Decision Analysis Case Study:
Valley of the Sun Reviews
Valley of the Sun Academy (VSA) is an online school specializing in GED programs for the
Phoenix area. Valley of the Sun Academy enrolls 813 students and has a part-time faculty pool
of 65 online instructors.
Online faculty are reviewed annually and provided with feedback about their facilitation
techniques, content expertise, engagement, and classroom management. If necessary,
remediation and additional support are provided by the Faculty Advisory Board (FAB). The
online faculty reviews are one factor used to determine overall performance, teaching status, and
potential performance appraisals.
Recently, the FAB submitted a proposal for a new approach for the next fiscal year, the Peer
Faculty Performance Review (PFPR). Human Resources (HR) and the school’s chief financial
officer are evaluating the suggestion against the current design, described by VSA’s director.
Both review processes are outlined below.
Current Design
Valley of the Sun Academy uses an external firm, TeachBest Consulting, to conduct annual
reviews for online faculty. The review team is composed of faculty members at other online
institutions, including universities and high schools. Valley of the Sun Academy faculty are not
part of the review process, and TeachBest Consulting handles hiring and training internally.
Valley of the Sun Academy’s HR department assigns completed courses to review, and VSA’s
Technical Support team is responsible for providing access.
Once completed, the TeachBest consultant submits the review form to VSA’s HR department,
and HR submits a payment for each review. In addition, VSA has an annual contract with
TeachBest Consulting.
The overall contract is $2,500/year. If VSA’s enrollment reaches 1,000 or more students or their
faculty pool expands to 75 or more instructors, the contract amount will increase to $5,000/year.
There is a 75% chance the student enrollment will reach 1,000 students within the next 18
months and a 25% chance enrollment will not increase. During the next nine months, Human
Resources anticipates hiring at least six math instructors.
Individual reviewers are paid $75 for each review. Reviews are conducted in March, July, and
November, with all faculty reviewed by December 1.
Valley of the Sun Academy is responsible for disseminating the results of the review to faculty
members. If questions arise about review results, the FAB is responsible for verifying the review
© 2016. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
and responding to the instructor. Periodically, the Faculty Advisory Board finds fault with the
initial review and follow-up must be scheduled. Each year, about 5% of the initial reviews are
found to be inaccurate and new reviews must be scheduled. Valley of the Sun Academy pays a
discounted price of $50 for each follow-up review.
Peer Faculty Performance Review (PFPR) Proposal
The FAB proposes to conduct faculty reviews in-house and no longer contract TeachBest
Consulting. Human Resources will review faculty files and invite the top three performing
instructors in four disciplines (Literacy and Communication, Social Sciences, Math, and Science
and Technology) to join the PFPR committee.
Initial responsibilities will involve creating a new review form and conducting a norming session
for consistency. There will be ongoing technology fees of $20/month for each reviewer, to
ensure access to create and complete the review forms. There will also be an initial cost to set up
the norming session. The Faculty Advisory Board recommends one of three options:
1. A $500 session that can be scheduled at any time with TeachBest Consulting.
2. A $750 session offered monthly by an external employee development firm.
3. A session designed by VSA’s HR and instructional design specialists, which would be
free to attend but would require internal time and labor costs; HR anticipates a start of
two months from implementation would prevent interrupting normal business practices.
Because the responsibilities are not included in current faculty contracts, FAB recommends
stipends of $50 for each review completed. With the new internal PFPR process, FAB anticipates
faculty reviews would no longer be overturned and there would not be a need to conduct
secondary reviews. Additionally, FAB expects reviews to move to a 9-month rolling cycle rather
than once every academic year.
2
Decision Analysis Case Study: Valley of the Sun Reviews
2
1
Less than
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
0.00%
74.00%
70.0 %Content
20.0
%Explanation
of Approach
and Rationale
25.0
%Evaluation of
Each Approach
and Application
to Decision
25.0
%Conclusion,
Recommendatio
n, and Decision
Tree
3
Satisfactory
79.00%
4
Good
87.00%
5
Excellent
100.00%
An explanation An explanation An explanation An explanation An explanation
of the approach of the approach of the approach of the approach of the approach
and the
and the
and the
and the
and the
rationale for rationale for rationale for rationale for rationale for
implementing a implementing a implementing a implementing a implementing a
new faculty
new faculty
new faculty
new faculty
new faculty
performance performance performance performance performance
review process review process review process review process review process
is not included. is present, but is present.
is clearly
is thoroughly
it lacks detail
provided and developed with
or is
wellsupporting
incomplete.
developed.
details.
