized approach to ensure
consistency in criteria interpretation and, more importantly, to allow more time for adding
custom, instructor-specific commentary.
Summary and Conclusions
Like many others', the history of Park University 's online learning program is distinguished by
rapid growth and limited administrative resources and models. Mirroring established processes
and paradigms for faculty evaluation at the University's traditional campuses, online faculty at
Park University were evaluated from the program's beginning; however, that evaluation was of
limited relevance to the online environment both in content and in implementation. Strategic
planning led to identification of program goals and key competencies for online instructors,
which were subsequently woven into the training, evaluation, and faculty development
components of the online program.
The inclusion of a formative component in the faculty evaluation system allowed the online
program to demonstrate an understanding of teaching as dynamic, reflective practice or, as more
plainly stated by one of our online instructors, as an “action verb.” The low-stakes formative
assessments promoted dialogue and sharing of best practices among instructor and evaluator as
7 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
you ‘look over my shoulder'; I promise to do better in the future.” Feedback from experienced
instructors emphasized the reality that implementing a new process often involves enacting a
cultural change. This realization led to the development of a more explicit introduction of the
evaluation system in the University's online instructor training course among the development of
other communications sent out pre-term to introduce instructors to the evaluation system and to
their mentor-evaluator. As the existing instructors became familiar with the review process and
participated in the mentoring discussions with the instructor evaluator, they became more
receptive to the interactive nature of the formative reviews, recognizing their role in shaping the
evaluation of their teaching.
Most important, the evaluation process yielded opportunities for instructor reflection and
subsequent revision and improvement of teaching practice. At the broadest level, one instructor
wrote, “I have enjoyed this faculty evaluation. You have given me a lot to think about, and some
great ideas on how I might approach my teaching style and my classroom.” However, the
summative instructor self-review also sought to facilitate more specific reflection through the
prompt: “Create a priority list of your top 3 plans for improving your instruction in this course.
How will you carry out these plans?” Characteristic of many responses, one instructor noted,
“[Based on the feedback this term,] I want to provide additional communication opportunities
between students and instructors. I have added weekly virtual office hours where students can
come “chat” with me. They will be held 2 days a week during specified time periods. I will
continue to send weekly e-mail to my students. I have asked that they send me an e-mail
confirmation by the first week of the term letting me know they received the e-mail and that their
[University email] is functioning and they know how to access it.”
In addition to feedback from instructors, the evaluators' reflections on the administrative aspects
of the evaluation process provided valuable insight for continual enhancements of the OIES. The
most prominent issues related to the OIES administration included the extensive time involved in
completing each formative review; managing the schedule of reviews against the accelerated,
eight-week format of the online courses; and maintaining consistency in the subjective marginal
and end-commentary provided by evaluators to explain the criteria rankings. As additional
instructor evaluators were hired, it became important to maintain consistency in the evaluators'
interpretation of the evaluative criteria and thus the language used by the evaluators to explain
the criteria rankings. The evaluators worked together to create a standardized approach to ensure
consistency in criteria interpretation and, more importantly, to allow more time for adding
custom, instructor-specific commentary.
Summary and Conclusions
Like many others', the history of Park University 's online learning program is distinguished by
rapid growth and limited administrative resources and models. Mirroring established processes
and paradigms for faculty evaluation at the University's traditional campuses, online faculty at
Park University were evaluated from the program's beginning; however, that evaluation was of
limited relevance to the online environment both in content and in implementation. Strategic
planning led to identification of program goals and key competencies for online instructors,
which were subsequently woven into the training, evaluation, and faculty development
components of the online program.
The inclusion of a formative component in the faculty evaluation system allowed the online
program to demonstrate an understanding of teaching as dynamic, reflective practice or, as more
plainly stated by one of our online instructors, as an “action verb.” The low-stakes formative
assessments promoted dialogue and sharing of best practices among instructor and evaluator as
Page 8
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
8 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
peers, with evaluator most prominently occupying the roles of colleague and mentor. The
formative piece ensured regular interaction between instructor and evaluator, providing the
instructor with easy access to an experienced online instructor for questions about course
facilitation or administration.
Critical to instructors' ongoing growth throughout the term, dialogue was not confined to
instructor and evaluator. The exchanges between instructor and evaluator regularly broadened to
include the core content developer and academic department chair when curricular issues arose.
Additionally, the promotion of formative exchanges reinforced the expectation that instructors
would respond with flexibility and innovation to more effectively address their students' needs.
The dialogic nature of the formative assessments was paralleled in the summative assessment,
which also incorporated multiple perspectives (instructor, evaluator, student, departmental
administrator) to obtain a comprehensive and balanced assessment of the instructor's
performance.
Perhaps the most significant contribution the Online Instructor Evaluation System has to offer
other institutions is in reinforcing the potential of faculty evaluation in online learning as a tool
for building bridges between online and in-resident administrators. While most online faculty and
administrators have experience with face-to-face instruction and evaluation, the converse often is
not guaranteed. In writing about the unique constraints of evaluating faculty online, Tobin (2004)
identifies as a primary marker of traditional models the singularity of evaluator's interaction with
individual faculty member. Ostensibly, a traditional evaluator only needs one visit to a
face-to-face classroom because the markers of effective classroom teaching are easily observable
to someone who is also teaching on-ground. In contrast, in the online environment, academic
administrators, many of whom only teach face-to-face, are tasked with the evaluation of online
faculty. Providing these departmental leaders with a detailed packet of information about the
online instructor not only enabled more sound decision making, but also served to educate these
stakeholders about effective online pedagogy. Specifically, the evaluator's summative evaluation
and the instructor's self-reflection forms, in reflecting best practices and program expectations,
introduced and reinforced the academic quality goals of the University's online learning program.
