Shared Decision Making: Quantitative Faculty Annual Reviews

1. Shared Decision Making: Quantitative Faculty Annual Reviews By Jane M. Wood Interim Dean, Park University

2. History • Park College became Park University during the mid 2000s. • Prior to 2005 Faculty were not evaluated annually or systematically • Prior to 2005 Park faculty had primarily seen themselves as teaching faculty • For example, many faculty considered their respective semester syllabus to be their scholarship • In 2005 a newly established Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences created expectations, criteria and annual evaluations for all faculty.

3. Scholarship, Service and Teaching Criteria • Park University • Faculty Periodic Performance Review Criteria • For the purposes of faculty periodic review, each department will develop its own evaluation criteria and use those criteria, following approval by the Dean. Faculty will receive one of three ratings: Meets Expectations, Exceeds Expectations, or Does Not Met Expectations. • Does Not Meet Expectations means that the faculty member did not adequately meet the expectations of the position in terms of teaching, scholarship, and service and collegiality, as expressed in the department’s Periodic Evaluation Criteria. These expectations are also based on generally expected norms in the discipline, generally expected norms for collegiality and service at this university, and the faculty member’s professional development plan, • Meets Expectations means that the faculty member adequately met expectations in the three areas outlined above—teaching, scholarship, and service and collegiality. • Exceeds Expectations means had an extraordinary year, and performed above average in all three areas of teaching, scholarship, and service and collegiality. • When submitting a yearly accomplishment report, a faculty member should provide a narrative about each of the three areas of evaluation, as well as provide supplemental supportive material. In this report, the faculty member must assign weights in terms of percentages of how he or she should be evaluated in each of the three areas. Obviously, the bigger the percentage, the more difficult it becomes to achieve an Exceeds Expectations rating, because a faculty member must accomplish much more in that category. • It is advisable that a faculty member meets with the Chair at the beginning of the year to discuss the Chair’s expectations of the faculty member. At that point the two could also agree on the weights assigned to each of the three areas. • It is advisable that a faculty member meets with the Chair at the beginning of the academic year to discuss the Chair’s expectations of the faculty member before submitting a professional development plan. • The deadline for submitting a professional development plan is September 15. • The deadline for submitting the accomplishment report is October 1. The yearly periodic performance review covers the previous academic year.

4. Criteria for Teaching 50%-70% • I. Teaching (50%-70%) • 1. Academic program planning and development • 2. Instruction • 3. Evaluation • 4. Academic Advising • Criteria of teaching effectiveness used in the department include: • a. Student opinions, alumni testimonials, and student performance • b. Teaching observations by supervisor and/or colleagues • c. Innovative teaching techniques and solutions • d. Exceptionally large advising load and proven effectiveness of advising • e. Active participation in teaching seminars/workshops resulting in new course material or new courses • f. Use of feedback, provided by colleagues and students, for further development • g. Activities to increase expertise in areas relevant to teaching assignment

5. MEETS EXPECTATIONS: 1.Student evaluations (fair, good, very good) 2. Syllabus (standardized and posted) 3. Teaching materials 4. Peer observations (satisfactory, competent) 5. Student advising (competent, effective) 6. New and number of preparations 7. Variety of courses taught 8. Variety of teaching mode 9. Attendance in class (punctuality) 10. Willingness to substitute for  colleagues, or offer help EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: 1. Student evaluations (excellent, exceptional) 2. Innovative syllabi and teaching techniques 3. Newly developed teaching materials  specifically for these courses. 4. Peer observations (excellent, exceptional) 5. Heavy advising load and excellent advising 6. New or heavily revised courses 7. Teaching awards 8. Attending teaching workshops and incorporating relevant materials into courses. 9. Alumni testimonials and/or student performance 10. Use feedback from teaching evaluations to improve performance 11. Activities to increase expertise in        areas relevant to teaching.

