Element Six: Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance

The unit conducts systematic and comprehensive evaluations of faculty teaching performance to enhance the competence and intellectual vitality of the professional education faculty. During the 2004-05 academic year, the faculty evaluation process was reviewed and redesigned. The components of the evaluation process include course evaluations completed by students, completion of goals set by each faculty member, and accomplishments in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Guidelines for the evaluation process are described in the following and in the documents room.

I. Establishment of Goals:Faculty members will begin the academic year with goals that have been set at the end of the previous academic year (in August for new faculty). The

goals are established in collaboration with and approval from the chair, and with consideration for the goals of the University, college, and division and results of the evaluation from the previous year (student, self, and chair).

II. Progression toward Goals:Throughout the academic year, the faculty member makes progress toward the goals and consults with the chair concerning needs and support for goal attainment. Occasionally circumstances prohibit goals from being met as originally written. In instances where goals might warrant modification, the faculty member is encouraged to meet with the chair to communicate these changes. The chair would document the meeting and what was discussed and determined and keep as part of the evaluation process.

III. Student Course Evaluations: Each semester all students will complete a course evaluation on each of their courses taken. The evaluations will consist of rating the course and instructor (faculty member) on items related to the content and process of the course on a Likert scale (quantitative data) and students sharing specific comments about the course in narrative form (qualitative data).

IV. Faculty Self-Evaluation: The faculty member will assemble information for each of the following dimensions and submit in paper and electronic form to the chair at least two weeks prior to an evaluation conference scheduled towards the end of the academic year. These dimensions correspond with the University’s tenure and promotion policy and comprise the following: teaching, scholarship, and service.

A. Teaching Effectiveness: The faculty member will provide a one page, bulleted summary of accomplishments during the year of what exemplifies his or her best work in teaching, taking the definition of teaching from the tenure and promotion document into primary consideration.

Teaching Defined

Delta State University is primarily a teaching institution; therefore, effective teaching and efforts to support an environment where teaching and learning are nurturedare considered essential requirements for tenure consideration. Effective teachers demonstrate qualities which may include the following: high academic standards, concern for learning, a thorough knowledge of the subject, good organization of subject matter and course syllabi, incorporation of research in instructional settings,excellent communication skills, respect toward students, fairness in examinations and grading, and willingness to experiment with new teaching methods.

Contributions to the teaching, learning, and academic supportenvironment include, but are not limited to, developing and implementing new courses and programs, developing instructional materials, using new technologiesandmethodologies for accessing information, and

incorporating new strategies for enhancing student learning.

The faculty member will also provide one or two examples (artifacts) to illustrate teaching effectiveness.

Faculty Self-Analysis of Student Course Evaluations: An essential component of the faculty member’s analysis of teaching effectiveness is the student evaluations of courses taught during

the academic year. Course evaluations are comprised of items that reflect institutional

expectations for superior teaching. Ideally, the time period under review should be from July 1 to June 30 of the following year. Specifically, the faculty member and chair should review previous student evaluations from the previous summer, the previous fall and the current spring semesters for the current evaluation period and the faculty member would provide a written self- analysis for the evaluation conference. Included in this analysis will be the faculty member’s assessment of strengths/weaknesses in the classroom, areas where students’ perceptions may have differed from the faculty member’s, strategies/plans for goals development or change; and steps to be taken for improvement.

Because the goal is improved teaching across all faculty, chairs are responsible for

supplementary verification of teaching ability to substantiate faculty self-analysis (i.e., classroom observations, solicited and unsolicited student input, input from colleagues, periodic meetings with the faculty member, faculty member’s openness to feedback, etc.). This verification will be used in the evaluation conference.

B. Scholarship/Creative Activities: The faculty member will provide a reference list, APA style, of all scholarly activities/works, papers submitted and accepted, professional presentations, workshops, etc. for the academic year, taking the definition of scholarship from the tenure and promotion document into primary consideration.

Scholarship Defined

Delta State University recognizes the important contributions that scholarship makes in the advancement of a profession or discipline and as an important component of the

teaching/learning process. Scholarlyinquiry and learning vary by discipline and are reflected in, but are not limited to, the following: dissemination of research and scholarly findings through books, journal articles, monographs, and presentations at professional meetings; presentation of creative achievements through exhibitions, performances, and publications; development of new research methodologies;grantsor contracts which support scholarlyand creative activity; honors and awards for significant scholarlyandcreative activity, and participation as an editor and/or referee in support of scholarlyandcreative publications.

C. Service: The faculty member will provide a list of service activities for the academic year, with date, month, year, and audience (including number of participants), taking the definition of service from the tenure and promotion document into primary consideration.

Service Defined

Delta State recognizes the importance of service as a part of its mission. The service component is based on performance in three areas: service to the faculty member’s academic profession, service to the University, and public service to the community which is related to the faculty member’s academic discipline. Evaluation shall be based on all three areas although it is realized that differences in emphasis may exist, depending on theacademic discipline.