Beyond its critical role in instructor retention, program assessment, and accreditation preparation,
a faculty evaluation system can signal to faculty an institutional commitment to their ongoing
professional development. In order to maximize the potential of faculty evaluation to inspire
reflection and growth, innovative systems are needed that not only respond to the persistent
professional development needs of instructors but that, more broadly speaking, emphasize
process as well as product; incorporate multiple perspectives to capture a more comprehensive
view of instructor performance; and serve a dual purpose of educating key on-ground university
constituents about online learning.
References
Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. (2001, March). Best Practices for Electronically
Offered Degree and Certificate Programs . Retrieved June 22, 2005 from
http://www.wcet.info/resources/accreditation/.
Chickering, A. & Ehrmann, S. (1996, October). Implementing the seven principles: Technology
as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49 (2), 3-6.
Finch, J., & Montambeau, E. (2000). Beyond Bells and Whistles: Affecting Student Learning
8 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
peers, with evaluator most prominently occupying the roles of colleague and mentor. The
formative piece ensured regular interaction between instructor and evaluator, providing the
instructor with easy access to an experienced online instructor for questions about course
facilitation or administration.
Critical to instructors' ongoing growth throughout the term, dialogue was not confined to
instructor and evaluator. The exchanges between instructor and evaluator regularly broadened to
include the core content developer and academic department chair when curricular issues arose.
Additionally, the promotion of formative exchanges reinforced the expectation that instructors
would respond with flexibility and innovation to more effectively address their students' needs.
The dialogic nature of the formative assessments was paralleled in the summative assessment,
which also incorporated multiple perspectives (instructor, evaluator, student, departmental
administrator) to obtain a comprehensive and balanced assessment of the instructor's
performance.
Perhaps the most significant contribution the Online Instructor Evaluation System has to offer
other institutions is in reinforcing the potential of faculty evaluation in online learning as a tool
for building bridges between online and in-resident administrators. While most online faculty and
administrators have experience with face-to-face instruction and evaluation, the converse often is
not guaranteed. In writing about the unique constraints of evaluating faculty online, Tobin (2004)
identifies as a primary marker of traditional models the singularity of evaluator's interaction with
individual faculty member. Ostensibly, a traditional evaluator only needs one visit to a
face-to-face classroom because the markers of effective classroom teaching are easily observable
to someone who is also teaching on-ground. In contrast, in the online environment, academic
administrators, many of whom only teach face-to-face, are tasked with the evaluation of online
faculty. Providing these departmental leaders with a detailed packet of information about the
online instructor not only enabled more sound decision making, but also served to educate these
stakeholders about effective online pedagogy. Specifically, the evaluator's summative evaluation
and the instructor's self-reflection forms, in reflecting best practices and program expectations,
introduced and reinforced the academic quality goals of the University's online learning program.
Beyond its critical role in instructor retention, program assessment, and accreditation preparation,
a faculty evaluation system can signal to faculty an institutional commitment to their ongoing
professional development. In order to maximize the potential of faculty evaluation to inspire
reflection and growth, innovative systems are needed that not only respond to the persistent
professional development needs of instructors but that, more broadly speaking, emphasize
process as well as product; incorporate multiple perspectives to capture a more comprehensive
view of instructor performance; and serve a dual purpose of educating key on-ground university
constituents about online learning.
References
Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. (2001, March). Best Practices for Electronically
Offered Degree and Certificate Programs . Retrieved June 22, 2005 from
http://www.wcet.info/resources/accreditation/.
Chickering, A. & Ehrmann, S. (1996, October). Implementing the seven principles: Technology
as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49 (2), 3-6.
Finch, J., & Montambeau, E. (2000). Beyond Bells and Whistles: Affecting Student Learning
Page 9
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
9 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Through Technology. Retrieved June 22, 2005 from http://www.cofc.edu/bellsandwhistles/.
Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T.M. (2000). Seven Principles of
Effective Teaching: A Practical Lens for Evaluating Online Courses. Retrieved June 22, 2005
from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=839.
Luck, A. (2001, January/February). Developing Courses for Online Delivery: One Strategy. The
Technology Source . Retrieved June 22, 2005 from
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/default.asp?show=article&id=834.%20
Park University . (2004). Online Course Principles and Standards . Retrieved July 12, 2005 from
http://www.park.edu/online/faculty/Best_Practices/principles_and_standards.html.
Reeves, T. (1997). Evaluating What Really Matters in Computer-Based Education . Retrieved
June 22, 2005 from http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/reeves.htm.
Romans, C. (n.d.). Designing a Course for Online Delivery at Metropolitan State College of
Denver . Retrieved June 22, 2005 from http://www.mscd.edu/~options/online.
Tobin, T. (2004). Best Practices for Administrative Evaluation of Online Faculty. Online Journal
of Distance Learning Administration, 7 (2).
Weiss, R.E., Knowlton, D.S., & Speck, B. W. (Eds.) (2004). Principles of Effective Teaching in
the Online Classroom. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Appendix A
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Course Preterm Review
Focus: Course Setup & Organization Areas/Topics Reviewed
• Syllabus
• Introduction Page
• Online Classroom Set-Up
Course:
Instructor:
Evaluator:
9 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Through Technology. Retrieved June 22, 2005 from http://www.cofc.edu/bellsandwhistles/.
Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T.M. (2000). Seven Principles of
Effective Teaching: A Practical Lens for Evaluating Online Courses. Retrieved June 22, 2005
from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=839.
Luck, A. (2001, January/February). Developing Courses for Online Delivery: One Strategy. The
Technology Source . Retrieved June 22, 2005 from
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/default.asp?show=article&id=834.%20
Park University . (2004). Online Course Principles and Standards . Retrieved July 12, 2005 from
http://www.park.edu/online/faculty/Best_Practices/principles_and_standards.html.
Reeves, T. (1997). Evaluating What Really Matters in Computer-Based Education . Retrieved
June 22, 2005 from http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/reeves.htm.
Romans, C. (n.d.). Designing a Course for Online Delivery at Metropolitan State College of
Denver . Retrieved June 22, 2005 from http://www.mscd.edu/~options/online.
Tobin, T. (2004). Best Practices for Administrative Evaluation of Online Faculty. Online Journal
of Distance Learning Administration, 7 (2).
Weiss, R.E., Knowlton, D.S., & Speck, B. W. (Eds.) (2004). Principles of Effective Teaching in
the Online Classroom. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Appendix A
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Course Preterm Review
Focus: Course Setup & Organization Areas/Topics Reviewed
• Syllabus
• Introduction Page
• Online Classroom Set-Up
Course:
Instructor:
Evaluator:
Page 10
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
10 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
This checklist and review will help you to ensure compliance with Park University policies and
give you feedback on your course preparation and setup. Your assigned evaluator will complete
this review and return it to you one week prior to the start of the term.
While you may not modify the basic content of the Introductory Page or Syllabus, you are
required to update all information to reflect the current instructor, dates, and policies. The
following checklist highlights the items that you must modify or add to your course.
Criteria No Yes Comments and Suggestions
Introductory Page
Welcome announcement
Virtual office and discussion thread
Introductions link and discussion thread
(including personal introduction)
Syllabus
Instructor Information
Instructor name, phone (time zone),
email and fax
Term dates
Course Policies:
Course policies and procedures
updated to reflect your own specific
policies; may include methods/type
of communication preferred,
guidelines for online participation,
etc
Grading Policy:
Grading policy updated to include
personal grading policies; such as
late work policy or personal
10 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
This checklist and review will help you to ensure compliance with Park University policies and
give you feedback on your course preparation and setup. Your assigned evaluator will complete
this review and return it to you one week prior to the start of the term.
While you may not modify the basic content of the Introductory Page or Syllabus, you are
required to update all information to reflect the current instructor, dates, and policies. The
following checklist highlights the items that you must modify or add to your course.
Criteria No Yes Comments and Suggestions
Introductory Page
Welcome announcement
Virtual office and discussion thread
Introductions link and discussion thread
(including personal introduction)
Syllabus
Instructor Information
Instructor name, phone (time zone),
email and fax
Term dates
Course Policies:
Course policies and procedures
updated to reflect your own specific
policies; may include methods/type
of communication preferred,
guidelines for online participation,
etc
Grading Policy:
Grading policy updated to include
personal grading policies; such as
late work policy or personal
Page 11
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
11 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
participation policy
Academic Honesty:
Inclusion of personal policies (if
any) for academic honesty; must be
in agreement with Park University
policy
Attendance:
Inclusion of personal policies for
participation (if any); may include
expectations for involvement, time
investment, etc
Student Resources:
Personal additions (if any) to Park
University resources
My Bio:
Includes your professional interest,
background, accomplishments,
educational philosophy
Overall:
Items ordered according to Park
University syllabus template
Online Classroom Set-Up:
Syllabus is available for students one
week prior to beginning of term
All information accessible to students
updated with correct information one
week prior to beginning of term
Information is clear and presented without
grammar/spelling errors
• Please provid r commendations and suggestions for smoothly and efficiently
teaching this course.
11 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
participation policy
Academic Honesty:
Inclusion of personal policies (if
any) for academic honesty; must be
in agreement with Park University
policy
Attendance:
Inclusion of personal policies for
participation (if any); may include
expectations for involvement, time
investment, etc
Student Resources:
Personal additions (if any) to Park
University resources
My Bio:
Includes your professional interest,
background, accomplishments,
educational philosophy
Overall:
Items ordered according to Park
University syllabus template
Online Classroom Set-Up:
Syllabus is available for students one
week prior to beginning of term
All information accessible to students
updated with correct information one
week prior to beginning of term
Information is clear and presented without
grammar/spelling errors
• Please provid r commendations and suggestions for smoothly and efficiently
teaching this course.
Page 12
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
12 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Appendix B
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Course Review #1
Focus: Climate and Community Building Areas/Topics Reviewed
• Creating an interactive climate
• Community building
• Use of discussion threads
• Course organization and navigation
Course:
Instructor:
Evaluator:
The beginning of the term is the best time to set the tone for all class interactions. There are many
ways an instructor can create an interactive climate and a community of engaged learners; some
of the most effective tools are discussion interactions, announcements and gradebook comments.
Discussion threads are the primary tool used in an online course as they allow for the expansion
and discussion of key course concepts.
