Annual Faculty Performance Review July 31, 2003

Arthur Centonze, David Cohen, Harriet Feldman, Janet McDonald, Susan Merritt, Michael Roberts

Marilyn Jaffe-Ruiz, Joseph Morreale, Yvonne Ramirez

Consultant: Anne Saunier, Sibson Consulting

2

Goals for the new faculty evaluation are intended to beaspirational and set appropriately high standards

1. Adopt a University-wide faculty evaluation model which is clear, allows appropriate flexibility for varying endeavors, and achieves comparable rigor across Schools/College. The model: Enables the deans with the faculty to tailor elements of the standards to the needs of the

School or College, including professional accreditation requirements. Is based on models currently used at Pace complemented by the work of Dr. Ernest L.

Boyer. Provides for review and calibrates standards in order to ensure a comparable level of rigor

across Pace.

2. Require demonstrable outcomes in the faculty evaluation process to assure the fullest possible review of teaching, scholarship, and service. Implement a University-wide instrument for student evaluations of teaching. Require self-evaluation to encourage reflection and development. Require peer and/or chair/associate dean evaluations.

3. Implement a University-wide rating system with specific definitions to be used in the annual faculty evaluation and merit increase process. Allow flexibility in weighting of the criteria based on the needs of the Schools or College.

3

Collaborative process will ensure faculty input withineach School/College

The Deans collectively review and calibrate School standards,

agreeing on comparable rigor

The Provost reviews, with input from

University-wide Faculty Committee composed of representatives from

each School, and approves

Each School’s standards framework is

distributed within the School

Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Each School (Faculty and Dean) determines how the elements of

the standards framework will be

demonstrated (refer to page 5)

Step 1

Standard

The following process will help ensure that School-specific standards are held to comparable rigor:

Standards Framework and Criteria

Evaluation Inputs

Ratings and Weightings

5

The standards framework includes fiveelements

STANDARDS FRAMEWORK

AREASAREAS DEFINITIONDEFINITION

The areas to be evaluated

DEMONSTRATIONDEMONSTRATION EVIDENCEEVIDENCE PERFORMANCERATINGS

PERFORMANCERATINGS

The definition of each criterion

How the criterion can be

demonstrated

Specific outcomes

demonstrating that the criterion

is met

A rating rubric delineating what

is required to demonstrate

performance in each area at each rating

level

6

The framework is set at the University level, while the Schools determine specific elements

SCHOOL SPECIFIC DEANS AND SCHOOLS

UNIVERSITY-WIDE

AREASAREAS DEFINITIONDEFINITION

TEACHING

SCHOLARSHIP

SERVICE

DEMONSTRATIONDEMONSTRATION EVIDENCEEVIDENCE PERFORMANCERATINGS

PERFORMANCERATINGS

See page 6

See page 8

See page 10

Schools refine how criteria will be demonstrated

The deans calibrate School-specific outcomes that determine each rating, subject to approval by the Provost

Provost approves the entire standards framework to ensure there is comparable rigor across Schools and College.

Provost approves the entire standards framework to ensure there is comparable rigor across Schools and College.

Schools provide specific examples of outcomes

7

The teaching criteria reflects Pace’s commitment to student learning

AREAAREA

Teaching

DEFINITIONDEFINITION

TEACHING

Teaching excellence is the core of the faculty role, the commitment to student learning, development and achievement, and includes for example:

Engaged student learning

Mastery and continuous growth in subject matter knowledge

Reflective practice

Ability to organize and communicate class material

Competence and creativity in instructional design, delivery and evaluation

Integration of scholarship in teaching

Demonstrated effective course management

8

Each School identifies School-specific evidence that demonstrates excellence in teaching

DEMONSTRATIONDEMONSTRATION EVIDENCEEVIDENCE

Introduces tutorial web page for course topicsStudents report receiving timely and constructive feedbackTimely grade submission in accordance with University policyMeets all classes and effectively utilizes full class periods

