kic policy document

KIC POLICY DOCUMENT

APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN KIC PPM 2019-20, Jan 2020 INTRODUCTION AND ACADEMIC STAFF SECTION AMENDED FOR 2020-21 TO REFLECT NEW FORM

Faculty/ Staff Evaluation Procedures

Staff evaluation procedures involve both teaching and non-teaching staff performance appraisal.

The main objectives of staff evaluation procedures are to:

Make sure that the staff carry out their jobs in line with the College purpose statement.

Encourage academic and professional development by identifying training opportunities.

Make sure that good staff are rewarded financially and promoted in job rank while staff

members with poor performance are identified for subsequent proper actions in terms of

discontinuity or training and further professional development.

Improve the staff loyalty by recognizing their achievements.

Motivate staff to work harder because their performance is being evaluated.

Use the results of the evaluation to improve the educational programs and the College system

as a whole.

Encourage communication between staff and supervisors.

The Teaching & non-staff evaluations of all employees must be completed by the end of Aug every

year.

Procedures for Teaching Staff Performance appraisal

The following performance measures conducted by the relevant Head of academic

department/Program leader will be used for the evaluation of the teaching staff:

Student Course Evaluation Form: At the end of each semester, students complete a course

evaluation form for each course studied. There is a section on this form about the lecturer. The

feedback from each student is summarized in one report evaluation purposed and a copy of the

summarized feedback report is given to the relevant staff member.

Evaluation of the Teaching Staff Performance Form: The relevant head of academic

department/program leader is asked to complete the Academic Staff Appraisal Form for each

member of the teaching staff (the VP for Academic Affairs completes this report for the head

of academic department if she/he is also teaching some courses). The Form covers effectiveness

of course delivery, research activities and other activities including KIC contribution and

community engagement (see Appendix).

A teaching staff member is required to carry out self-evaluation to review his/her overall job

performance with regard to structured teaching techniques, communication skills, professional

development, since the previous year, and plans for future improvement..

The results of the academic and administrative staff evaluation are used to improve the educational

programs offered by Khawarizmi International College and hence improve the effectiveness of KIC

as a whole.

Procedures for Non-Teaching Staff Performance appraisal

GOALS & OBJECTIVES

o Strengthen two-way communication regarding job performance and periodically assess goals

and opportunities for the unit and the individual.

o Establish a mutually-understood set of performance expectations.

KIC POLICY DOCUMENT


o Recognize contributions of employees.

o Discuss opportunities for growth and development.

o Provide necessary feedback when performance does not meet expectations as situations

warrants in addition to annual evaluation process.

o Align employee performance with the vision, mission and the strategy of the institute and unit.

PROCESS

o Line Manager requests prior year’s goals/objectives, general performance, associated

outcomes as well as other information relevant to the performance review process and reviews

them with the employee prior to discussing this year’s evaluation. (Page 5).

o Employee submits prior year’s goals and their associated outcomes as well as other information

relevant to the performance review process at least one week before scheduled meeting (Page

5).

o Line Manager reviews and compares the full range of this year’s performance to the past year

and completes all sections of the Performance Evaluation, following the instructions provided.

o Line Manager provides a working draft of Performance Evaluation to the employee. Line

Manager and employee determine future meeting date and time.

o Line Manager and employee meet to discuss the Performance Evaluation competency ratings.

o Line Manager and employee create shared goals and objectives to enhance employee

performance and successful completion of departmental and KIC/KTS goals and objectives.

o The Overall Evaluation Rating is calculated according to the most frequently assigned

Competency Ratings and Line Manager /employee discussions.

o Upon completion of the performance evaluation discussion, the employee and Line Manager

sign the evaluation. The employee and Line Manager should utilize the comments section

provide additional explanations as needed.

o Line Manager sends the signed copy to the counter signatory for review and signature.

o Once signed, the original document is sent to the Office of Human Resources. An electronic

copy may be provided to the employee upon request.

o Line Manager and employee should then review employee’s Job Analysis Questionnaire (JAQ)

to ensure that actual duties match job description and submit changes as needed.

The non-teaching staff performance evaluation involves the following Core Competencies

Job Knowledge

Interpersonal Skills, Cooperation, Collaboration

Communication Skills

Planning, Organizing, And Achieving Results

Problems Analysis And Decision Making

Commitment To Diversity/Inclusion

Leadership

Supervision *Applies To Those In Supervision/Management Positions

KIC POLICY DOCUMENT


Description of Ratings:

Ratings used in the staff evaluation Process are:

RATING SCALE DEFINITION

5 = Outstanding

Objectives and standards are clearly and substantially surpassed.

