tertiary institution evaluation1 evaluation mechanisms of hk tertiary institutions fok, ping kwan (...
TRANSCRIPT
Tertiary Institution evaluation 1
Evaluation mechanisms of HK tertiary institutions
FOK, Ping Kwan (霍秉坤 )
Department of Curriculum of Instruction, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong KongE-mail: [email protected]
Tertiary Institution evaluation 3
Cases Hong Kong Institute of Education The Hong Kong Polytechnic University The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Tertiary Institution evaluation 4
Hong Kong Institute of Education Scoring Worksheet for Academic Staff Performance Appraisal
(Annex VII) Summary of Submission by Appraisee for Academic Staff Per
formance Appraisal (Annex V) Performance Criteria and Scoring Models (Annex III) Minimum Weighting for Each Performance Domain for Acade
mic Staff (Annex IV)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 6
Teaching portfolio (1) 1) Teaching Performance – Student Evaluation 2) Teaching Performance – Innovations in Teaching
(e.g ability to demonstrate a reflective self-critical attitude to teaching, willingness to innovate and improve his/her teaching, preparation [including originality of approach and planning] of lectures and tutorials, etc,
innovative use of teaching resources and choice of teaching methods and strategies, willingness to employ new teaching materials / resources, appropriate introduction and use of multimedia and other educational technologies etc.)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 7
Teaching portfolio (2) 3) Teaching Performance – Observation of Teaching
Possible sources of evidence may include: Comments / Feedback from HoD, peer nominated by H
oD and/or peer nominated by the staff member Any relevant data available to the reviewer / DRC
4) Supervision of Practicum (e.g. quality of supervision on practicum, projects and/or fi
eldwork , initiative in practical work, field trips and placement of students in work experience, etc.
Tertiary Institution evaluation 8
Teaching portfolio (3) 5) Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
a) Contributions to teaching / learning related projects e.g. TDG projects, and the quality of the involvement / projects completed
b) Teaching materials for use by the Institute or schools, such as CD-Rom, video, teachers’ manuals, teaching packages, children’s texts, etc.
6) Professional and Pastoral Care to Students (e.g. relations with students, genuine care and support for students,
sensitivity to needs of students, a demonstrated willingness to make oneself available for consultation to students and to assist individual students in times of need, ability to interact with and inspire students, encourage students to enquire and search for ideas / information in other venues e.g. library, etc.)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 9
Research and Scholarly Activities (1) 1) Contributions to Research
Projects (External funded projects can include QEF, EMB, RGC funded projects from which research output arises.)
2) Research Output (e.g. articles in refereed journals, book chapters / books
published, commissioned reports such as Education and Manpower Bureau Commissioned Reports, original music score, artwork, design etc.)
NOTES: For each multiple-authored work, the applicant should indicate his/her percentage contribution to each work.
Tertiary Institution evaluation 10
Research and Scholarly Activities (2) 3) Providing Support to Staff in Research
Service to HKIEd 1) Contributions to Committee Work at Institute / D
epartmental Level or Faculty Responsibilities / Representing the Institute on external committees
2) Contributions to Programme/Curriculum Development, Programme Management, and/or Review Exercises
3) Participation in New Initiatives / Special Projects / Self-funding activities
Tertiary Institution evaluation 11
Service to HKIEd – Scoring Model
Contributions to Committee Work at Institute / Departmental Level or Faculty Responsibilities
Contributions to Programme Development, Programme Management, Review Exercises
Participation in New Initiatives / Special Projects
Tertiary Institution evaluation 12
Professional and Community Contribution
1) Recognition by and Contributions to the Community and / or the Profession Possible examples of evidence may include:
Contributions to public committees Consultancies to government and non-government bodies Appointment as External Examiner / Assessor / Advisor / Teaching
Consultant Positions of responsibility in professional bodies Engagement in public debate (e.g. in media)
2) Participation in the Establishment of School Networks / Services to Schools, Involvement in School Development / Consultancy Activities
Tertiary Institution evaluation 13
HKIED Professorial salary
Min Max
Academic Chair Professor 107,800 133,600 (average)
Professor 72,100 108,200
Associate Professor 58,200 87,300
Assistant Professor 46,200 69,300
Tertiary Institution evaluation 14
HKIEd teaching staff salary
Min Max
Teaching Senior Teaching Fellow / Senior Instructor
39,300 60,900
Teaching Fellow I / Instructor I
28,700 44,500
Teaching Fellow II / Instructor II
21,100 30,600
Tertiary Institution evaluation 15
Evaluation of CUHK staffsAnnual Departmental Records 2007-08
(See Appendix A) Activities Undertaken by Individual
Teaching Staff (Instructor and above)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 16
Items in CUHK record (1)
1. Teaching (from August 1 to July 31) Classroom Teaching (corresponding course
evaluation results)
Postgraduate Supervision and Examination
Teaching-Other Contributions
Tertiary Institution evaluation 17
Items in CUHK record (2) Research and Scholarship (from July 1 to
June 30) In filling out items 2(a) to 2(c), the teacher should
cut and paste below the information provided by the RAO for Appendices C and D of the Annual Departmental Records.
