Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.1

Facilitators:Janet Lange and Bob Munn

Faculty evaluationand peer review

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.2

Preliminaries

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.3

About the workshopAs a result of this workshop you should be able to Identify criteria and measures and develop policies

and procedures for faculty evaluation and peer review Design and implement effective faculty evaluation

and peer review systems Align faculty evaluation and peer review systems with

institutional and programme missions and objectives Discuss with peers and explain principles, concepts,

and good practice related to performance evaluation Lead and support others in designing faculty

evaluation and peer review systems to meet NCAAA requirements

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.4

About us: Janet Lange

Principal Lecturer, Learning Development UnitUniversity of Central Lancashire (UCLan)Director, Centre for Employability through the Humanities(ceth: a Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning) UCLan 2008 – 10University Review Panel Chair since 2000QAA Auditor for Further Education provisionMechanical Engineer

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.5

About us: Bob Munn

Consultant, Finchwood Academic, U.K.Vice-President for Teaching & LearningThe University of Manchester, U.K., 2004 – 7Dean of UMIST, 1994 – 9QAA Auditor since 2000Professor of Chemical Physics since 1984Over 200 refereed scientific publications

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.6

About youGroup activityPlease tell your group Your name Your institution Your jobThen referring to the preliminary work you did on Handout 1.0, share with the group What levels of strategy and development you can

influence (institution, department, programme, course)

What you hope to get from the workshop

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.7

Workshop structureDay 1

Introduction and evaluation criteria Evidence for evaluation Faculty evaluation system

Day 2 Peer review Self-evaluation and personal development Recognition and reward

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.8

Faculty evaluation system: overview

The sessions will cover the linked elements of an effective overall faculty evaluation system

Evaluation criteria

EvidencePeer review Self-evaluation

Recognitionand reward

Evaluation process Personal developmen

t

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.9

Workshop approachWe shall… Encourage active learning, interaction and

discussion Show theory is relevant through practical

applicationsYou should… Respond during the presentations and work hard

during the practical activities(So please put cell phones on silent now…)

Learn from each other as well as from us Try out the ideas and materials after you leaveEach session will end with a time for questions, but feel free to clarify points as we go along

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.10

1. Faculty evaluation criteria

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.11

NCAAA expectationsThe NCAAA Standards include 4.9.3 All teaching staff should… remain up to date

with the latest developments in their field… 9.3.1 Criteria and processes for performance

evaluation should be clearly specified and made known

10.2.1Expectations for teaching staff involvement in research and scholarly activities should be specified and … considered in performance evaluation and promotion criteria

11.2.1…staff should be encouraged to participate in forums in which significant community issues are discussed and plans for community development considered

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.12

Why evaluate faculty?The teaching, research and community engagement of a university or college are done by the facultyEvaluation can be both summative and formative: To establish that faculty are doing what is expected To see how well faculty are performing To determine where faculty need to develop To develop cases for promotion and other rewardsWe now need to look at what to evaluate

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.13

What to evaluateThe NCAAA Standards (e.g. 4.9, 9.2, 10.2.2) expect faculty to have appropriate qualifications and experienceThis mostly concerns appointment of facultyEvaluation concerns what faculty do once appointed How far faculty do the right things How well they do those thingsHence it is necessary to establish What faculty should do in their particular post What level of performance is expectedWe consider these for teaching, research and community engagement in turn

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.14

Teaching criteria

What should faculty do in their teaching duties? Prepare and present teaching materials Prepare and administer assessments Provide feedback to students Provide guidance to students Keep up to date in the subjectWhat measures the quality of that work? Clarity, coherence and relevance of materials Success of students in assessments Influence on other faculty

Scholars make their learning work for other people

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.15

Research criteria

What should faculty do in their research duties? Conduct original research Secure research funding Publish results Supervise postgraduate studentsWhat measures the quality of that work? Number and impact of publications Volume of research funding Success of research students Influence on the research community

Scholars make their learning work for other people

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.16

Community engagement criteria

Group activityHandout 1.1 is an extract from the NCAAA StandardsUse it to prepare up to four answers for each of the questions already discussed for teaching and research: What should faculty do in community engagement? What measures the quality of that work?Please be prepared to report back

Scholars make their learning work for other people

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.17

Community engagement – ideas

What should faculty do in community engagement? Take part in community forums Deliver programmes with local employers Maintain contact with schools Maintain contact with alumniWhat measures the quality of that work? Response from the community Feedback from students and employers Response from schools including enrolments Response from alumni including time and money

Scholars make their learning work for other people

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.18

Comments on criteriaWe have approached the criteria going from easiest to hardest Research and especially community engagement

depend strongly on mission That is why we asked you to work in detail on

community engagement The NCAAA standards also provide valuable inputsIt is also easier to decide what faculty should do than to decide what measures the quality of that work If you have an indicator you need to calibrate it That means you need benchmarks for its valueHence Session 2 considers what evidence you need for evaluation and how to get it

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.19