Criteria Needs Attention
Acceptable Exemplary Comments and Suggestions
Climate and Community Building
Instructor sets tone for
interactions via office,
introductions, announcements,
discussion postings and
gradebook comments
Instructor models the tone and
quality of interactions expected
of students
Instructor interacts in the
12 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Appendix B
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Course Review #1
Focus: Climate and Community Building Areas/Topics Reviewed
• Creating an interactive climate
• Community building
• Use of discussion threads
• Course organization and navigation
Course:
Instructor:
Evaluator:
The beginning of the term is the best time to set the tone for all class interactions. There are many
ways an instructor can create an interactive climate and a community of engaged learners; some
of the most effective tools are discussion interactions, announcements and gradebook comments.
Discussion threads are the primary tool used in an online course as they allow for the expansion
and discussion of key course concepts.
Criteria Needs Attention
Acceptable Exemplary Comments and Suggestions
Climate and Community Building
Instructor sets tone for
interactions via office,
introductions, announcements,
discussion postings and
gradebook comments
Instructor models the tone and
quality of interactions expected
of students
Instructor interacts in the
Page 13
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
13 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
classroom on a regular basis
(roughly every other day per
Park's instructor attendance
policy)
Interactions are professional and
promote a positive classroom
climate
Instructor utilizes gradebook to
provide information on progress
in the course
Discussion Thread Interactions
Discussion directions clearly
specify the number and type of
responses required of students
Instructor sets guidelines and
expectations for discussion
interactions
Instructor interactions promote
open-ended discussion
General grading criteria or
grading rubrics are provided
Instructor interacts in
discussions to promote
higher-order thinking (i.e.
critical thinking, synthesis, and
application of concepts)
Instructor uses discussions to
highlight key topics, terms, or
information
Instructor encourages students
to express multiple, even
divergent, points of view
Organization
13 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
classroom on a regular basis
(roughly every other day per
Park's instructor attendance
policy)
Interactions are professional and
promote a positive classroom
climate
Instructor utilizes gradebook to
provide information on progress
in the course
Discussion Thread Interactions
Discussion directions clearly
specify the number and type of
responses required of students
Instructor sets guidelines and
expectations for discussion
interactions
Instructor interactions promote
open-ended discussion
General grading criteria or
grading rubrics are provided
Instructor interacts in
discussions to promote
higher-order thinking (i.e.
critical thinking, synthesis, and
application of concepts)
Instructor uses discussions to
highlight key topics, terms, or
information
Instructor encourages students
to express multiple, even
divergent, points of view
Organization
Page 14
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
14 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Navigational cues are provided
to help students figure out
where to begin and
how to best move through the
course content
Instructor communicates
expectations in a clear and
consistent manner
Due dates are clear
Assignment directions clearly
specify requirements and
directions for submission
• What are the instructor's strengths in creating an interactive climate?
• Please list any suggestions or recommendations for enhancing interaction in the online
classroom.
Appendix C
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Course Review #2
Focus: Instruction and Grading Areas/Topics Reviewed
• Interaction
• Discussion facilitation
Course:
Instructor:
Evaluator:
14 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Navigational cues are provided
to help students figure out
where to begin and
how to best move through the
course content
Instructor communicates
expectations in a clear and
consistent manner
Due dates are clear
Assignment directions clearly
specify requirements and
directions for submission
• What are the instructor's strengths in creating an interactive climate?
• Please list any suggestions or recommendations for enhancing interaction in the online
classroom.
Appendix C
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Course Review #2
Focus: Instruction and Grading Areas/Topics Reviewed
• Interaction
• Discussion facilitation
Course:
Instructor:
Evaluator:
Page 15
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
15 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
There are a range of strategies and techniques for promoting learning in the Online classroom.
Interactive instruction occurs through the facilitation of discussion threads, gradebook comments,
course announcements, and email. By its nature, email conversations are private; thus the
following review will focus on interactions visible through the gradebook and discussion threads.
Criteria Needs Attention
Acceptable Exemplary Comments and Suggestions
Interaction and Discussion Facilitation
Instructor actively and
meaningfully participates in
discussion on a regular basis
throughout the week
Instructor encourages students'
continued
interaction/engagement
through the use of questions or
comments
Instructor keeps discussion
relevant and on topic
Instructor monitors and ensures
that discussions are appropriate
and respectful
Instructor grades discussion via
a private format
Instructor promotes and
encourages a range of
viewpoints in the discussions
Instructor's discussion postings
are professional, clear, precise
and supportive of student
learning
Instructor uses discussion
postings to introduce
information and to facilitate
acquisition/application of
course concepts
15 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
There are a range of strategies and techniques for promoting learning in the Online classroom.
Interactive instruction occurs through the facilitation of discussion threads, gradebook comments,
course announcements, and email. By its nature, email conversations are private; thus the
following review will focus on interactions visible through the gradebook and discussion threads.
Criteria Needs Attention
Acceptable Exemplary Comments and Suggestions
Interaction and Discussion Facilitation
Instructor actively and
meaningfully participates in
discussion on a regular basis
throughout the week
Instructor encourages students'
continued
interaction/engagement
through the use of questions or
comments
Instructor keeps discussion
relevant and on topic
Instructor monitors and ensures
that discussions are appropriate
and respectful
Instructor grades discussion via
a private format
Instructor promotes and
encourages a range of
viewpoints in the discussions
Instructor's discussion postings
are professional, clear, precise
and supportive of student
learning
Instructor uses discussion
postings to introduce
information and to facilitate
acquisition/application of
course concepts
Page 16
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
16 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor acknowledges all
questions insofar as possible
Instructor provides a general
set of criteria (rubrics) for
grading discussion
participation
Instructor uses gradebook
comment feature to highlight
reason for assigned
participation grade and
suggests specific ways students
can improve
Instructor assigns grades that
differentiate students' levels of
discussion thread participation
Instructor assigns participation
grades in a timely manner
• List aspects of the instructor's interaction that contribute most to student learning.
