Engaging Contingent Faculty in Assessment

Engaging Contingent Faculty in Assessment Ken Jones, Assistant Dean for Common Curriculum John Kendall, Adjunct Assistant Professor

Our Institutions

CSB/SJU Two schools, one academic program Liberal Arts, Residential, Catholic, Benedictine 3,900+ undergraduates 300+ FTE faculty 80% of faculty tenured or tenure track

First Year Seminar Required of all FY (approximately 1000) Year long 65 sections, 50 faculty 55% of sections taught by contingent faculty Most contingent teach two sections, so 4/6th contract for year Most tenure track faculty rotate in and out; contingent stay All introduced at opening all campus convocation

What are the barriers? To getting all faculty – regular and contingent – to adhere to learning goals in multi-section General Education courses To inclusion of contingent faculty in assessment To inclusion of contingent faculty in faculty development efforts

Barriers we saw Need greater sense of common endeavor Need more uniformity across 65 sections Need to get faculty teaching FYS to focus on learning goals Need to find people to do assessment Need more effective use of assessment results Need to do all of the above with contingent faculty and tenure track people who don’t necessarily teach in the program year to year

Expanding the Pool of Assessment “Experts” Four year grant from Teagle Foundation Stipend, 12 meetings over year Trained 39 faculty and 13 staff 5 were contingent faculty teaching in FYS

FYS Assessment Team Five contingent faculty who went through Teagle program Two more contingent faculty with interest in assessment One tenure track Assistant Dean

Assessment of FYS • Discussion • Done by individual faculty, results tabulated and distributed • Writing, critical thinking, information literacy • Use research paper that is central to second semester of FYS • Assessment team scores a sample of papers (three from each section)

Research Paper Rubric Ability to Present a Clear Argument Ability to Address Different Points of View Ability to Use Evidence in a Convincing Manner

Assessment Output • Eight faculty divided into teams of two • Read sets of papers, score and compare ratings • Rating • Exceptional • Acceptable • Unacceptable • Also provide three-five sentence explanation of why they scored as they did • If teams can’t agree, paper sent to third reader

Closing the Loop Discussion of collective results at FYS department meeting Faculty receive results for their sections, including the short explanation from assessment team Discussion at department meetings of barriers and solutions Training offered that targets ways to teach the more difficult areas

Tangible Benefits • Collective agreement on need to revise minimum expectations • Evidence of much greater adherence to collective standards • Evidence of improved student learning

Learning Gains 2009-2012 • Percent rated Exceptional and Acceptable • Present a Clear Argument • 56.4% to 70.8% • Address Different Points of View • 49.3% to 61.4% • Use Evidence in a Convincing Manner • 60.8% to 79.1%

Less Tangible Benefits • More sense of being involved in collective endeavor – all faculty teaching FYS • Contingent faculty engaged • In assessment • In guiding program as a whole

Discussion What questions do you have? What might be applicable to your institution? What barriers remain?

Take Away Please write down the one thing you want to take back to your campus from this session.

Contact Information • John Kendall • jkendall@csbsju.edu • Ken Jones kjones@csbsju.edu

Engaging Contingent Faculty in Assessment