Consistently and significantly exceeds all performance expectations

and standards. Highest performance level. Demonstrates a personal

commitment to a high level of performance and results, even under

challenging work goals.

4=Exceeds Expectations

Frequently exceeds job requirements. Makes contributions well beyond

job demands. Seizes initiative in development and implementation of

challenging work goals. Each project or job is done thoroughly and on

time. Thinks beyond details of the job, working toward the overall goals

of the component.

3 = Meets Expectations

Performance is what is expected of a fully qualified and experienced

person in this position. All objectives and standards are met.

Consistently meets all performance expectations and standards. Job

well done. Errors are minimal and seldom repeated. Prioritizes

problems and projects well. Requires normal supervision and follow-up.

Almost always completes work or projects on schedule.

2 = Approaches Expectations

Objectives and standards are generally met but full results are not

totally achieved. Occasionally falls short of consistently meeting

performance expectations and standards. Some performance aspects

were not met – needs slight improvement. Could result from being

newly appointed to the position – continuing to learn all aspects of the

position.

1 = Does Not Meet Expectations

Objectives and standards are consistently not met. Consistently fails to

meet performance expectations. Needs significant improvement. Has

been on the job long enough to have shown better performance.

Excessive attention by Line Manager is required. Does not grasp

situation when explained. Corrective action is required.

NA = Not Applicable Does not apply to job performance expectations.

Recommendations and Actions based on the outcome of the staff evaluations

The Staff Evaluation Committee provides its recommendations to the Finance & Administration

Manager for making a decision, which is subject to the approval of the President.

The recommendations are as follows:

Issuing an appreciation letter, certificate of outstanding performance, and warning letters.

Job Promotion, Salary Increments, Non-renewal Notice, and Termination Letters.

Requesting changes to the KIC Structured Teaching Techniques, Program Syllabi, improvements

in the Learning Resource Center, etc.

Review of effectiveness of staff evaluation procedures

The Director of Institutional Quality and Effectiveness is responsible for compiling a report in early

September every year for the benefit of the President, giving a summary of the staff performance

evaluation. The report also includes an assessment of the effectiveness of the policies and procedures

KIC POLICY DOCUMENT


in achieving the above-mentioned objectives (10.1 above).

The President and the Director of Institutional Quality and Effectiveness should invite suggestions

from the various heads of departments and Head of academic department/Program leaders as well

as KIC’s external quality auditors for continuously improving the staff performance evaluation

practices.

Approved changes (by the President) to the staff performance evaluation policies and procedures

must be introduced at the start of the academic year only.

Appeal

A Staff member may appeal against the evaluation made by the staff evaluation committee to the

Head of Human Resources.

The Head of Human Resources must meet with the staff member and discuss his/her ground for the

appeal. The Head of Human Resources may ask a new committee to be set up and re-evaluate the

concerned staff performance.

If the staff member is not satisfied with the decision of the Head of Human Resources, then further

appeal may be directed to the President supporting the appeal with the reasons along with any

supporting documentation. In serious cases, where the outcome of the performance evaluation

recommends the termination or non-renewal of the contract of the concerned staff, the President

may arrange a hearing where the staff member puts his case to a panel of experts from KIC (and

external experts if necessary). The panel will report their findings to the President. The decision of

the President is final.

Name Numerical Rating

Descriptive Rating

Department 93 - 100 85 - 92 80 - 84 70 - 79

Below 69

Outstanding (O) Very Good (VG)

Good (G) Satisfactory (S)

Below Satisfactory (BS)

Semester / Academic Year

Numeric Rating

Descriptive Rating

COMPONENTS WEIGHT MAX. POINTS

POINTS EARNED

A. Teaching and Course development 60%

1. Students’ Teacher Evaluation/Course Evaluations (STE) (based on students end of semester evaluation)

10

2. Department Heads’ Evaluation

- Classroom Observation (see specific form)

10

- Quality Records and Report Management

10

- Academic Advising 10

- Support to students 10 - Innovation in teaching and learning design and e-

learning/Blended learning content 05

- Effective E-learning/Blended learning delivery with appropriate use of technology: e.g. BB, , e-Library, ICT

05

B. Professional Development 20%

1. Research Conferences and Publications 15

2. Training Awards, Certifications and Professional Affiliations

5

C. Services to the College and the Community 20%

1. Services to the College 15

2. Community Engagement 5

FPE Rating

Prepared by: Shown to and discussed with me.