Publications Research Grants Research and Scholarship-Other Contributions
Tertiary Institution evaluation 18
CUHK evaluation report
Annual Departmental Records 2007-08
(See Appendix A)
Summary of Research (See Appendix B)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 19
Items in CUHK record (3)
Service (from August 1 to July 31) Service to Department/Faculty
Service to College/University
External Service
Tertiary Institution evaluation 20
CUHK salary ($)Teaching Posts Point
Research Assistant Professor RAP 1-4, ($34,950-47,175)B 1-2 ($47,990-54,320)
Research Associate Professor B 3-6 ($55,145-67,390)
Assistant Professor B 1-5 ($47,990-64,125)
Associate Professor B 6-9 ($67,390-77,145)
Professor 2 B 10-12 ($81,205-82,030)
Professor 1 A 1-7 ($85,280-104,670)
Professor of a subject or specialty Commencing A 8 ($107,795)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 21
Hong Kong Polytechnic University Manpower Quality Review
For academic staff For non-academic staff
Frequency To be carried out annually
Operation Conducted by a committee
Head of department Two senior staff members in the department
Staff members are not required to fill in any forms, submit any document or attend any interviews
Based on readily available information
Tertiary Institution evaluation 22
Information based on (academic staff) Results of SFQ Peer review Submissions of iRAE and RAE Results of applications for external funding Any critical incidents which have occurred in the year
--- significant incidents that may have affected or influenced the actual performance of the staff member and significant contributions, achievements or innovative practices of the staff made to the Department / University
Tertiary Institution evaluation 23
Outcomes of Review Staff normally will not be informed of the results (unless need
follow up actions) Head of department needs to record the results of Review Only confirm if the staff is performing satisfactorily. No specif
ic grading will be given Enable head of departments to
Review the roles and / or responsibilities of staff members in general Consider the workload of staff members in general Recognise development needs of staff in general Plan manpower Identify which staff should be appraised by the Staff Appraisal System
in the coming year Identify candidates for various HR functions (e.g. salary review, perfor
mance reward, contract renewal, promotion and sanction)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 25
The dominance of UGC UGC
Excellent Results from the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2006
RAE guideline (see appendix C)
Teaching quality assessment
RGC report CERG / GRF
(RGC report)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 26
RAE 2 March 2007 announced the results of the Rese
arch Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2006 Dr Alice Lam (林李翹如 ), Chairman of UGC,
"The UGC is pleased to learn that all UGC-funded institutions have made great strides in their research performance since the last RAE in 1999. Many of our colleagues are internationally known top notch researchers and this reflects the effort of our institutions in excelling in research over the years.“
RAE 2006 results will be factored into the 'Research' portion of the institutions' recurrent grants.
Tertiary Institution evaluation 27
History of RAEs The previous three RAEs were carried out in 199
3, 1996 and 1999. For RAE 2006, the UGC has raised the standard of assessment.
