Faculty Evaluation Group Genesis

1. Source: http://www.slideshare.net/thulme/ideo-workshop-for-techstarsutm_source=slideshow&utm_medium=ssemail&utm_campaign=weekly_digest

2. As faculty members, we are all measured throughout our careers.How will those measurements be completed?Who will decide what measurements will be used?

3. Faculty Evaluation Group Genesis • COE Code revisions in 2013 sparked interest in evaluation. • Evaluation rubric being used was invalidated. • In Spring 2013, Faculty Evaluation Working Group was formed. • Dean Patriarca charged the group to consider only the area of evaluation of teaching as a first step in this process for designing faculty evaluation. • Final process will link all aspects of employment from hiring to post tenure review.

4. Faculty Evaluation Evaluate Teaching Across its Full Spectrum A variety of procedures should be used to evaluate instruction in college and university classes, and results of the process should be used to improve teaching. We must remind ourselves that, as with any evaluation procedure, multiple data types from multiple sources should be used. Committees too often rely heavily on students’ evaluations to make inferences about the teacher’s instructional effectiveness. Other data sources should be developed and used to make decisions about teaching effectiveness (Algozzine, Gretes, Flowers, Howley, Beattle, Spooner, Mohanty, & Bray, 2004, p. 138 ). http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.52.4.134-141

5. Designing Faculty Evaluation We looked at evaluation processes and forms from other institutions. These samples and the research included: • Student observation • Peer review • Examination of teaching artifacts

6. Designing Faculty Evaluation We looked at accrediting agencies and professional organizations. These groups: • Focused on artifacts demonstrating candidate/graduate proficiency • Recognize need for faculty involvement in evaluation process

7. Designing Faculty Evaluation We considered the legal perspective: • Must have clear purpose (formative in intent) • Without bias • Clear (process, timing, etc.) • Most involve employees in the creation of the process • Must protect employee rights

8. Designing Faculty Evaluation So where are we now? • Presentation to Department Chairs and request for feedback • Working out details regarding actual tool, rubric and process across employment cycle

9. Importance of Evaluation in Higher Education Evaluation of teaching is not a science; there is still much to learn. However, as indicated in this brief set of guidelines, there is already a considerable body of knowledgeabout teaching evaluation. The academic community has a strong incentive to add to that knowledge since we will not be able to recognize and reward teaching adequately until we craft a better system for evaluating it. University of Michigan

10. Faculty Evaluation Where do we go from here? • Work to find viable artifacts for evaluation • Communicate, communicate, communicate… • Hold fast to the formative foundation for evaluation

11. What can you do? • Provide feedback and recommendations to the Task Force. Direct e-mail to Kermit Buckner at bucknerk@ecu.edu. • Discuss the process and your suggestions or concerns within your department and/or program area. • Send suggestions for revision to your representative or anyone on the committee. • Stay tuned for the next draft document and protocol to be shared early in the Spring 2014 semester.

12. Importance of Evaluation in Higher Education • Questions? • Comments?

13. Members of Faculty Evaluation Task Force • Kermit Buckner, Chair • Maureen Ellis, Secretary • Patricia Anderson • Terry Atkinson • Lori Flint • Al Jones • Cheryl McFadden • Vivian Mott • Kathy Misulis • Linda Patriarca • Ron Preston • Sandra Seay • Bill Sugar • Karen Voytecki