_____________________________ <<name>> Head of Department/Program Leader’s Signature / Date

_____________________________ <<name>> Faculty Member’s Signature/ ate

Verified and Approved by: _____________________________ <<name>> VPAA’s Signature/Date

Received by: _____________________________ <<name>> HR Department ‘s Signature / Date

A.2 Head of Department’s Evaluation:

Quality Record and Report Management (10 points)

Rubrics Max. Points

1. Submit complete records and reports accurately and on time 10

2. Submit complete records and reports accurately with delay 9

3. Submit records and reports with slight lack of accuracy 5

4. Submit records and reports with slight lack of accuracy and with delay 3

5. Any Other Case 0

Points Earned (* please attached summary of submission statistics supporting your evaluation)

Academic Advising (10 points)

As Academic Advisers (Thesis Advisers, Final Project/ Internship Competition Advisers/Coach, Registration etc)*

Rubrics Max. Points

Perform Efficiently, Accurately and on time 20

Perform Efficiently, Accurately and with delay 15

Perform with slight lack of Efficiency or accuracy and with delay 10

Any other case with partial accomplishments 5

Points Earned (*please attached summary of statistics supporting your evaluation)

Support to students (10 points)

Rubrics Max. Points

Dedicate clear time to student advising and is available during the selected time 05

Schedule and run Tutorial sessions for at-risk students 02

Adequate and appropriate advising during registration period 5

Points Earned (* please attached summary of statistics supporting your evaluation)

Effective E-learning delivery with appropriate use of technology: e.g. BB, , e-Library, ICT (05 points)

Rubrics Max. Points

Active use of E-Library Resources (03 instance or more full mark,) 01

Appropriate use of BB, SafeAssign/Turnitin 01

Effective e-Learning/Blended delivery with use of other appropriate technology and tools (simulators, …)

03

Points Earned (* please attached summary of statistics supporting your evaluation)

Innovation in teaching and learning and e-learning content (05 points)

Rubrics Max. Points

Use of project based learning 01

Use of Flipped class-approach 01

Use for modern teaching methodologies appropriate to the field in an e-learning/Blended learning context

03

Points Earned (* please refer to sample of course folder supporting your evaluation)

B. Professional Development:

Research Conferences and Publications (15 points)

Type National/International dually reviewed

Weight Max. Points Earned

Points

Session Chair +10% +1.5 16.5

Conference Chair +5% +0.75 15.75

Keynote Speaker in Conference (1-3

papers)

80% 12 12

Article in Conference (1-3papers) 70% 10 10

Article in Journal (1-3papers) 80% 12 12

Book 100% 15 15

Points Earned (*Best criteria to be

considered in case of multiple

alternatives; * Please submit proofs of

all publications supporting your

evaluation)

*encircle the appropriate mark and attach proof of conference/ publication

Training Awards, Certifications and Professional Affiliations (5 points)

Type National International

Weight Max. Points Weight Max. Points

2 or more trainings 90% 4.5 100% 5

1 training 70% 3.5 80% 4

Earning an International Certification 100% 5 100% 5

Professional Affiliation to

International/ Local Organization

100% 5 100% 5

Points Earned (* Please

submit proofs of training,

certification and other

elements supporting your

evaluation)

*encircle the appropriate mark and attach proof of training/ certification/ affiliation

C. Services to the College and the Community:

Services to the College (15 points)

Position Description

Accomplishment /s that is/are

Weight Max.

Points

Head of Department/Program

Leader/ Unit Head

Complete, Accurate and on time 100% 15

Complete, somehow accurate or with delay 80% 12

Partial or with lack of efficiency 50% 7.5

Any other case with partial accomplishment/s 30% 4.5

College Coordinators

(Research, Internship, Course

Coordinator, ….),

Standing/AdHoc Committees

Complete, Accurate and on time 100% 15

Complete, somehow accurate or with delay 80% 12

Partial or with lack of efficiency 50% 7.5

Any other case with partial accomplishment/s 30% 4.5

Total Points Earned (* Please submit proofs supporting your evaluation)

* encircle the appropriate mark

Community Engagement (5 points)

Type of Community Engagement* Organizers Facilitators/ Participants

Weight Max. Points Weight Max. Points

Outreach Activities with the College 100% 5 80% 4

Professional Services for Industry and

Community

80% 4 70% 3.5

Research Partnerships/ Collaborations/

Consortia

80% 4 70% 3.5

Lectures/ Conferences/Trainings/

Festivals/Art Events/ College Open Days/

ect.

