Adjunct Faculty Performance Evaluation
National Louis University is developing a consistent, University-wide adjunct faculty performance evaluation system. The goal is to provide clear expectations, meaningful feedback, and appropriate instructional support while enabling colleges and the Provost Office to monitor instructional quality. This work advances NLU’s Pillar 4 priority to establish a consistent adjunct faculty evaluation system.
This page outlines the draft policy, background, and process, while also inviting feedback.
Draft Policy
The draft Adjunct Faculty Performance Evaluation Policy establishes a consistent, university-wide approach to monitoring adjunct faculty performance, providing meaningful feedback, and supporting instructional improvement. Grounded in NLU's Teaching Excellence Framework and CARES values, the policy outlines performance expectations, evaluation indicators, review procedures, and proposed responsibilities for administering the system. The policy remains under development, and the Provost Office is seeking feedback. Download and review the draft policy and share your feedback to help inform its final development.
Draft Adjunct Faculty Performance Evaluation Policy
Policy development and next steps
The Adjunct Faculty Performance Evaluation Policy is still being developed. The Provost Office is currently inviting feedback from the Adjunct Council and the Faculty Development Committee. After that feedback is received and incorporated into a revised draft, Academic Cabinet will review the policy. The policy and supporting procedures will be finalized following this review process; implementation details and timing have not yet been established.
Why are we doing this?
Adjunct faculty bring vital expertise to our classrooms and are essential to NLU’s mission. To support their ongoing development as an educator, our shared evaluation system establishes transparent expectations alongside structured opportunities for feedback and instructional growth. By standardizing continuous feedback across all colleges, programs, and modalities, this system expands NLU’s effective teaching practices to ensure every instructor has the resources and guidance needed to succeed.
What is the proposed approach?
All newly hired adjunct faculty will participate in required new faculty onboarding and will be included in routine term-by-term performance monitoring. Additional evaluation can be initiated by faculty as a growth opportunity or when performance indicators, student complaints, administrative issues, or other documented concerns warrant review. Routine monitoring is not a formal evaluation.
How will the process work?
- Monitor: Review relevant performance information each term.
- Identify: Flag possible concerns and successes from dashboard indicators or other documented sources.
- Review in context: Consider the evidence, course circumstances, and other relevant factors.
- Consult: Discuss concerns with the faculty member when further evaluation is warranted.
- Support: Offer appropriate observation, coaching, professional development, or an improvement plan.
- Follow up: Document actions and determine whether concerns are resolved.
What information may be considered?
Possible indicators include end-of-course evaluation scores, comments and response rates; DFW (drop, fail, withdraw) rates; course readiness; engagement and responsiveness in D2L; timely grade submission; teaching observations; and teaching assignment history. Specific measures and thresholds are still being developed. No single indicator automatically establishes unsatisfactory performance.
Our shared performance expectations
The Teaching Excellence Framework describes effective instruction through three dimensions: Subject Matter Guide; Designer & Teacher; and Community Builder. The CARES framework establishes professional expectations that are Collaborative, Accountable, Responsive, Empathetic, and Solution-Oriented. Together, these frameworks inform how performance evidence is interpreted and how improvement is supported.
Shared responsibility
The proposed model assigns university-wide standards and oversight to the Provost Office; dashboard coordination and development resources to CTLE; implementation and personnel oversight to college leadership; direct faculty consultation and instructional follow-up to chairs and directors; and continuous learning and development to the adjunct faculty member. These assignments remain under discussion.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. The proposed model includes routine term-by-term monitoring for all adjunct faculty. A more detailed review occurs when indicators or other documented concerns warrant attention. That being said, some colleges and/or programs may require a new-hire adjunct to have a teaching observation as part of their onboarding.
Dashboard indicators, student complaints, academic supervision, teaching observations, missed administrative expectations, faculty-requested reviews for professional development, or other documented concerns. A flag or complaint initiates preliminary review, not an automatic negative finding.
No. Results are interpreted alongside response rates, qualitative comments, course context, other evidence, and professional judgment.
DFW rates may identify patterns worth examining. They are not stand-alone measures of teaching quality and must be interpreted in context.
An initial review determines whether further action is warranted. Depending on the findings, the concern may be closed, discussed with the faculty member, or followed by additional evaluation and support.
Teaching observation and feedback, coaching, co-teaching, recommendations for student engagement and feedback, course organization assistance, and CTLE professional development.
All new adjunct faculty must complete the New Faculty Onboarding Program. It is separate from the performance-triggered evaluation process. CTLE, colleges, and HR share onboarding responsibilities; details will be published separately.
Access will be limited to authorized university personnel. Documentation, access permissions, and retention requirements will be established through university procedures.
No. Faculty request, student complaints, supervisory concerns, teaching observations, and other documented administrative issues may also initiate review.
No. The Provost Office is seeking feedback from the Adjunct Council and Faculty Development Committee. That feedback will inform revisions to the draft before Academic Cabinet reviews the policy. Metrics, thresholds, responsibilities, and implementation details remain under development.
The Provost Office will consult with Academic Cabinet, Faculty Senate through the Faculty Development Committee, Colleges via college meetings, and Adjunct Council to review implementation, measures, and opportunities for improvement.
Status and next steps
The policy remains a working draft. Next, the Provost Office will gather feedback from the Adjunct Council and Faculty Development Committee, incorporate that input, and submit the revised policy to Academic Cabinet for review. Final approval and implementation timing will be communicated after the review process.
Please complete the survey if you have comments or feedback.
