Pace University

Document Sample
Pace University Powered By Docstoc
					    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
  Goals for the new faculty evaluation are intended to be
  aspirational 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.




                                                                                                     1
 Collaborative process will ensure faculty input within
 each School/College

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




      Step 1                   Step 2                    Step 3                    Step 4

Each School (Faculty     The Deans collectively    The Provost reviews,         Each School’s
and Dean) determines      review and calibrate         with input from      standards framework is
 how the elements of       School standards,      University-wide Faculty    distributed within the
    the standards             agreeing on         Committee composed                 School
  framework will be         comparable rigor      of representatives from
demonstrated (refer to                               each School, and
       page 5)                                            approves
                                                                                  Standard




                                                                                                      2
 Standards Framework and Criteria

 Evaluation Inputs
 Ratings and Weightings
The standards framework includes five
elements


   AREAS           DEFINITION         DEMONSTRATION         EVIDENCE           PERFORMANCE
                                                                                  RATINGS




                                                                                A rating rubric
                                                                               delineating what
                                                               Specific
                                                                                is required to
                                      How the criterion      outcomes
The areas to be   The definition of                                             demonstrate
                                          can be           demonstrating
  evaluated        each criterion                                              performance in
                                       demonstrated       that the criterion
                                                                                each area at
                                                                is met
                                                                                 each rating
                                                                                     level




                               STANDARDS FRAMEWORK
                                                                                                  4
The framework is set at the University level, while the
Schools determine specific elements

    UNIVERSITY-WIDE                            SCHOOL SPECIFIC                   DEANS AND
                                                                                  SCHOOLS
   AREAS              DEFINITION        DEMONSTRATION           EVIDENCE         PERFORMANCE
                                                                                    RATINGS

TEACHING            See page 6          Schools refine      Schools provide     The deans
                                         how criteria will   specific examples   calibrate School-
                                         be demonstrated     of outcomes         specific
SCHOLARSHIP         See page 8                                                  outcomes that
                                                                                 determine each
                                                                                 rating, subject to
                                                                                 approval by the
SERVICE             See page 10                                                 Provost




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

                                                                                                      5
The teaching criteria reflects Pace’s commitment to
student learning
                                                                              TEACHING




        AREA                               DEFINITION
                   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

      Teaching      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




                                                                                         6
Each School identifies School-specific evidence that
demonstrates excellence in teaching
                                                                                                                           TEACHING

                        DEMONSTRATION                                                              EVIDENCE

 Areas of Excellence                     Criteria (Illustrative)                                    (Illustrative)

                           Develops and communicates learning objectives for
        Goals              each course
                                                                                   Creates clear course objectives

                           Prepares current classroom material                     Demonstrates currency in field
     Preparation           Provides effective course and classroom                 Prepares comprehensive course syllabus
                           management                                              Students report instructor was well prepared
                                                                                   Introduces tutorial web page for course topics
                           Presents subject matter logically, accurately, and
                           with appropriate level of difficulty                    Students report receiving timely and
                                                                                   constructive feedback
                           Uses technology to enhance teaching and student
       Methods             learning                                                Timely grade submission in accordance with
                                                                                   University policy
                           Applies fairness and sound judgment in the
                           treatment and grading of students                       Meets all classes and effectively utilizes full
                                                                                   class periods
                           Students learn                                          Students learn as documented by students, the
       Results                                                                     faculty member, and others
                           Students are interested and engaged

                                                                                   Class is interesting and stimulating as reported
                           Presents course material in a clear, well-structured,
    Presentation           interesting, and involving manner
                                                                                   by the faculty member, students, chair, and
                                                                                   faculty peers

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




                                                                                                                                      7
Scholarship reflects original and integrative
contributions to the field
                                                                                 SCHOLARSHIP




        AREA                              DEFINITION




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




                                                                                               8
Each School identifies School-specific evidence that
demonstrates excellence in scholarship
                                                                                                         SCHOLARSHIP

                       DEMONSTRATION                                                  EVIDENCE

 Areas of Excellence                  Criteria (Illustrative)                          (Illustrative)
                                                                       Writes clear and achievable goals on
       Goals              Sets research goals                          proposals for scholarly publication or for
                                                                       professional presentation

                          Organizes resources for efficient and
    Preparation                                                        Receives research grants
                          effective research execution

                          Uses appropriate scholarly research
      Methods                                                          Executes a field study
                          methodologies


      Results             Publishes scholarly work                     Publishes article in the Harvard Law Review

                          Writes in clear and interesting manner;
                                                                       Presents peer-reviewed paper at a scholarly
    Presentation          presents results in a clear and compelling
                                                                       academic meeting
                          fashion
                          Reflects on research outcomes and their
                          significance                                 Is able to place own work in context of the
 Reflective Critique
                          Critiques strengths and weaknesses of        field.
                          research methodology and results



                                                                                                                       9
Service furthers the institution or discipline
                                                                               SERVICE




        AREA                              DEFINITION




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




                                                                                    10
Each School identifies School-specific evidence that
demonstrates excellence in service
                                                                                                                         SERVICE

                        DEMONSTRATION                                                           EVIDENCE

 Areas of Excellence                    Criteria (Illustrative)                                  (Illustrative)

                           Sets clear goals for outcomes of service and for     Prepares a clear goal statement for a faculty
        Goals
                           personal contribution                                affairs committee.