100% 5 80% 4

Alumni Activities 80% 4 70% 3.5

Forge partnerships with private sector

corporations

80% 4 70% 3.5

College/ Charity activities 80% 4 70% 3.5

Coaching/Mentoring/Teaching in Lifelong

Learning courses offered by the college

100% 5 80% 4

Total Points Earned(* Please submit proofs

supporting your evaluation)

*Other Community Engagement activities of the College may qualify for points provided approved *encircle the appropriate mark and attach proof of community engagement activity

Class Visit Report (XXX)

Semester: Fall 2020/2021 Visit Number: 1

Lecturer Name: Visitor Name:

Date: 18/10/2020 Time: Room: ***** Online Session XXXXX on BB

☐ A pre-visit meeting was held ☒ A post-visit meeting was held

Part 1: To be filled by the visitor

1. Variety and Pacing of Instruction

Exe

mp

lary

(5

)

Ad

van

ced

(4

)

Pro

fici

en

t (3

)

Ne

ed

s

Imp

rove

me

nt

(2)

No

t

Ob

serv

ed

(0

)

Uses a variety of instructional methods

Allows adequate wait time when asking questions

Responds to wrong answers constructively

Draws non-participating students into activities/discussion

Prevents specific students from dominating activities/discussion

Asks probing questions when student answers are incomplete

Guides the direction of the discussion

Refrains from answering own questions

Uses active learning strategies (group work, paired discussions, polling)

Specifies how learning tasks will be evaluated (if appropriate)

Provides opportunities for students to practice what they have learned

Total (Max 55)

2. Organization

Exe

mp

lary

(5

)

Ad

van

ced

(4

)

Pro

fici

en

t (3

)

Ne

ed

s

Imp

rove

me

nt

(2)

No

t

Ob

serv

ed

(0

)

Begins and ends class on time

Relates this and previous class(es), or provides students with opportunity to do so

Provides and follows an outline for the class session

Has all necessary materials and equipment readily available

Uses effective transitions between class topics

Conveys the purpose of each class activity or assignment and allows sufficient time to complete it

Completes the scheduled topics

Summarizes periodically throughout and at end of class or prompts students to do so

Takes attendance

Total (Max 45)


3. Presentation Skills

Exe

mp

lary

(5

)

Ad

van

ced

(4

)

Pro

fici

en

t (3

)

Ne

ed

s

Imp

rove

me

nt

(2)

No

t

Ob

serv

ed

(0

)

Communicates audibly and clearly

Establishes and maintains eye contact with students

Varies pace and tone to keep students alert

Uses a presentation style that facilitates note-taking

Uses positive and appropriate humour

Incorporates various instructional supports (film, diagrams)

Handouts are easy to follow

Total (Max 35)

4. Clarity

Exe

mp

lary

(5

)

Ad

van

ced

(4

)

Pro

fici

en

t (3

)

Ne

ed

s

Imp

rove

me

nt

(2)

No

t

Ob

serv

ed

(0

)

Notes and explains new terms or concepts

Elaborates or repeats complex information

Uses examples to explain content and draw student attention to key ideas

Relates new ideas to familiar concepts

Total (Max 20)

5. Content Knowledge

Exe

mp

lary

(5

)

Ad

van

ced

(4

)

Pro

fici

en

t (3

)

Ne

ed

s

Imp

rove

me

nt

(2)

No

t

Ob

serv

ed

(0

) Makes accurate statements according to discipline standards

Incorporates current research in the field

Cites authorities to support statements

Presents divergent viewpoints

Total (Max 20)


6. Lecturer – Student Interaction

Exe

mp

lary

(5

)

Ad

van

ced

(4

)

Pro

fici

en

t (3

)

Ne

ed

s

Imp

rove

me

nt

(2)

No

t

Ob

serv

ed

(0

)

Attends to student comprehension, puzzlement, and behaviour

Asks questions of students that challenge them to think more deeply

Invites and encourages student participation and comments

Incorporates student responses when appropriate

Encourages students to respond to their peers throughout the discussions respectfully

Treats students with respect

Total (Max 30)

7. Use of Technology/E-learning

Exe

mp

lary

(5

)

Ad

van

ced

(4

)

Pro

fici

en

t (3

)

Ne

ed

s

Imp

rove

me

nt

(2)

No

t

Ob

serv

ed

(0

)

Effectively incorporates a variety of instructional technologies to enhance student learning (PPT, websites, YouTube, blogs, etc.)

Uses BB (Black Board) or Moodle to provide supplemental materials

Appropriate usage of E-learning/blended delivery approaches

Appropriate usage of course content design fit for e-learning/Blended learning

Total (Max 20)

Final Mark (225)

Score for Appraisal (FM/225*10)

Remarks

Must have course name and number of students in the class

Department Head Name: Feedback Date:

Signature:


Necessary Action for Next Visit ☐ Another visit during the current semester is necessary

Department Head Name Feedback Date:

Signature:

Part Two: Faculty Member Feedback

Faculty Member Feedback

Faculty Member Name Feedback Date:

Signature:

kic policy document

Documents