Academic Adviser Performance Evaluation

Recommended Procedure

This Performance Evaluation instrument is comprehensive, since there are a number of adviser responsibilities to be considered and not all advisers have the same duties. Any adviser responsibilities not appropriate to a particular position may be marked "does not apply" by the evaluator.

The performance evaluation includes the following areas of adviser responsibility:

Part I: Student Advising

Part II: Administrative Responsibilities

Part III: Student Evaluations (optional)

Evaluation levels

Within each of the above categories in Parts I and II there are four levels of performance as follows:

Exceptional--The adviser demonstrates an unusually high level of skill, talent, and creativity in one or more areas.
Exceeds expectations--Advising performance and commitment to the job at a level beyond standard expectations. Advisers are encouraged to take advantage of professional development opportunities in order to reach this level in those areas most important to the specific job and department.
Meets expectations--The standard for advising performace at the University of Washington. The adviser fully meets the requirements of the specific job.
Unsatisfactory--The adviser does not take advantage of available resources, nor demonstrate the desire or ability to accomplish the minimum level of expected performance.

Detailed examples of performance at each level are presented in the accompanying document, Academic Adviser Responsibilities. Evaluators should refer to this document whenever it is unclear what a particular responsibility entails, and what levels of performance should be expected at each level. Evaluators may use either Academic Adviser Responsibilities, or this Performance Evaluation, or both, as evaluation forms on which responses are recorded.

Student evaluations

A sample student evaluation form, based on one used by Undergraduate Advising, is available. Departments will probably want to construct their own evaluation forms, perhaps referring to the sample for guidelines.

Recommended procedure

  1. The performance evaluations and the summary should be completed independently by the supervisor, the adviser, and (optionally) a peer evaluator.

  2. The adviser and supervisor should determine first which areas of responsibility included in this document apply to the adviser's position. It will be useful to focus attention on responsibilities central to the position and spend less time on (or omit) responsibilities of minor importance for this advising position. Any confusion or disagreement regarding the importance of various responsibilities should be discussed as part of the evaluation.

    Individual offices may wish to modify this evaluation tool by adding or deleting items. Offices are free to modify the text from the Internet (cut and paste from the Internet to a word processing program).

  3. For each area of responsibility, the evaluator should make an overall judgement of the level of the adviser's performance in that area and indicate this on the Evaluation Form.

    The evaluator must consider which aspects of that particular area of responsibility are most important to the particular advising position. For example, the evaluator might refer to the examples in Academic Adviser Responsibilities and find one item under Exceptional, two under Exceeds Expectations, four under Meets Expectations, and one under Unsatisfactory, and still summarize the adviser's level in the area as Exceeds Expectations-if, as would be hoped for, the adviser's skills and performance are strongest in the most important aspects of the job.

    No one is expected to receive Exceptional or even Exceed Expectations for all categories. The adviser who Meets Expectations is doing a creditable job. If only Exceptional ratings are given, the true value of the evaluation may be lost.

    The evaluator may use the Academic Adviser Responsibilities document instead of the evaluation form, and submit the document as all or part of the evaluation; or the responsibilities descriptions may simply be used for reference.

  4. Student evaluations, if collected, should be reviewed by the adviser and the evaluator(s). The sample student evaluation form is also available on diskette (see #2).

  5. On the summary page at the end of this Performance Evaluation, the evaluator may mention overall strengths and weaknesses and recommend specific goals for the next evaluation period.

  6. The supervisor and the adviser should meet and discuss the completed evaluation, and record any areas the adviser should target for improvement or professional development during the next evaluation period. Areas of disagreement may also be noted.

  7. The evaluation and summary should be handed on to the reviewer for signature. (The reviewer will be at the next higher level of management after the supervisor.) The reviewer's signature indicates that the evaluation has been completed in accordance with the University's policies.

  8. Both the supervisor and the adviser should keep copies of the evaluation. At the time of the next evaluation, improvements and follow-through on the recommendations of this evaluation should be noted.

back to Performance Evaluation menu

University of Washington
Undergraduate Gateway Center
Prepared by UW's Association of Professional Advisers and Counselors
advice@u.washington.edu
February 2001