• Possible recommendations to improve instruction and grading.
Appendix D
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Course Review #3
Focus: Implementation of Assessments Areas/Topics Reviewed
• Implementation of assessments
• Feedback
• Grading
• Final exam preparation
Course:
16 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor acknowledges all
questions insofar as possible
Instructor provides a general
set of criteria (rubrics) for
grading discussion
participation
Instructor uses gradebook
comment feature to highlight
reason for assigned
participation grade and
suggests specific ways students
can improve
Instructor assigns grades that
differentiate students' levels of
discussion thread participation
Instructor assigns participation
grades in a timely manner
• List aspects of the instructor's interaction that contribute most to student learning.
• Possible recommendations to improve instruction and grading.
Appendix D
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Course Review #3
Focus: Implementation of Assessments Areas/Topics Reviewed
• Implementation of assessments
• Feedback
• Grading
• Final exam preparation
Course:
Page 17
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
17 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor:
Evaluator:
While the content of the basic assessments is determined by the course developer, effective
learning occurs through students' active engagement with course material. As instructor, your
role is to facilitate this type of interaction, provide feedback and incorporate resources to
encourage student mastery of course concepts. To maximize student learning, instructors must
structure their activities around a grading system that effectively and explicitly measures
course/learning goals and provides students with feedback and guidance to reach these goals. In
addition, you will be responsible for coordinating the administration of the proctored final exam.
Criteria Needs Attention
Acceptable Exemplary Comments and Suggestions
Implementation of Assessments
Instructor incorporates all
assessments specified by the
course developer
Instructor utilizes
assessments in the manner
designed by the course
developer
Instructor clearly
communicates assignment
guidelines
Assignment due dates and
submission instructions are
clear and provide adequate
advanced notice
Instructor schedules
assignments in a manner
amenable to an accelerated
course while providing time
for thoughtful feedback
17 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor:
Evaluator:
While the content of the basic assessments is determined by the course developer, effective
learning occurs through students' active engagement with course material. As instructor, your
role is to facilitate this type of interaction, provide feedback and incorporate resources to
encourage student mastery of course concepts. To maximize student learning, instructors must
structure their activities around a grading system that effectively and explicitly measures
course/learning goals and provides students with feedback and guidance to reach these goals. In
addition, you will be responsible for coordinating the administration of the proctored final exam.
Criteria Needs Attention
Acceptable Exemplary Comments and Suggestions
Implementation of Assessments
Instructor incorporates all
assessments specified by the
course developer
Instructor utilizes
assessments in the manner
designed by the course
developer
Instructor clearly
communicates assignment
guidelines
Assignment due dates and
submission instructions are
clear and provide adequate
advanced notice
Instructor schedules
assignments in a manner
amenable to an accelerated
course while providing time
for thoughtful feedback
Page 18
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
18 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor utilizes dropbox,
journal or doc sharing, rather
than email, for submission of
private assignments
When necessary, instructor
includes additional resources
to assist students in meeting
assignment expectations
Feedback and Grading
Instructor clearly explains the
grading system or method for
assigning points (i.e. the
weight of each assignment,
the grading scale used, etc.)
Specific grading rubrics or
general assessment criteria
are provided in advance to
assist students in completing
assignments
Instructor utilizes the
comment feature of the
gradebook to give individual
feedback that not only
highlights reasons for
assigned grade but also
suggests strategies for
improvement
Gradebook comments are
clear, respectful and
professional
Instructor assigns grades that
reflects/differentiates the
quality of student
performance as well as the
quantity
18 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor utilizes dropbox,
journal or doc sharing, rather
than email, for submission of
private assignments
When necessary, instructor
includes additional resources
to assist students in meeting
assignment expectations
Feedback and Grading
Instructor clearly explains the
grading system or method for
assigning points (i.e. the
weight of each assignment,
the grading scale used, etc.)
Specific grading rubrics or
general assessment criteria
are provided in advance to
assist students in completing
assignments
Instructor utilizes the
comment feature of the
gradebook to give individual
feedback that not only
highlights reasons for
assigned grade but also
suggests strategies for
improvement
Gradebook comments are
clear, respectful and
professional
Instructor assigns grades that
reflects/differentiates the
quality of student
performance as well as the
quantity
Page 19
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
19 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor maintains a
consistent and appropriate
definition of “good”
performance that reflects the
level (100, 200, 300, etc) of
the course
Instructor uses the gradebook
in a timely manner to keep
students informed of their
progress
Final Exam Preparation
Instructor directs students to
Proctor Request Form when
it becomes available (usually
Week 2 of the term) and to
proctor selection guidelines
in the syllabus
Instructor reinforces the Park
University 's timeline for
proctor selection: Students
must select a proctor by the
end of Week 6
Instructor provides general
information concerning the
nature and format of the final
exam
Instructor provides resources
to help prepare students for
the final exam
• List strengths of the instructor in facilitating course assessments.