6. Criteria for Scholarship 15%-35% • II. Scholarly Activity (15% - 35%) • 1. Scholarship of Teaching • 2. Scholarship of Discovery • 3. Scholarship of Engagement • 4. Scholarship of Integration • 5. Scholarship of Community • Criteria of effectiveness in scholarly activity include: • a. Scholarly publications (books, articles, reviews) • b. Paper presentations or panel discussions • c. Editorial guidance for publications • d. Direction of student work of scholarly or creative nature (i.e. results in an      external presentation, publication, performance or exhibit). • e. Fellowships and awards • f. Paid consulting or paid free-lance work relevant to the department’s mission • g. Achievement in creative work such as audio, video, or print, 3-D, which has gone through an evaluation process (jury, peer-review, editorial decision process, etc.) • h. Successful grant applications

7. MEETS EXPECTATIONS: 1. Attending conventions, conferences, workshops, seminars 2. Presenting invited papers at national conferences 3. Making presentations to local audiences. 4. Receiving seed grants 5. Writing book reviews 6. Presenting refereed papers at regional conferences Participating or chairing national convention panels EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS: 1. Conducting professional workshops related to expertise 2. Evaluating manuscripts for publication 3. Evaluating textbooks or reference books for publishers 4. Publish books or manuscripts in refereed journals. 5. Presenting refereed papers at national conferences. 6. Audio/visual/software productions 7. Paid consulting related to expertise 8. Paid free-lance work related to expertise 9. Post-doctoral studies 10. External grants 11. Fellowships or sabbaticals 12. Publishing books

8. Service Criteria-15%-35% • III. Service & Collegiality(15%-35%) • 1. Institutional • 2. Professional • 3. Community • Criteria of effectiveness in service* include: • a. Meaningful participation in departmental activities • b. Active participation in university committees • c. Sponsorship of student organizations • d. Serving as department or university representative • e. Serving in a leadership role in professional associations • f. Providing advice and expertise to community activities • *service must be related to a faculty member’s teaching assignments and/or the University’s mission

9. MEETS EXPECTATIONS 1. Committee participation 2. Advising campus organizations 3. Special assignments in the department 4. Judging or critiquing student competitions 5. Judging or critiquing competitions in the surrounding community 6. Public speeches/media appearances 7. Active membership in professional (non-academic) organizations. 8. Working cooperatively with others      for the benefit of the department,      School/College and University. EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS 1. Leadership position on university or College committees 2. Judging or critiquing professional competitions 3. Professional (unpaid) consulting 4. Evaluating manuscripts for conferences 5. Serving on boards or agencies outside the university (related to the discipline) Holding office in national, regional professional/academic organizations Actively leads in efforts to promote civility and good citizenship at the University.

10. Definition of Collegiality • Collegiality is defined in the Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement as “the ability of a Member to work cooperatively and professionally with others at the University; the willingness to advance the University and make it a better institution; the mutually respectful sharing of intellectual authority and professional responsibility for the quality of the University curriculum, instruction and its assessment, scholarly/creative works, and the University culture of learning; the discharge of professional responsibilities in a reliable, conscientious, energetic, civil and effective manner that includes mutual respect, freedom of speech, open-minded consideration of ideas, and the principles of good citizenship for the common good of the University and its student learners.”

11. Faculty Narrative Outline • SUGGESTIONS ON PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT (accomplishment report) • Outline of Report: • Narrative • Teaching (not everyone will have all of the items below) [% WEIGHT] • Courses Taught by semester and mode • Overloads • Advising Loads • New courses or course preparations • Student Evaluations summaries • Peer Evaluations summary • Professional development regarding teaching • Innovations • (for others see Sample Criteria) • Scholarship [% WEIGHT] • Refereed Publications • Refereed Presentations • Invited Presentations • “Judged” Creative Works or Shows • Other types of Creative Works • (see Sample Criteria for others) • Service/Collegiality [% WEIGHT] • University • College • Department • Discipline/Profession • Community • (for others see Sample Criteria) • Supporting Materials (copies, correspondence, programs) • Teaching • Syllabi • Raw student and peer evaluation data or narratives • Other evidence • Scholarship • Service/Collegiality

