The College of Education

We develop educational leaders who create tomorrow’s opportunities.

Faculty Meeting

February 27, 2006

Agenda• Update from the dean

• Goal Report

• Liberal Studies Proposal (discussion)

• Scholarship Task Force (information)

• Teaching Evaluation Process (discussion)

• Faculty Senate update

• Closure

Update 1.NCATE progress (conceptual framework,

steering committee, assessment)2. Upcoming dates:

2/27 (philosophy lecture); 3/1+ (science exploration); 3/3 (SKIES special ed); 3/9 (use of student ratings); 3/13 (seminar on dissertation

advisors); (joint with CAL on undergrad goals)

4/5 (Honors conference)3. Part-time training DVD4. Hiring process: searches, welcoming

Goal Report•One-page vita project:

School/organization impactInternal publication

•Newsletter plan•Survey of courses with 20+% Native American focus•Opportunities for technology training: http://www2.nau.edu/~d-elearn/training/schedule.php

Liberal Studies Proposal

Scholarship Criteria Task Force

1. Goal five (supportive culture) recommendation to revise teaching and scholarly criteria.

2. Requested task force to examine current criteria and to recommend course of action. Underlying question: how do we aspire to and acknowledge excellence?

3. Process: task force will present draft ideas to various stakeholders (leadership team, promotion and tenure committee, full professors group, departments) and ultimately to faculty for a vote.

4. Focus: criteria need to be clarified and revisited in light of current conditions (change in work load since their creation, additional support, expectations vis-à-vis peers).

5. Task Force members: Gypsy Denzine (Chair), Sally Alcoze,Tom DeStefano, Steve Lapan, Gaye Luna.

Evaluating our Teaching

1. Origins: Task force on “broadening teaching evaluations” in 2004-05.

2. Leadership team considered model spring of 2005.

3. SCCP and Leadership team discussed procedures 2006.

4. Features:

1. Evaluation should capture what is important.

2. Use different sources for different data.

3. Use source closest to data.

4. Avoid duplicating review of same information.

5. Seek balanced, fair information.

What do we look to determine “excellence” in teaching?

1. Course design.

2. Delivery of instruction.

3. Content expertise.

4. Course management.

1. Students, peers, chair.

2. Students, chair, self.

3. Peers, chair.

4. Chair.

Components? Sources of information?

SAMPLE DRAFT sources and weighting of ratings (1-4).

ComponentStudents Peers Chair Self Total

Instructional Delivery

20 0 5 5 30

Instructional Design

10 20 5 0 35

Content expertise/currency

0 20 5 5 30

Course Management

0 0 5 0 5

Total 30 40 20 10 100

Sample worksheet (based on January 06 DRAFT )

Component Students Peers Chair Self Wt

Instr. Delivery

4 (average 4.6)[4 X .20 = .8]

NA 3[3 X .05 = .15]

4 [4 X .05 = .2]

1.15

Instr. Design

3 (average 4.2)[3 X .1 = .3]

3[3 X .20 = .6]

3 [3 X .05 = .15]

NA 1.05

Content expertise /currency

NA 2[2 X .2 = .4]

3[3 X .05 = .15]

3[3 X .05 = .15]

.7

Course Mngmt

NA NA 2[2 X .05 = .1]

NA .1

Total 3.00

Next Steps?

• Departmental discussions (SCCP members, chair, dean)

• Adoption/adjustment by faculty

• Development of rubrics or other rating features by department

• Implementation

Closure

• Senate update?

• Closing remarks: Dr. Mungazi