fac dev idea ws

8/11/2019 Fac Dev IDEA WS

1/16

The FUS Faculty Evaluation

System

IDEA Workshop

Cleveland Ohio

October, 2008


2/16

The Purposes of the FUS

Faculty Evaluation System

Provide an opportunity for self-reflection, self-direction,and practical reasoning in departments for both faculty

and program improvement

Provide feedback from Chair and VPAA for faculty

developmentProvide evidence of distinction in performance areas

for merit award decisions

Provide comparative data for enquiry seeking standards

of internal practices of FUS faculty


3/16

FUS a Catholic and

Franciscan University is:

Faithfully Catholic and purposefully seeking to operate from theHeart of the Church

Comprehensive; Associates, Bachelors, and Masters liberal arts

University located in Steubenville

At about 2400 students and 40+ programs

Has a structure with a strong VPAA and rotating Department Chairsas well as Graduate Program Directors who are teaching and

researching while managing

2 Decade User of IDEA


4/16

Since 2002 at FUS:

Fr Terrence Henry was named as President

Dr. Max Bonilla took the position as acting VPAA and then in 2004

was named VPAA

Completed a NCA/HLC PEAQ Team visit resulting a progress report

on Assessment due in Fall 2009

Saw Dr. Bonilia commit to the faculty in 2004 that he would seek

appropriate ways to widen the evidence used in Faculty Evaluation at

FUS

New CORE Program Development starts in 2007

A revised set of forms for faculty evaluation was used, starting in

2007, which asks for more quantitative evidence and allowsparticipation in The University of Delaware Study (UDELII)


5/16

Practical Reasoning

Franciscan University, in its very Mission, as a part of its self understanding

as a community, is committed to a wide conception of rationality with a rich

understanding of practical reason.

Department Chairs and Faculty have been individually and collectively

encouraged to consider the connections between Department Planning (ProgramReview), Assessment of Student Learning data and evidence, and individual

Faculty Performance Evaluation - especially in setting future goals

It is through the qualitative narrative in these documents that Chairs and

faculty communicate the situational contexts in which their performance efforts

are intentionally made. The arguments made for funding, curriculum changes,

faculty development or other items needing approval are made in these reports.

The argument is part of our praxis, practical reasoning

This practical reasoning of the faculty and chairs closest to theInternal Goods

(in MacIntyres Sense) of the practices of Teaching/Learning, Scholarship and

Service


6/16

IDEA is Great - but not for

Measures and Evidence of :

Instructional Design & Planning

Instructional Delivery & Innovation

Feedback Given to students on work

Advising, thesis mentoring and other instructional

departmental activity valued at FUS and your

Universities

Scholarship, Internal Service or External service


7/16

Evaluating Teaching and

Learning is hard, but

Scholarship and Service?

The University of Delaware Outside the ClassroomProductivity Study (UDELII) Measures and definitions

Operationally defining, and therefore understanding better

many of the tasks, projects and processes which make up the

practices of Teaching, Scholarship and Service at Universities

The study aims at the widest generality and most exhaustivecomprehension of measures prudent

Comparative data from other institutions can inform the

practical reasoning demonstrated in evaluations and reports


8/16

Review, Consider and Comment

on FUS Reports

Participants at tables review sample

Analysis Reports


9/16

IDEA and UDEL Reports at FUS

The following IDEA

analysis is like one given

to each faculty member

each evaluation at FUS Note: Average among

courses for evaluation

Comparative Z scores

Discipline vs. Overall Tscore

The following UDELanalysis gives data byCIP CODE from

participating institutions These are not intended andcannot be used throughsimple comparisons asnorms

These can inform

prudential argumentationabout contribution

These can inform thedialogue about standardsof practice


10/16

Triangulation and Practice

Quantity is not Quality

But quantity is one dimensionor aspect of quality - just askthe working parent who tries

intensely to have QualityTime

Faculty at FUS areencouraged to put thequantitative aspects (UDEL) offaculty efforts in dialogue andin context through theirnarrative

SoTL like projects and fundedprojects are asked for inquantitative sheets

These are Funded through mini-grants from Assessment Office

They are accompanied byAQIP like action planning

(NCA/HLC alternativeaccreditation path)

These then become exemplaryprojects for assessment /accreditation and facultydevelopment

They are saved on theASPIRE website at FUS andbecome artifacts in ourNarrative of Practice at FUS


11/16

On Going

Faculty Formation and Input

Faculty may (and have) added items to the quantitative

worksheet

Faculty are encouraged and paid to engage in SoTL activities

and advance their own development in Scholarly Teaching as

well as Scholarship Proper (including SoTL)

The assessment office helps with project preparation andseeks approval from VPAA as well as aids in getting SoTL work

published or presented.

Assessment office helps with the creation of the Flight Plan

which is a larger Narrative or plan for Teaching Scholarship and

Service


12/16

Appraisal and Action

The appraisal for Merit (or probation) level award is made by the VPAA in

consultation with the Chair after reviewing evidence and commentary fromthe faculty narrative, the chair evaluation, and an analysis from a central

office reader and preparer of the materials.

The consistency of merit recommendations between the preparer and the

VPAA is calculated via inter-rater reliability. Last years Kappa Value was at

at 0.76 or substantially similarThe Faculty member and chair are encouraged to create individual action

plans and longer range Flight Plans

The VPAA sends suggestions for goals and actions with his feedback to

each faculty annually

The assessment officer aids faculty in achieving plans and goals


13/16

IDEA and UDEL help in

achieving some level of

objectivity in measures but

by definition the personaljudgment used in mak ing a

performance appraisal is

subject ive


14/16

SOFIA: A Continuous

Improvement Process

Seeking-Searching for Standards of our Practices at FUS

IDEA, UDEL, Faculty Standards Committee at FUS, Best

Practices from Peer Universities etc.

Ongoing-

Formation Feedback &

Input - from Faculty through the assessment office to aid increating excellent practices at FUS and when possible to create

public SoTL projects

Appraisal (summative) Annual or other (Promotion Tenure)

and Action Planning

SOFIA is also evolving and ongoing as we assess our

appraisal system and its value to us at FUS

Lik th t FUS h


15/16

Like others, we at FUS have

found stages of faculty

resistance*

Stage 1: Disdainful Denial.

Stage 2: Hostile Resistance.

Stage 3: Apparent Acquiescence.

Stage 4: Attempts to Scuttle.

Stage 5: Grudging Acceptance. After two (or more- we will see) yearsof operation, the faculty find that the system can actually be of some

value. This is as good as it gets! There is no subsequent stage where

faculty are happy with the system.

*Taken and adapted from: http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings/610.html7/7/08
http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings/610.htmlhttp://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings/610.html


16/16

Conclusion

Thank you for your attention.

Any Questions?

fac dev idea ws

Documents