Preparing and Evaluating 21 st Century Faculty

Preparing and Evaluating 21st Century Faculty Aligning Expectations, Competencies and Rewards The NACU Teagle Grant Nancy Hensel, NACU Rick Gillman, Valparaiso University Terry Weiner, The Sage Colleges Lily McNair, Wagner College NH

Changing / Growing Faculty Work • Link their teaching to global education and issues. • Connect their classes and students to the community through service learning. • Prepare students to work in diverse, multicultural settings where collaboration is essential. • Provide evidence that students are successful at achieving course- and university-level learning outcomes. • Know and demonstrate effective use of best practices in teaching, inside and outside the classroom. • Be familiar with interdisciplinary connections relevant to their subjects and “translate” them into relevant student learning. • Integrate rapidly changing technology and media into their courses. • Mentor students well beyond advising on course work. • Participate in increasingly interdisciplinary projects and teams. RG

Changing / Growing Faculty Work • Collaborate with international partners on global problems and issues. • Seek and obtain external sources of funding to support their work. • Respond to increased expectations of scholarly productivity and quality. • Volunteer more time and talent to professional organizations—often to multiple organizations. • Direct undergraduate research. • Help raise retention and graduation rates. • Contribute to controlling the cost of attending college. • Recruit new students. • Respond to increased reporting requirements by governmental agencies. • Serve as active members of a larger set of campus and community committees. RG

Changing models of faculty work over time and/or over the breadth of a department RG

The Faculty Evaluation Problem • A cookie-cutter approach to faculty evaluation based on the “holy trinity” of teaching, scholarship, and service • Faculty at times act as “independent contractors,” though this is less common at NACU schools • Does not respond to the changes, shifts, and emphases over the lifecycle of a faculty member • Does not respond to the changing goals and needs of academic departments • Fails to align the faculty and department goals with student learning focused mission of NACU institutions • Limits recruitment to the needs of the curriculum (like areas of specialty) RG

The Faculty Workload Problem • We are asking all faculty to excel in all areas all the time. • We are undercounting the effort involved in non-credit load bearing work. • We know that simply reducing TLC is an unsustainable model. RG

The Departmental Problem • Recruiting the talent needed beyond discipline specialty to achieve goals in supporting UG research, service learning, instructional technology, assessment, general education, etc. • The commitment and balance between teaching, research, service and professional development varies across faculty and during faculty lives. RG

A Solution: Change the fundamental model of faculty work, evaluation, and accountability • Change the faculty evaluation model to allow and encourage faculty to grow in new areas of expertise. • Shift the burden of accountability for many activities to the unit level rather than the faculty level, so that workload can be differentiated. TW

Changing Faculty Evaluation TW

The Holistic Department Concept TW

The Holistic Approach: A Brief Review The idea of a holistic department has two “mothers” one is the impact of a discussion on faculty roles at the AAHE: “At the first AAHE Conference on Faculty Roles & Rewards, in January 1993, some of the most intense and animated discussion centered on the idea that higher education needs to shift the focus of incentives, evaluation, and rewards from individual faculty members to departments or other academic units.” * *Faculty Work: Moving Beyond the Paradox of Autonomy and Collaboration", Mark Hower, Dissertation, January, 2012. TW

Brief Review II This led to the book by Wergin (1994) on “The Collaborative Department” He made five key points: • Work faculty do is contextual to the institution, whether they like it or not. • Similarly departments at two different institutions in a field is contextual. • Faculty entrepreneurship without collective responsibility threatens curricular coherence. • Faculty have a high desire for connection with an intellectual community. • Faculty autonomy is not privatization of their roles. TW

Brief Review III Wergin went on to call for the following: • an atmosphere of critical inquiry • A shared understanding of faculty work • A shared sense of mission and collective responsibility • Differentiated faculty work- but not differentiated rewards for valuable work (that is not making published scholarship the only path to reward) • A shared understanding of how the department adds value to the institution TW

Brief Review IV The second movement for reform can be seen in the call for “The Engaged Department”. This stems from those supporting greater civic engagement in the academy. Key features are: • The work of the department is collaborative-shift from “my work” to “our work.” • Public dialogue about values, interests and goals of the department. • Engagement as community based public problem solving. The reform agenda here is improved learning, scholarship reconsidered, and public relevance.** ** Building Engagement Across the Campus; Creating Engaged Departments" AACU Pedagogies of Engagement Conference, April 2005, Bethesda, Maryland, John Saltmarsh, Project Director, Kevin Kecskes, and Steven Jones. TW

The Holistic Approach Faculty are supported and rewarded for doing differentiated work to fill institutional and departmental goals beyond the expectations for teaching and scholarship. TW

The Holistic Vision • Departments are seen as an organic whole, not just a collection of talented specialists. • Departments (Chairs) effectively manage faculty and financial resources to meet department and institutional goals • Departments differentiate workload among faculty to enhance opportunities for colleagues, and achieve collective goals. TW

Implementing the holistic model • Initiate campus-wide conversations about the limitations of the current model of academic work and the advantages of the holistic model. • Maintain conversations across campuses and within programs until program buy-in is achieved. • Provide training for program chairs. • Ensure that each department’s model is developed through a collaborative effort that includes all departmental stakeholders. • Develop strategies for (a) building trust in the model as well as their implementation and (b) establishing accepted processes for periodic review and revision of departmental and faculty models. TW

The Outcome of the Model • Responds creatively and humanely to the changing characteristics of the professoriate. • Contributes to more individualized and flexible approaches to hiring, development, reward, and promotion. • Provides a framework for departments to consider the wide range of contributions faculty, as a whole, must make to achieve successful student learning outcomes, beyond the usual concern about research (as a measure of faculty competence) and areas of expertise (to measure curricular integrity). • Allows for departments to be held accountable and evaluated in terms of how they achieve the overall goals set in the strategic plans for the department and the institution. LM

Implications of Holistic Departments Approach for Student Learning • Departments can optimize faculty implementation of strategies that will achieve learning goals • Supports a “culture of evidence-based teaching and learning” within and across departments • Supports development of holistic institutions focused on achieving overall strategic goals LM

Implications on High-Impact Educational Practices (Kuh, 2008) • AAC&U’s LEAP Report (2007): Essential Learning Outcomes • High impact educational practices require high levels of faculty-student engagement • Significance of faculty leadership, engagement, and expertise to effectively implement a cohesive curriculum that encompasses high-impact practices LM

Implications for the integration of Liberal and Professional Studies • Supported by holistic departments that emphasize individualized faculty development • Intentionally includes high-impact educational practices • Associated with relevant learning goals that connect theory and practice • Promotes holistic and engaged educational outcomes LM

Faculty Development and Student Learning • 21st century students need 21st century faculty • Changing roles of faculty are related to enhancing student learning • Faculty development is aligned with increased implementation of high-impact educational practices LM

AAC&U and LEAP • LEAP (Liberal Education and America’s Promise) program places an emphasis is on departments to use High Impact Practices such as • Intensive Writing • Collaborative work • Service learning • Undergraduate Research. • LEAP’s organizing principles for curricula include: Connecting Knowledge with Choices and Actions, Engage the Big Questions, Teach the Art of Inquiry and Innovation, and Authentic Assessment. NH

LEAP and NAC&U • The goals of the LEAP Initiative overlap with the goals of the Teagle Project and NAC&U • They require a new approaches to faculty evaluation. • They require organizing the mission of departments for greater connections and coherence between departments and the institutional mission. • NAC&U's contribution to the LEAP project will be primarily the work of the Teagle goal for integrating professional and liberal studies.

Preparing and Evaluating 21 st Century Faculty