• Provide recommendations for enhancing the implementation and facilitation of course
assessments.
19 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor maintains a
consistent and appropriate
definition of “good”
performance that reflects the
level (100, 200, 300, etc) of
the course
Instructor uses the gradebook
in a timely manner to keep
students informed of their
progress
Final Exam Preparation
Instructor directs students to
Proctor Request Form when
it becomes available (usually
Week 2 of the term) and to
proctor selection guidelines
in the syllabus
Instructor reinforces the Park
University 's timeline for
proctor selection: Students
must select a proctor by the
end of Week 6
Instructor provides general
information concerning the
nature and format of the final
exam
Instructor provides resources
to help prepare students for
the final exam
• List strengths of the instructor in facilitating course assessments.
• Provide recommendations for enhancing the implementation and facilitation of course
assessments.
Page 20
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
20 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Appendix E
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Course Review #4
Focus: Course Climate & Supplemental Materials Areas/Topics Reviewed
• Classroom climate
• Rapport
• Organization
• Supplemental instructional materials
Course:
Instructor:
Evaluator:
In an Online course, instructors are unable to rely on visual cues or nonverbal behaviors to guide
interactions; thus it is vital that the environment of the online classroom encourages is
well-organized, and encourages thoughtful and respectful participation. Some instructors enhance
the course climate by adding their own materials to the core content provided by the developer.
These supplemental content items reflect the instructor's unique background and experience and
allow the instructor to add his/her expertise to the course content. If you elect to supplement the
content provided by the developer, it is important to ensure that all additional resources are
relevant and follow principles of good Online course design.
Criteria Needs Attention
Acceptable Exemplary Comments and Suggestions
Classroom Climate
Instructor is respectful and
fair
Instructor appears
enthusiastic about course
material and modeled active
learning
20 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Appendix E
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Course Review #4
Focus: Course Climate & Supplemental Materials Areas/Topics Reviewed
• Classroom climate
• Rapport
• Organization
• Supplemental instructional materials
Course:
Instructor:
Evaluator:
In an Online course, instructors are unable to rely on visual cues or nonverbal behaviors to guide
interactions; thus it is vital that the environment of the online classroom encourages is
well-organized, and encourages thoughtful and respectful participation. Some instructors enhance
the course climate by adding their own materials to the core content provided by the developer.
These supplemental content items reflect the instructor's unique background and experience and
allow the instructor to add his/her expertise to the course content. If you elect to supplement the
content provided by the developer, it is important to ensure that all additional resources are
relevant and follow principles of good Online course design.
Criteria Needs Attention
Acceptable Exemplary Comments and Suggestions
Classroom Climate
Instructor is respectful and
fair
Instructor appears
enthusiastic about course
material and modeled active
learning
Page 21
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
21 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Off-topic or disrespectful
interactions are quickly
addressed
Instructor's responses to
student postings are positive
and encouraging
Classroom atmosphere is
inviting and non-threatening
Organization
Expectations and flow of
course activities are easy to
understand
Guidelines are consistently
enforced
Classroom activities are
clear and relevant
Instructor is prepared
(threads and assignments are
posted in a timely manner)
Course is conducted
according to designated
schedule, with any
deviations being
communicated in advance to
students via announcements
or other course tool.=
Additional Readings and Resources (evaluated only if instructor has added their own
supplemental content)
Appropriate length &
difficulty level
Integrates well with other
course material
21 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Off-topic or disrespectful
interactions are quickly
addressed
Instructor's responses to
student postings are positive
and encouraging
Classroom atmosphere is
inviting and non-threatening
Organization
Expectations and flow of
course activities are easy to
understand
Guidelines are consistently
enforced
Classroom activities are
clear and relevant
Instructor is prepared
(threads and assignments are
posted in a timely manner)
Course is conducted
according to designated
schedule, with any
deviations being
communicated in advance to
students via announcements
or other course tool.=
Additional Readings and Resources (evaluated only if instructor has added their own
supplemental content)
Appropriate length &
difficulty level
Integrates well with other
course material
Page 22
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
22 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Current and up-to-date
Links are updated and in
working order
Students are given guidance
on how to effectively use
resources
Clearly relate to course and
learning objectives
Clear and easy to understand
Interesting and reflect
instructor personal
comments/expertise
When possible, target a
range of learning styles
(visual aids, auditory)
Appropriately references
outside sources
• What do you consider to be the strengths of this professor?
• Evaluate, from your standpoint, the performance of this professor in relation to this specific
course. Do you have suggestions on how this course may have been handled more effectively?
Appendix F
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Summative Evaluation
22 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Current and up-to-date
Links are updated and in
working order
Students are given guidance
on how to effectively use
resources
Clearly relate to course and
learning objectives
Clear and easy to understand
Interesting and reflect
instructor personal
comments/expertise
When possible, target a
range of learning styles
(visual aids, auditory)
Appropriately references
outside sources
• What do you consider to be the strengths of this professor?
• Evaluate, from your standpoint, the performance of this professor in relation to this specific
course. Do you have suggestions on how this course may have been handled more effectively?
Appendix F
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Summative Evaluation
Page 23
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
23 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor: Term:
Course: Course Number/Section:
Reviewer: Reviewer Email:
The Summative Online Instructor Evaluation is a summary feedback form that reflects the
instructor's facilitation of the course content and interaction with/assessment of students as of the
end of the term. Instructors also received formative feedback throughout the term from their
Online Instructor Evaluator; this review also takes into account any modifications or adjustments
made by the instructor as a result of those weekly evaluations.