Roland Chin : Many of the external assessment panel members are i
mpressed with the performance of our institutions. They think that we compared well with top higher education institutions in Europe and North America. Some members think that Hong Kong has demonstrated an emergence of intellectual prominence in many research disciplines
Tertiary Institution evaluation 28
The RAE result RAE 2006: Research Indices (See Appendix D)
http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/publication/prog/rae/rae.htm
RAE example (See Appendix E)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 29
RAE resultPanel CityU HKBU LU CUHK HKIEd PolyU HKUST HKU Total
1. Biology 95.00% 92.50% -- 78.79% 25.00% 72.73% 95.16% 85.61% 85.29%
2. Health Sciences
-- 100.00%
-- 90.23% -- 58.42% -- 94.44% 86.84%
3. Physical Sciences
98.96% 93.75% -- 95.16% 29.17% 87.25% 92.61% 94.62% 91.57%
4. Electrical & Electronic Engineering
75.16% -- -- 88.46% -- 85.19% 98.44% 92.97% 86.34%
5. Computer Science /IT
74.19% 69.64% -- 88.75% 29.17% 68.75% 82.64% 68.75% 74.06%
6. Engineering 83.93% -- -- 97.50% -- 67.59% 89.58% 82.05% 80.69%
7. Built Environment
71.74% -- -- 50.00% -- 53.37% 75.00% 65.99% 60.91%
8. Law 74.81% 50.00% -- 100.00% -- -- -- 86.48% 81.03%
9. Business Studies & Economics
73.08% 80.96% 84.14% 88.41% 3.67% 65.09% 80.90% 81.04% 76.72%
10. Social Sciences
75.83% 63.52% 80.36% 88.18% 25.00% 44.83% 89.29% 81.47% 75.16%
11. Humanities 65.34% 79.00% 68.37% 82.85% 44.92% 40.25% 80.21% 80.95% 67.63%
12. Creative Arts, Performing Arts & Design
48.08% 66.67% -- 82.81% 27.94% 52.34% -- 86.11% 57.18%
13. Education 12.50% 54.31% -- 71.44% 23.83% -- -- 75.83% 49.34%
Total : 75.66% 75.24% 76.35% 86.95% 30.49% 62.62% 87.12% 85.47% 76.29%
Tertiary Institution evaluation 30
CERG / GRF Grant Project Funding (see Appendix E) All year CERG / GRF results (see Appendix C by
UGC) 2008-09 CERG results (2008-09 funding result PDF)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 31
What is GRF The majority of the Earmarked Research Grant (ER
G) of the Research Grants Council (RGC) is allocated in response to competitive bids for grants for academic research projects. GRF stands for "General Research Fund" and is the major annual funding exercise of the RGC to support academic research in the UGC-funded institutions. All GRF proposals are subject to a rigorous peer review process via the RGC's four subject panels supported by an international network of expert referees. The closing date for applications is usually the end of October.
Tertiary Institution evaluation 32
Criteria for Consideration of Competitive Bids
The following criteria are used in considering competitive bids : academic quality institutional commitment contribution to academic/professional development potential for social, cultural or economic
application availability of, and potential for, non-RGC funding
Tertiary Institution evaluation 33
Academic quality As regards item (a), members have agreed that "acade
mic quality" should cover :
- scientific and scholarly merit of the proposal; - qualifications and track record of the investigator(s) - originality; - feasibility within the time-scale of the proposal.
Tertiary Institution evaluation 34
My comments (1) "The international expert panels had conducted the re
search assessments in a fair and rigorous manner," Dr Lam added. (Fok: Is it really fair and rigorous? Not able to conclude)
Prof Chin cautioned readers of the RAE results that, "We should not read the data out of context. It is neither fair nor appropriate to compare directly the institutions' performance in research. We need to give due regard to the different roles, missions, discipline focus, and history of the institutions.“ (FOK: Really no comparison?)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 35
My comments (2)The UGC will allocate a total of about $1
1 billion to institutions for research during the 2005-08 triennium. This figure includes research grants administered by the Research Grants Council and part of the recurrent grants provided by the UGC to the institutions supporting research activities. (Fok: Important implications)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 36
Importance of publication Journal articles Books International handbook chapters Conference paper not counted Local journals not counted Chinese Journals is not the first priority
Tertiary Institution evaluation 38
Importance of CERG / GRF Every year: a very keen competition (RGC website)
Financial implication Media
The first priority (Chair Professor) The first priority (allocation of rooms) Financial support for staffs (CUHK & HKIEd)
Tertiary Institution evaluation 39
Teaching is important Only the baseline Not below this Distinguished Teaching Award
Not renewing contract in HKIEd
Tertiary Institution evaluation 40
Important notes UGC domination Research is very important --- CERG and GRF RAE is the most important Extremely focus by UST, CUHK, HKU
Tertiary Institution evaluation 41
Differences between institutions Not the formalities that counted
HKIEd has the most detailed procedures and well-structured
CUHK and Poly U are not having very clear instruction
Not working according to the said items HKIEd fired someone who had over 70 marks HKIEd fired someone who had good comments from stude
nts Indeed, most institutions assessed according to RAE and (e
xternal) research grants