Chair Evaluations and Faculty/Chair Conference: Sometime during the spring semester, the chair will set appointments with each division/department faculty member for his or her annual

will ask faculty members to submit paper and electronic copies of a summary of teaching effectiveness, scholarship, and service, an assessment of performance regarding previous year’s goals, and faculty goals for the following year.

The chair will review submitted self-evaluation summaries for each faculty member, schedule a meeting and meet with faculty members to conduct the evaluation and as a result, produce the following:

1. Written evaluation 2. Collaborative goals

3. Documentation of a face-to-face conference with faculty member

If the faculty member elects to submit a written response to the evaluation, he or she must submit the response within one week following the chair/faculty meeting. The chair will file the

response with the evaluation and submit a copy to the Dean. If the faculty member and chair determine that a follow-up meeting is necessary, they will determine a date and time for that meeting. The chair will document the meeting as part of the evaluation process.

V. Evaluation and Pre-tenure Review:Chairs will keep track of facultyprogress throughout the tenure process primarily through annual evaluations. Chairs will notify faculty of their portfolio reviews during their second, fourth, and sixth years of service according to the schedule outlined in the University policy. In addition, chairs have the responsibility of assisting in the review of portfolios for faculty according to the university policy:

Pre-Tenure Review. During the second semester of a faculty member’s second and fourth year in a probationary appointment at the University, the faculty member shall submit his/her portfolio to the chair of the department/division’s tenure and promotion committee. This committee shall review the portfolio and make recommendations in writing to assist the faculty member in advancing in an appropriate manner toward tenure. The

department/division chair shall, in consultation with the dean, also review the portfolio and make written recommendations to the faculty member. Both the committee report and the department/division chair reports are to be on file in the department/division chair’s office. In cases where minimal progress is made between the second and fourth year, as

determined by the committee and/or the department/division chair, the faculty member shall, in consultation with the chair, develop and have on file a plan of action for

improvement. This pre-tenure review process shall serve as a mentoring function for the faculty member to identify strengths and weaknesses, not as a vote on tenure consideration. Division chairs have the ultimate responsibility for completing the evaluation process for all faculty. Results of faculty evaluations may be found in the office of the Dean of the College of Education and in the respective offices of division chairs. Sample of anonymous faculty evaluation information may be found in the documents room.

The evaluations of professional faculty are used to make improvements in teaching, scholarship, and service of unit faculty. During the evaluation conference with faculty members, specific goals are targeted to areas of needed improvement. Each year, faculty are then expected to reflect on the extent to which target goals are met. Examples of faculty reflection may be found

in faculty folders within the offices of the dean and respective division chairs of the College of Education, as well as in the documents room.

Element Seven: Unit Facilitation of Professional Development

Based upon needs identified in faculty evaluations, the unit regularly provides opportunities for faculty to develop new knowledge and skills, especially as they relate to the conceptual

framework(s), performance assessment, diversity, technology, and other emerging practices. Professional development has been a priority within the unit for many years. On-site

professional development activities have taken place regularly since the last NCATE visit and have been geared toward topics identified as necessary for faculty, candidate, and program success. Sample areas featured in training sessions have included such topics as the NCATE standards, development of a revised conceptual framework for the unit, appropriate use of assessment strategies such as the teacher work samples methodology, the use of TaskStream and other technology innovations, improvement in research and publications, and work with diverse learners. Additionally, faculty have benefited from participating in training sessions with P-12 colleagues sponsored by the Delta Area Association for the Improvement of Schools

(DAAIS) on such topics such as effective leadership strategies, communication skills, and school law.

Faculty have also been supported to attend training activities provided through state, regional, and national conferences, as well as visits to additional university campuses to review best practices. Technology innovations, use of the Teacher work samples, assessment systems, and assessment of dispositions are samples of topics for which training has been received off-site. The unit remains committed to placing a high priority on funds for professional development. In addition to discretionary funding available through the unit and division budgets, several unit grants, the University foundation, the Office of the Provost, and the DAAIS consortium have also provided financial support for professional development for faculty. Evidence indicating dates of specific professional development activities may be found in the documents room.

Chart 16

Sample Professional Development Sessions 2003-2006

Date Title of Professional Development Presenter

Fall and Spring - 03,04,05,06 Adjunct Faculty Training Dr. House and DSU Faculty Fall - 03,04,05,06 New Faculty Training Dr. House and DSU Faculty September, 2003 Professional Development on

Performance Assessment

Dr. Catheryn Weitman September, 2003 Microsoft Outlook Training Jan Cooper/Susan Lee October, 2003 Excel and Access Training Jan Cooper

February, 2004 Professional Development - NCATE Lynn House

April, 2004 The NCATE Conceptual Framework Constance Geier and Sharon Tibben August, 2004 E-Listen Training (technology) Janet Woo

September, 2004 TaskStream Training Risa Sackman October, 2004 Chairs’ Conference Multiple Presenters

October, 2004 Professional Development - NCATE Lynn House and DSU Faculty January, 2005

Grant Writing/Writing for

June, 2005 TaskStream Training Risa Sackman September, 2005 and 2006 ROMEA Conference Multiple Presenters October – December, 2006 NISL Training Multiple Presenters