Methods

Presents subject matter logically, accurately, and with appropriate level of difficultyUses technology to enhance teaching and student learning Applies fairness and sound judgment in the treatment and grading of students

Revises and improves courseReflective Critique Receives input and revises course or improves pedagogy

Creates clear course objectives

Demonstrates currency in fieldPrepares comprehensive course syllabusStudents report instructor was well prepared

Students learn as documented by students, the faculty member, and others

Class is interesting and stimulating as reported by the faculty member, students, chair, and faculty peers

Goals

Preparation

Results

Presentation

Develops and communicates learning objectives for each course

Prepares current classroom material

Provides effective course and classroom management

Students learnStudents are interested and engaged

Presents course material in a clear, well-structured, interesting, and involving manner

Criteria (Illustrative)Areas of Excellence (Illustrative)

TEACHING

9

Scholarship reflects original and integrative contributions to the field

AREAAREA

Scholarship

DEFINITIONDEFINITION

Scholarship is original research, i.e. discovery, and/or serious disciplined work that interprets, brings new insight, and/or illuminates original research, the profession, or pedagogy, i.e. integration & application

SCHOLARSHIP

10

Each School identifies School-specific evidence that demonstrates excellence in scholarship

DEMONSTRATIONDEMONSTRATION EVIDENCEEVIDENCE

Is able to place own work in context of the field.Reflective Critique

Reflects on research outcomes and their significanceCritiques strengths and weaknesses of research methodology and results

Writes clear and achievable goals on proposals for scholarly publication or for professional presentation

Receives research grants

Executes a field study

Publishes article in the Harvard Law Review

Presents peer-reviewed paper at a scholarly academic meeting

Goals

Preparation

Methods

Results

Presentation

Sets research goals

Organizes resources for efficient and effective research execution

Uses appropriate scholarly research methodologies

Publishes scholarly work

Writes in clear and interesting manner; presents results in a clear and compelling fashion

Criteria (Illustrative) (Illustrative)Areas of Excellence

SCHOLARSHIP

11

Service furthers the institution or discipline

AREAAREA

Service

DEFINITIONDEFINITION

Service is using scholarship and/or knowledge to further individuals, institutions, the profession, and disciplines by contributing to the University, School, students, department, and academic community.

SERVICE

12

Each School identifies School-specific evidence that demonstrates excellence in service

DEMONSTRATIONDEMONSTRATION EVIDENCEEVIDENCE

Participates in curriculum committee meetings and makes a contribution, carries share of the workload

Methods Engages in the endeavor

Reflects on one’s role and contributions to a committee assignment and seeks to improve itReflective Critique Reflects on participation in service and critiques

method and results as well as own contribution

Prepares a clear goal statement for a faculty affairs committee.

Uses research in an area of service (e.g., curriculum development) and is prepared to make a contribution

Curriculum committee completes proposal for changes in curriculum

Selected to present committee findings to faculty

Goals

Preparation

Results

Presentation

Sets clear goals for outcomes of service and for personal contribution

Approaches problems with purpose, sufficient background knowledge, and with appropriate skills to achieve the desired outcome

Assures appropriate outcomes

Writes in clear and interesting manner; presents results in clear and compelling fashion

Criteria (Illustrative) (Illustrative)Areas of Excellence

SERVICE

Standards Framework and Criteria

Evaluation Inputs

Ratings and Weightings

14

Student evaluation instruments need to be consistent across the University

Set of common questions used across Pace.

Allow additional questions to be determined by the School. Text response questions are determined by the School, department, or faculty member.

Centralize the administration of the questionnaire by School.

Publish results of the common questions on a Web site. Keep the results of other questions and text responses confidential.

15

Student evaluations will have a common set of core questions that address University-wide standards for teaching excellence

Areas of Excellence Common Questions Currently Found Across Schools

Goal 1. The instructor made the objectives of the course clear.