Criteria
Needs
Attention
Acceptable Exemplary Comments,
Concerns, and
Suggestions
Course Organization
Instructor was effective in reinforcing
the core learning outcomes.
Instructor conducted the course
according to the expectations and
schedule presented in the syllabus.
Instructor was consistently
well-prepared and organized.
The course is conducted that students
knew on a daily/weekly basis what
was expected of them.
Instruction
Instructor was able to explain concepts
clearly and effectively.
Instructor stressed important points in
information resources (lectures,
discussion, etc).
Instructor displayed his/her knowledge
of the subject matter.
23 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor: Term:
Course: Course Number/Section:
Reviewer: Reviewer Email:
The Summative Online Instructor Evaluation is a summary feedback form that reflects the
instructor's facilitation of the course content and interaction with/assessment of students as of the
end of the term. Instructors also received formative feedback throughout the term from their
Online Instructor Evaluator; this review also takes into account any modifications or adjustments
made by the instructor as a result of those weekly evaluations.
Criteria
Needs
Attention
Acceptable Exemplary Comments,
Concerns, and
Suggestions
Course Organization
Instructor was effective in reinforcing
the core learning outcomes.
Instructor conducted the course
according to the expectations and
schedule presented in the syllabus.
Instructor was consistently
well-prepared and organized.
The course is conducted that students
knew on a daily/weekly basis what
was expected of them.
Instruction
Instructor was able to explain concepts
clearly and effectively.
Instructor stressed important points in
information resources (lectures,
discussion, etc).
Instructor displayed his/her knowledge
of the subject matter.
Page 24
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
24 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor strengthened students'
understanding of course concepts
through various interactions
(discussion, gradebook, feedback, etc).
Interaction and Discussion
Instructor participated actively in class
discussions.
Instructor communicated clearly and
meaningful in course discussions.
Instructor effectively lead Online
discussions, synthesizing student posts
and stimulating ongoing discussion.
Instructor was responsive to student
questions.
Assessments, Grading and Feedback
Instructor was clear and specific in
assignment directions and evaluation
criteria.
Instructor provided helpful,
individualized, constructive feedback
on all assignments: correcting errors,
highlighting strengths, and providing
suggestions for improvement.
Grading and feedback completed in a
timely manner.
Instructor kept students informed of
their progress in the course.
Overall course grades accurately
represented students' mastery of course
objectives.
Classroom Climate
24 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor strengthened students'
understanding of course concepts
through various interactions
(discussion, gradebook, feedback, etc).
Interaction and Discussion
Instructor participated actively in class
discussions.
Instructor communicated clearly and
meaningful in course discussions.
Instructor effectively lead Online
discussions, synthesizing student posts
and stimulating ongoing discussion.
Instructor was responsive to student
questions.
Assessments, Grading and Feedback
Instructor was clear and specific in
assignment directions and evaluation
criteria.
Instructor provided helpful,
individualized, constructive feedback
on all assignments: correcting errors,
highlighting strengths, and providing
suggestions for improvement.
Grading and feedback completed in a
timely manner.
Instructor kept students informed of
their progress in the course.
Overall course grades accurately
represented students' mastery of course
objectives.
Classroom Climate
Page 25
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
25 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor maintained a positive
atmosphere in the Online classroom.
Instructor was sensitive to student
difficulty with course work.
Instructor was easy to communicate
with and available for consultation.
Professional Engagement
Instructor was responsive to Online
Course Evaluator's formative feedback
and enhanced his/her course
facilitation/assessment throughout the
term.
Overall Recommendation:
Do not retain instructor Retain with contingency Retain instructor
General Comments:
Appendix G
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Instructor Self- Review
Instructor: Course Title:
25 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Instructor maintained a positive
atmosphere in the Online classroom.
Instructor was sensitive to student
difficulty with course work.
Instructor was easy to communicate
with and available for consultation.
Professional Engagement
Instructor was responsive to Online
Course Evaluator's formative feedback
and enhanced his/her course
facilitation/assessment throughout the
term.
Overall Recommendation:
Do not retain instructor Retain with contingency Retain instructor
General Comments:
Appendix G
Park University Online Instructor Evaluation System
Instructor Self- Review
Instructor: Course Title:
Page 26
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
26 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Term: Course Number: Section:
The Self-Review is a detailed feedback form completed by each instructor to provide reflective
feedback on their experience with a course. The purpose of this self-review is to help you
pinpoint your strengths and weaknesses as an instructor; thus, it is important that you honestly
and carefully critique your own performance. This form will be included in your overall packet to
be sent to the academic department. If you have comments to accompany any of the opinion
statements below, please include them with your summative statements at the end of the
document.
OPINION STATEMENTS
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory Strength
Course Organization
• I was effective in reinforcing the learning outcomes of the course.
• I explained all activities and assessments clearly.
• I conducted the course according to the expectations outlined in the
syllabus.
• Work requirements, grading system, and feedback schedule were
clear and consistently followed from the beginning of the course.
• I was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
• My additions to the core course content were clearly related to the
core learning outcomes and integrated logically with the rest of the
course content.
• The course was so conducted that students know on a daily/weekly
basis what is expected of them.
Instruction
• I made good use of examples and illustrations.