An evaluation An evaluation An evaluation An evaluation A
of each review of each review of each review of each review comprehensive
process
process
process
process
evaluation of
approach and approach and approach and approach and each review
how it would how it would how it would how it would process
be applied to be applied to be applied to be applied to approach and
the decision is the decision is the decision is the decision is how it would
not included. included, but it included.
clearly
be applied to
lacks detail or
provided and the decision is
is incomplete.
wellthoroughly
developed.
developed with
supporting
details.
A conclusion A conclusion A conclusion A conclusion A
with a
with a
with a
with a
comprehensive
recommendatio recommendatio recommendatio recommendatio conclusion
n and decision n and decision n and decision n and decision with a
tree analysis tree analysis tree analysis tree analysis recommendatio
for the review for the review for the review for the review n for the
process that
process that
process that
process that
review process
VSA should VSA should VSA should VSA should and decision
adopt is not
adopt is
adopt is
adopt is clearly tree analysis
included.
included, but it included.
provided and that VSA
lacks detail or
wellshould adopt is
is incomplete.
developed.
thoroughly
developed with
supporting
details.
20.0
%Organization
and
Effectiveness
7.0 %Thesis
Paper lacks
Thesis is
Thesis is
Development
any discernible insufficiently apparent and
and Purpose
overall purpose developed or appropriate to
or organizing vague. Purpose purpose.
claim.
is not clear.
20.0
%Organization
and
Effectiveness
8.0 %Argument Statement of Sufficient
Logic and
purpose is not justification of
Construction
justified by the claims is
conclusion.
lacking.
The conclusion Argument
does not
lacks
support the
consistent
claim made. unity. There
Argument is are obvious
incoherent and flaws in the
uses
logic. Some
noncredible
sources have
sources.
questionable
credibility.
20.0
%Organization
and
Effectiveness
Thesis is clear Thesis is
and forecasts comprehensive
the
and contains
development of the essence of
the paper.
the paper.
Thesis is
Thesis
descriptive and statement
reflective of makes the
the arguments purpose of the
and appropriate paper clear.
to the purpose.
Argument is Argument
orderly, but
shows logical
may have a
progressions.
few
Techniques of
inconsistencies argumentation
. The argument are evident.
presents
There is a
minimal
smooth
justification of progression of
claims.
claims from
Argument
introduction to
logically, but conclusion.
not thoroughly, Most sources
supports the are
purpose.
authoritative.
Sources used
are credible.
Introduction
and conclusion
bracket the
thesis.
Clear and
convincing
argument that
presents a
persuasive
claim in a
distinctive and
compelling
manner. All
sources are
authoritative.
5.0 %Mechanics Surface errors Frequent and Some
Prose is largely Writer is
of Writing
are pervasive repetitive
mechanical
free of
clearly in
(includes
enough that
mechanical
errors or typos mechanical
command of
spelling,
they impede errors distract are present, but errors,
standard,
punctuation,
communication the reader.
they are not
although a few written,
grammar,
of meaning.
Inconsistencies overly
may be
academic
language use) Inappropriate in language
distracting to present. The English.
word choice or choice
the reader.
writer uses a
sentence
(register) or
Correct and
variety of
construction is word choice varied sentence effective
used.
are present.
structure and sentence
Sentence
audiencestructures and
structure is
appropriate
figures of
correct but not language are speech.
varied.
employed.
10.0 %Format
5.0 %Paper
Template is not Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate
All format
Format (use of used
template is
template is
template is
elements are
appropriate
appropriately used, but some used.
fully used.
correct.
style for the
or
elements are Formatting is There are
major and
documentation missing or
correct,
virtually no
assignment)
format is rarely mistaken. A although some errors in
followed
lack of control minor errors formatting
correctly.
with formatting may be
style.
is apparent.
present.
5.0
Sources are not Documentation Sources are
Sources are
Sources are
%Documentatio documented. of sources is documented, as documented, as completely and
n of Sources
inconsistent or appropriate to appropriate to correctly
(citations,
incorrect, as assignment and assignment and documented, as
footnotes,
appropriate to style, although style, and
appropriate to
references,
assignment and some
format is
assignment and
bibliography,
style, with
formatting
mostly correct. style, and
etc., as
numerous
errors may be
format is free
appropriate to
formatting
present.
of error.
assignment and
errors.
style)
100 %Total
Weightage
Purchase answer to see full
attachment