Preparation

2. The instructor was well-prepared.

3. The instructor was knowledgeable in the subject.

Methods

4. The instructor made effective use of technology.

5. The instructor was available to help outside of class time.

6. The instructor showed respect for students.

7. The instructor gave constructive and helpful feedback.

8. Assignments and exams were educational, fair and reflected course content.

Presentation 9. The instructor was a clear and effective communicator.

10. The instructor made effective use of class time.

Results

11. My learning increased in this course.

12. The instructor was able to stimulate my interest in the subject area.

13. The instructor helped me to think independently about the subject matter.

14. The instructor actively involved me in what I was learning.

ILLUSTRATION

16

Implement a University-wide system of studentevaluations of faculty teaching

Implementation

A. University-wide Faculty Committee representing all Schools recommends a set of common questions and scale to the deans and Provost.

Schools design additional questions to supplement the common questions.

Schools distribute evaluations at the end of the semester in class or electronically, preserving anonymity.

OPARAS coordinates the evaluation process with Schools including scoring, analyzing and disseminating the results of the questionnaires. Scores are electronically posted for the Pace University community.

17

Peer and Chair/Associate Dean evaluations provideobservations of faculty teaching performance

Peer Review

Peers of the same or different department and of same academic rank or higher, observe teaching annually for untenured, tenure-track faculty, and at least once every three years for tenured faculty, and write faculty teaching evaluations using a University-wide peer review instrument.

Peers use the teaching definition to gather observations and evaluate.

Each School determines its process for peer reviewer selection.

Chair/Associate Dean Review

Chair and/or associate dean observes teaching annually for untenured, tenure-track faculty, and at least once every five years for tenured faculty.

Annual review for all faculty includes review of syllabi, assessment instruments, peer reviews, and other evidence of performance.

Chair and/or associate dean comments on the faculty member’s self-reflection on teaching performance.

18

Faculty members complete reflective critique of their own performance in teaching, scholarship,and service

Faculty submit annual self evaluations that include:

1. Evidence of how all criteria in teaching, scholarship, and service were met. The self-reflection must be supported by this evidence. The quality of self-reflection will be part of each faculty member’s final assessment.

2. Self reflection also includes individual goals set in prior year.

19

Final assessment of performance in teaching, scholarship,and service is completed

1. The chair and/or associate dean, in consultation with the faculty member and the dean, completes a formal evaluation statement summarizing the faculty member’s performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. The final assessment is based on the following:

Student evaluation results

Peer and chair/associate dean observations of faculty teaching performance

Faculty member’s self evaluation including all supporting evidence

2. The chair and/or associate dean reviews the formal evaluation statement with the faculty member. The faculty member may provide written comment on the formal evaluation statement. A copy of the statement is provided to the faculty member.

Standards Framework and Criteria

Evaluation Inputs

Ratings and Weightings

21

Performance categories

4. Exceeds established standards with distinction

3. Exceeds established standards

2. Meets established standards

1. Does not meet established standards

4. Exceeds established standards with distinction

3. Exceeds established standards

2. Meets established standards

1. Does not meet established standards

Deans in consultation with chairs and/or associate deans evaluate faculty performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service using the following categories:

Deans in consultation with chairs and/or associate deans evaluate faculty performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service using the following categories:

22

Performance categories need to be uniform across Pace

Teaching

Exceeds Established

Standards with Distinction

Faculty member is consistently evaluated by students and peers, as appropriate, at or above the predetermined standard for most areas: goals, preparation, methods, course management, results, presentation and reflective critique. Takes leadership role in student academic development with demonstrated student success. Integrates scholarship with teaching. Peers, chair, and associate deans concur that teaching materials and/or performance exceeds the criteria for appropriate teaching behaviors with distinction. Faculty member is a teaching role model for others.