26 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
Term: Course Number: Section:
The Self-Review is a detailed feedback form completed by each instructor to provide reflective
feedback on their experience with a course. The purpose of this self-review is to help you
pinpoint your strengths and weaknesses as an instructor; thus, it is important that you honestly
and carefully critique your own performance. This form will be included in your overall packet to
be sent to the academic department. If you have comments to accompany any of the opinion
statements below, please include them with your summative statements at the end of the
document.
OPINION STATEMENTS
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory Strength
Course Organization
• I was effective in reinforcing the learning outcomes of the course.
• I explained all activities and assessments clearly.
• I conducted the course according to the expectations outlined in the
syllabus.
• Work requirements, grading system, and feedback schedule were
clear and consistently followed from the beginning of the course.
• I was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
• My additions to the core course content were clearly related to the
core learning outcomes and integrated logically with the rest of the
course content.
• The course was so conducted that students know on a daily/weekly
basis what is expected of them.
Instruction
• I made good use of examples and illustrations.
Page 27
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
27 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
• I reinforced important points in information resources (in lectures,
discussion, etc).
• I was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
• I stimulated students to think critically about the subject matter.
• I broadened students' understanding and ability to apply the subject
matter.
• I frequently discussed recent developments related to the subject
matter.
Interaction and Discussion
• I participated actively in class discussions and responded to all
student inquiries (in the course or via email) within the 48-hr period
expected of Park Online instructors.
• I communicated clearly via email and discussion postings, modeling
the types of interactions expected in an Online course.
• I was able to lead Online discussions, synthesizing student posts and
encouraging continued dialogue.
Assessments, Grading and Feedback
• Directions for course activities were clear and specific.
• I provided helpful, timely instruction on all activities and
assessments, helping students prepare to successfully complete
assignments.
• My evaluation of students' work was constructive, focused on
continued learning, and reflective of the assessment
expectations/criteria communicated.
• Exams and assignments were returned promptly so that learning was
reinforced.
In tructor are o e of th most valuable sources for information about the quality of the course
curriculum and effectiveness of instructor training and support. As such the following questions
27 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
• I reinforced important points in information resources (in lectures,
discussion, etc).
• I was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
• I stimulated students to think critically about the subject matter.
• I broadened students' understanding and ability to apply the subject
matter.
• I frequently discussed recent developments related to the subject
matter.
Interaction and Discussion
• I participated actively in class discussions and responded to all
student inquiries (in the course or via email) within the 48-hr period
expected of Park Online instructors.
• I communicated clearly via email and discussion postings, modeling
the types of interactions expected in an Online course.
• I was able to lead Online discussions, synthesizing student posts and
encouraging continued dialogue.
Assessments, Grading and Feedback
• Directions for course activities were clear and specific.
• I provided helpful, timely instruction on all activities and
assessments, helping students prepare to successfully complete
assignments.
• My evaluation of students' work was constructive, focused on
continued learning, and reflective of the assessment
expectations/criteria communicated.
• Exams and assignments were returned promptly so that learning was
reinforced.
In tructor are o e of th most valuable sources for information about the quality of the course
curriculum and effectiveness of instructor training and support. As such the following questions
Page 28
A Faculty Evaluation Model for Online Instructors: Mentoring and Evalu... http://multimedia.msjc.edu/pjames/ol/checklist.htm
28 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
will be used to provide insight on curriculum enhancement and creation of ongoing professional
development opportunities. Please use these questions as a vehicle to critically examine your
experiences in these areas.
Please consider these follow-up questions carefully:
• Do you have suggestions about how to improve the content or presentation of the core course
curriculum (provided by the developer)?
• Describe one or two aspects of your instruction this term (interaction with students, facilitation
of weekly threaded discussions, supplemental content additions, etc) that you feel are reflective
of your strengths as an Online instructor.
• Create a priority list of your plans for improving your facilitation of this course and
encouraging your overall professional growth as an Online instructor. How will you carry out
these plans?
Authors' Note: The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Ms. Linda Passamaneck for
her contributions to the theoretical development of earlier versions of the faculty evaluation
model.
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume VIII, Number III, Fall 2005
State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center
Back to the Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration Content
28 of 28 2/14/2008 10:56 AM
will be used to provide insight on curriculum enhancement and creation of ongoing professional
development opportunities. Please use these questions as a vehicle to critically examine your
experiences in these areas.
Please consider these follow-up questions carefully:
• Do you have suggestions about how to improve the content or presentation of the core course
curriculum (provided by the developer)?
• Describe one or two aspects of your instruction this term (interaction with students, facilitation
of weekly threaded discussions, supplemental content additions, etc) that you feel are reflective
of your strengths as an Online instructor.
• Create a priority list of your plans for improving your facilitation of this course and
encouraging your overall professional growth as an Online instructor. How will you carry out
these plans?
Authors' Note: The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Ms. Linda Passamaneck for
her contributions to the theoretical development of earlier versions of the faculty evaluation
model.
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume VIII, Number III, Fall 2005
State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center
Back to the Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration Content
Sign up today - FREE
Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research. Learn more
- All your research in one place
- Add and import papers easily
- Access it anywhere, anytime
Start using Mendeley in seconds!
Readership Statistics
3 Readers on Mendeley
by Discipline
67% Education
33% Philosophy
by Academic Status
33% Other Professional
33% Ph.D. Student
33% Professor
by Country
67% United States
33% Portugal
