Faculty Needing Support

Performance Improvement Required • Detailed Analysis & Action Plans

Critical Issues Identified

  • • 2 faculty members in critical performance zone (<3.50): Maureen Costa (2.69), Jodi Kolpakov (3.38)
  • • 4 instructors with Q2 (Timely Grading) scores below 4.00 threshold
  • • Immediate administrative action required for Maureen Costa
  • • Course presence issues identified for Lindsay Masten

Q2 (Timely Grading) Analysis

Q2 is the department's weakest dimension (4.31 avg). Instructors below the 4.00 threshold (red) require immediate intervention. This metric often serves as a "canary in the coal mine" for other performance issues.

Below 4.0 Threshold (Concern)
Above 4.0 Threshold
#15

Maureen Costa

CRITICAL10/19 responses•52.63% response rate
2.69
-1.79 from avg

Q-Dimension Performance

Q1
2.52
Q2
2.77
Q3
2.80
Q4
2.81
Q5
2.75
Q6
3.17
Q7
1.81

Critical Issues Identified

  • Abdication of Teaching Responsibilities: Q7 = 1.81 (crisis level)
  • Poor Grading Practices: Q2 = 2.77
  • Unclear Communication: Q1 = 2.52
  • Lack of Student Engagement: Q4 = 2.81
  • Ineffective Assessment Design: Q3 = 2.80

Student Feedback (Direct Quotes)

"Mrs. Costa barely taught us anything and loosely explained assignments before showing us a video so she wouldn't have to do the work to teach it to us properly. Mr. Rispin is a better teacher in many ways."
"If the first half of the semester we had a better instructor."
"Having our new teacher at the start of the course. (referring to replacement instructor)"

Impact on Students

Students requested instructor change mid-semester. Replacement instructor ("Mr. Rispin/Rapin") received positive feedback. Significant disruption to student learning. Both courses ranked in bottom 2 department-wide.

Chair-Led Action Plan

1Performance Review: Immediate administrative intervention
2Teaching Observation: Multiple formal observations
3Course Reassignment: Consider removing from teaching rotation
4Professional Development Plan: Intensive support or termination consideration
5Student Support: Remediation for affected students
#14

Jodi Kolpakov

CRITICAL3/5 responses•60.00% response rate
3.38
-1.10 from avg

Q-Dimension Performance

Q1
3.33
Q2
3.67
Q3
3.00
Q4
3.33
Q5
3.67
Q6
3.33
Q7
3.33

Critical Issues Identified

  • Poor Assessment Design: Q3 = 3.00 (worst Q score)
  • Unclear Expectations: Q1 = 3.33
  • Weak Teaching Methods: Q7 = 3.33
  • Student Disengagement: Q4 = 3.33
  • Grading Concerns: Q2 = 3.67

Student Feedback (Direct Quotes)

"Assessment design and student engagement need significant improvement."

Impact on Students

Students report unclear expectations and weak engagement.

Chair-Led Action Plan

1Intensive Support Plan: Assign senior faculty mentor
2Teaching Observations: Weekly observations and feedback
3Curriculum Review: Redesign assessment approach
4Professional Development: Mandatory teaching effectiveness workshops
5Progress Monitoring: Bi-weekly check-ins with department
#13

Jonah Fleeger

MONITORING1/3 responses•33.33% response rate
4.00
-0.48 from avg

Q-Dimension Performance

Q1
4.00
Q2
4.00
Q3
4.00
Q4
4.00
Q5
4.00
Q6
4.00
Q7
4.00

Critical Issues Identified

  • Insufficient Data: Only 1 student response
  • Score appears consistently mediocre across all dimensions
  • Cannot make definitive assessment with limited data

Student Feedback (Direct Quotes)

"Limited feedback available due to low response rate."

Impact on Students

Insufficient data to determine student impact.

Chair-Led Action Plan

1Data Collection: Ensure higher response rates next semester
2Mid-semester Check-in: Implement formative assessment
3Peer Observation: Schedule classroom visits
#12

Matthias Petsche

MODERATE11/28 responses•39.29% response rate
4.35
-0.13 from avg

Q-Dimension Performance

Q1
4.45
Q2
3.73
Q3
4.55
Q4
4.55
Q5
4.45
Q6
4.45
Q7
4.27

Critical Issues Identified

  • Grading Timeliness: Q2 = 3.73 (significantly below 4.00 threshold)
  • Students report multi-week delays in grading for 8-week course
  • Some students felt unsupported

Strengths

  • All other Q dimensions at acceptable levels
  • Course content generally well-designed
  • Professional experience valued by students

Student Feedback (Direct Quotes)

"In no reality should an 8-week course have assignments not graded for several weeks. This has happened with a few professors and should not be allowed to occur."
"A small delay for grades from the first couple of weeks was not a big deal and quickly rectified. (mixed feedback)"
"I felt like I was on my own for most of this course and should have just watched YouTube videos (which I ended up doing)."

Chair-Led Action Plan

1Grading Workshop: Mandatory grading workflow training
2Accountability: Weekly grading deadlines monitored
3Student Communication: Improve support systems
4Next Semester Review: Progress check after implementing improvements
#9

Lindsay Masten

PRESENCE CONCERN11/17 responses•64.71% response rate
4.50
+0.02 from avg

Q-Dimension Performance

Q1
4.40
Q2
3.64
Q3
4.64
Q4
4.84
Q5
4.64
Q6
4.64
Q7
4.70

Critical Issues Identified

  • Course Presence: Students report instructor "disappeared" after first two weeks
  • Grading Delays: Work remains ungraded for over a month
  • Communication Gaps: Lack of announcements and updates

Paradox Identified

Strong Q4-Q7 scores suggest effective teaching when present, but critical Q2 issues indicate serious grading and presence problems. High response rate (64.71%) indicates students were engaged enough to provide feedback.

Strengths

  • Engagement When Present: Q4 = 4.84 (excellent active participation)
  • Teaching Methods: Q7 = 4.70 (effective when engaged)
  • Assessment Design: Q3 = 4.64 (well-aligned)

Student Feedback (Direct Quotes)

"She was not present for basically the entirety of the course (No announcements after the first two weeks, barely grading anything on time, lectures were not her own they were from another instructor)."
"Work from October 19th to now that are still not graded. (survey date unknown but suggests month+ delays)"
"She seems to have disappeared from the course at times, and especially how the grading has been handled."
"Masten does an incredible job at guiding her students to their natural strengths... encourages students to speak their minds without fear of judgment. (positive)"

Chair-Led Action Plan

1Workload Assessment: Investigate if overextended
2Accountability Systems: Weekly presence and grading checks
3Communication Protocol: Require regular announcements
4Mentoring: Pair with Laura Bloomenstein (excellent Q2 scores)
5Progress Review: Mid-semester check next term