Exceeds Established Standards

Faculty member is consistently evaluated by students and peers, as appropriate, at or above the predetermined standard for most areas: goals, preparation, methods, course management, results, presentation and reflective critique. Provides accurate and timely advisement to students and engages them in their own academic development with demonstrated student success. Integrates scholarship with teaching. Peers, chair, and associate deans concur that teaching materials and/or performance exceeds the criteria for appropriate teaching behaviors.

Meets Established Standards

Faculty member is consistently evaluated by students and peers, as appropriate, at or above the pre-determined standard for most areas: goals, preparation, methods, course management, results, presentation and reflective critique. Provides accurate and timely advisement to students and engages them in their own academic development. Integrates scholarship with teaching. Peers, chair, and associate deans concur that teaching materials and/or performance meet the criteria for appropriate teaching behaviors.

23

Performance categories need to be uniform across Pace

Scholarship

Exceeds Established

Standards with Distinction

Faculty member provides evidence of at least two of the following: Publication in a refereed journal (academic or equivalent in the field); publication in a refereed professional journal; authorship of a book, a new textbook, or results from research grant success; a body of creative and original work reflective of a faculty member’s discipline; or award of a substantial competitive grant.

Exceeds Established Standards

Faculty member provides evidence of the following: Refereed proceeding (not abstract) from a scholarly or professional meeting; substantive re-write of an existing textbook or book chapter; or editing a book; AND Material published as part of textbook; publication in a non-refereed or trade journal; a research monograph; published case study with teaching notes; creation of generally available instructional software; submission of a competitive grant proposal reflective of the faculty member’s discipline; or academic citations or critical reviews of previous work.

Meets Established Standards

Faculty member provides evidence of the following: Unpublished paper presented at an academic or professional conference; published book review; published abstract or nonrefereed proceeding from a scholarly and professional meeting; or annual updates of existing publications; AND Presentation at an internal colloquium; internal publication or working paper; paper under review by an academic or professional journal; other evidence consistent with on-going research and scholarship program within the faculty members discipline; or academic citations or critical reviews of previous work.

24

Performance categories need to be uniform across Pace

Service

Exceeds Established

Standards with Distinction

Faculty member regularly assumes leadership role at department and School or University level; and assumes leadership through external contributions and service in the professional field or the larger community.

Exceeds Established Standards

Faculty member regularly demonstrates significant contribution at department and School or University level; makes recognized contributions to a successful University endeavor with results; and is also recognized for providing external contributions and service in the professional field or the larger community.

Meets Established Standards

Faculty member regularly contributes to student development activities, committees at the department and School or University level and attends most University events including commencement, convocation, recruitment events, i.e., open houses, conversion activities, scholarship and orientation weekends; and is also recognized for providing external contributions and service in the professional field or the larger community.

25

The weighting of the criteria are banded to allow for some flexibility

The dean, in consultation with the chair and/or associate dean, sets the weighting for each faculty member within the ranges established above, balancing the needs of the School and the faculty member.

Each criterion (teaching, scholarship, service) is evaluated separately and is multiplied by the weighting for that criterion. The three performance outcomes are then added in order to convert performance to an overall faculty rating that will be used solely for determination of annual merit increase.

ServiceServiceScholarshipScholarshipTeachingTeaching

40-50% 30-40% 20%

ServiceServiceScholarshipScholarshipTeachingTeaching

50-70% 0-20% 30-40%

Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty

Non-Tenure Track Faculty

Appendix

27

Appendix A: Pace Key Findings from School Material

Similarities

Use traditional criteria outlined in faculty handbook

Do not provide overall definition of performance criteria

Provide a description of how criteria can be demonstrated by performance level (application)

Do not provide a description of how criteria can be demonstrated by performance level by rank (except Nursing)

Provide examples of demonstration that meet criteria

Differences

Provide varying amounts of detail in description of how criteria can be demonstrated by performance level

Provide varying amounts of detail and examples for demonstrating criteria

PROCESSCRITERIA

FACULTY EVALUATION SYSTEMFACULTY EVALUATION SYSTEM

PACE