                           Approaches problems with purpose, sufficient         Uses research in an area of service (e.g.,
     Preparation           background knowledge, and with appropriate           curriculum development) and is prepared to
                           skills to achieve the desired outcome                make a contribution

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

                                                                                Curriculum committee completes proposal for
       Results             Assures appropriate outcomes
                                                                                changes in curriculum


                           Writes in clear and interesting manner; presents     Selected to present committee findings to
    Presentation
                           results in clear and compelling fashion              faculty


                           Reflects on participation in service and critiques   Reflects on one’s role and contributions to a
  Reflective Critique
                           method and results as well as own contribution       committee assignment and seeks to improve it




                                                                                                                                 11
 Standards Framework and Criteria
 Evaluation Inputs

 Ratings and Weightings
  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.




                                                                                               13
Student evaluations will have a common set of core questions
that address University-wide standards for teaching excellence
                                                ILLUSTRATION
 Areas of Excellence                     Common Questions Currently Found Across Schools
        Goal           1. The instructor made the objectives of the course clear.
                       2. The instructor was well-prepared.
    Preparation        3. The instructor was knowledgeable in the subject.


                       4. The instructor made effective use of technology.
                       5. The instructor was available to help outside of class time.
      Methods          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.
                       9. The instructor was a clear and effective communicator.
    Presentation
                       10. The instructor made effective use of class time.
                       11. My learning increased in this course.
                       12. The instructor was able to stimulate my interest in the subject area.
      Results
                       13. The instructor helped me to think independently about the subject matter.
                       14. The instructor actively involved me in what I was learning.




                                                                                                       14
 Implement a University-wide system of student
 evaluations 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.




                                                                                              15
  Peer and Chair/Associate Dean evaluations provide
  observations 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.




                                                                                                    16
 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.




                                                                                                   17
 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.




                                                                                              18
 Standards Framework and Criteria
 Evaluation Inputs
 Ratings and Weightings
Performance 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:



           4. Exceeds established standards with distinction
           3. Exceeds established standards
           2. Meets established standards
           1. Does not meet established standards




                                                                               20
 Performance categories need to be uniform across Pace

                                                 Teaching
                  Faculty member is consistently evaluated by students and peers, as appropriate, at or
                 above the predetermined standard for most areas: goals, preparation, methods, course
   Exceeds       management, results, presentation and reflective critique.
                  Takes leadership role in student academic development with demonstrated student
  Established
Standards with   success.
                  Integrates scholarship with teaching.
  Distinction
                  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.
                  Faculty member is consistently evaluated by students and peers, as appropriate, at or
                 above the predetermined standard for most areas: goals, preparation, methods, course
  Exceeds        management, results, presentation and reflective critique.
                  Provides accurate and timely advisement to students and engages them in their own
 Established
 Standards       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.
                  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
   Meets         management, results, presentation and reflective critique.
                  Provides accurate and timely advisement to students and engages them in their own
 Established
 Standards       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.
                                                                                                            21
 Performance categories need to be uniform across Pace

                                                  Scholarship

                 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
   Exceeds
 Established     refereed professional journal; authorship of a book, a new textbook, or results from
Standards with   research grant success; a body of creative and original work reflective of a faculty
  Distinction    member’s discipline; or award of a substantial competitive grant.

                 Faculty member provides evidence of the following:
                  Refereed proceeding (not abstract) from a scholarly or professional meeting; substantive
  Exceeds        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
 Established
 Standards       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.


                 Faculty member provides evidence of the following:
                   Unpublished paper presented at an academic or professional conference; published
   Meets
 Established      book review; published abstract or nonrefereed proceeding from a scholarly and
 Standards        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.

                                                                                                                  22
 Performance categories need to be uniform across Pace

                                                   Service

                  Faculty  member regularly assumes leadership role at department and School or
   Exceeds       University level; and assumes leadership through external contributions and service in the
 Established     professional field or the larger community.
Standards with
  Distinction



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




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



                                                                                                              23
The weighting of the criteria are banded to
allow for some flexibility

                       Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty

          Teaching                    Scholarship                     Service

           40-50%                        30-40%                        20%

                           Non-Tenure Track Faculty

          Teaching                   Scholarship                     Service

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

    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.


                                                                                        24
Appendix
  Appendix A: Pace Key Findings from School Material
                                                                                             PACE

     FACULTY EVALUATION SYSTEM

   CRITERIA                PROCESS


  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




                                                                                                 26

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:9/15/2011
language:English
pages:27