12. Faculty Annual Review Form • Faculty Annual Performance Review • For academic year _____-_____ • Department Name: • Faculty Member Name: • Reviewer(s): ______________________________________________ • Using the criteria developed by the faculty member’s discipline, in association with Appendix G of the Park University Collective Bargaining Agreement (“Model of Scholarship Based On The Boyer Model”), please evaluate the faculty member in each of the following areas: (use additional pages if needed) • Teaching: Weight • Scholarship: Weight • Service: Weight • Collegiality: • According to the CBA, Collegiality is defined as “the ability of a Member to work cooperatively and professionally with others at the University; the willingness to advance the University and make it a better institution; the mutually respectful sharing of intellectual authority and professional responsibility for the quality of the University curriculum, instruction and its assessment, scholarly/creative works, and the University culture of learning; the discharge of professional responsibilities in a reliable, conscientious, energetic, civil and effective manner that includes mutual respect, freedom of speech, open-minded consideration of ideas, and the principles of good citizenship for the common good of the University and its student learners.” • The Reviewer marks one of the boxes below: • The faculty member has has not met expectations in the area of collegiality during the academic year under review. • Comments Related to Collegiality (optional): • Evaluations by Department/Program Chairs should be completed by October 15, and forwarded to appropriate Dean for discussion among Chair and Dean. • Department/Program Chair (evaluator): • Date: • Review by Dean should be completed by November 15. • For tenured faculty the Dean marks one of the boxes below: • The faculty member under this review has has not* discharged conscientiously and with professional competence the appropriate duties associated with his or her position • *the faculty member received a rating of Not Meeting Expectations in at least one of the three areas under review. • Faculty members sign, then return to Dean for signature and for forwarding to Academic Affairs, by December 1. • By signing this performance review, the faculty member evaluated simply acknowledges having read the document. It does not necessarily indicate agreement with its contents. • The faculty member also has the option of attaching a brief statement to this document prior to final signature of the dean. • Faculty Member: • Date: • Dean (evaluator): • Date:

13. Collegiality Clause • Collegiality: • According to the CBA, Collegiality is defined as “the ability of a Member to work cooperatively and professionally with others at the University; the willingness to advance the University and make it a better institution; the mutually respectful sharing of intellectual authority and professional responsibility for the quality of the University curriculum, instruction and its assessment, scholarly/creative works, and the University culture of learning; the discharge of professional responsibilities in a reliable, conscientious, energetic, civil and effective manner that includes mutual respect, freedom of speech, open-minded consideration of ideas, and the principles of good citizenship for the common good of the University and its student learners.” • The Reviewer marks one of the boxes below: • The faculty member has has not met expectations in the area of collegiality during the academic year under review. • Comments Related to Collegiality (optional):

14. Process for Evaluating Annual Review Faculty member completes narrative drawing from narrative outline Faculty member submits to Dept. Chair, along with supporting documentation Dept. Chair completes Annual Review form and submits to Dean electronically Dean sets up one-hour meeting with each Chair to review and negotiate Annual Review Dept. Chair leaves Dean’s Office with Completed Review

15. Role of Dean as “Calibrator” • Role of Dean is to create balance and justice across academic units. • Dean acts as a “calibrator” between schools and depts to make sure that “meets” and “exceeds” is roughly the same for each faculty member • Dept. Chairs have the right to persuade the Dean during the meeting that a faculty member should either be bumped up or down in terms of meets or exceeds • However only the individual faculty member can set the percentage weight

16. Case Studies: Arts and Humanities • Based on a Chair’s evidence, I changed my mind about an art professor that I thought should receive a “meets” for an exhibited work, and instead agreed to an “exceeds.”

17. Case Study: School of Social Science • Chair changed his mind about a faculty receiving an “exceeds” in teaching after we discussed the rating and looked for more than excellent student evaluations. The faculty member received a “meets.”

18. Case Study: School of Natural and Physical Sciences • I changed my mind about a “meets” after I discovered that it is not unusual to “pay” for articles to be published in Geography journals. The faculty member received an “exceeds expectations.”

19. Collegiality • A faculty member received the “does not meet standards” box for repeated insensitive remarks during department meetings about aging (generally in the area of technology and senior faculty members.) After this was a part of the faculty member’s evaluation, the faculty member truly worked to change the behavior and the box indicating “meets collegial standards” was checked this year.

20. Conclusion • Faculty academic output and satisfaction with their work has dramatically increased. • Workshop at least every other year to review the forms, note any changes, and remind faculty and chairs of their roles in the process. Be open, honest, and transparent about the process in the fall before the process begins.