International Journal Advances in Social Science and Humanities
Available online at: www.ijassh.com
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Ensuring Integrity for the Performance Review of University Faculty
Tyler Clifford E*
1, Bustillos Terry A
21Department of Education Administration/School Counseling National University,3031 Tisch Way, 100 Plaza East San Jose, CA 95128, United States.
2Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Program, Department of Teacher Education, National University, 3390 Harbor Boulevar, Costa Mesa, CA United States.
*Corresponding Author: Email: [email protected]
Abstract
The review process and procedures that govern the evaluation of full-time Faculty at National University for reappointment and/or promotion has been designed to assure consistent, objective, and equitable review of the performance of Faculty. At this University, excellence in teaching is a central institutional goal. Simultaneously, excellence in scholarship and service are highly valued aspects of the role of full-time Faculty members. Faculty must be mindful of expectations when negotiating their Faculty Development Plans (FDPs) with their respective Chairs to ensure they are allowed sufficient time to meet the expectations in all three areas. Deviations from these expectations should be clearly noted in the FDP and referred to when the faculty member applies for reappointment and/or promotion. The evaluation of Faculty for reappointment includes a review of the full effort of the individual since the published deadline for the last completed evaluation. In this study, the process of evaluative review of faculty for promotion and re-appointment will be examined at National University, according to the University policies and procedures, and by a calendar set up by the Provost, along with the success rate of faculty members reaching their goal of promotion and/or re-appointment. The evaluation of Faculty for promotion includes a review of the full effort of the Faculty since that Faculty member’s last assignment of rank at National University, considering the accomplishments in the context of the rank sought.
Keywords: Faculty Performance, Accountability, Teaching, Scholarship, Activities.
Introduction
Background, History and Mission of National University
National University, a private university of 28,000 students with headquarters in San Diego, California is dedicated to making lifelong learning opportunities accessible, challenging, and relevant to a diverse student population in its mission statement. Its aim is to facilitate educational access and academic excellence through exceptional management of University operations and resources, innovative delivery systems and student services and relevant programs that are learner-centered, success oriented, and responsive to technology. National University’s central purpose is to promote continuous learning by offering a diversity of instructional approaches, by encouraging scholarship, by engaging in collaborative community service, and by empowering its
constituents to become responsible citizens in an interdependent, pluralistic, global community, national university general [1].
The purpose of this study will be to review and evaluate the process of faculty promotion and re-appointment, according to national university governing board and faculty senate policies, and examine the success rates of these results according to records compiled by the university Office of the Provost.
Performance of Faculty to Meet Growing
Accountability Demands
An important and welcome change has taken place on all college and many university campuses over the last 30 years, except those with strong graduate schools of research: Teaching is being taken more seriously. Higher education institutions throughout the country have transitioned from providing lip service of the importance of teaching to sustained evaluation to decisions to evaluate and reward this concept. As never before, faculty members are being held accountable to provide solid evidence of the quality and effectiveness of their instruction. This solid trend has replaced the traditional role of the professor being hired to teach, and being rewarded for their research.
What has been behind this increased emphasis on the importance of quality teaching and effective instruction? The growing demands from students and parents facing spiraling tuition and college expenses, and the general public for increasing expenses of public colleges and universities. In addition, the rapid development of use of technology for offering online courses replacing on-site courses has dramatically changed the approach to instruction and altering the teaching role of professors. Probably the biggest demands increased teaching accountability have come from elected legislators and boards of public higher education institutions faced with unrelenting budgetary pressures from growing expenses of their operations. Consequently, both public and private higher education institutions are now under closer scrutiny faculty members teaching quality and instructional effectiveness. This has come from higher education administration and more significantly from regional and national accrediting agencies demanding assessment of instructional results on students.
These increasing demands and implementation have resulted from faculty member associations pushing back by demanding shared governance for fairness and equitable treatment from assessments and accountability. As a result, faculty re-appointments and promotions have become increasingly complex in recent years in
terms of assuring consistent, objective, and equitable review of their performance. In the face of these increasing complexities for delivering fair and objective review of faculty performance, how can faculty member performance and evaluation be objectively assessed?
Early Research on Evaluation of Faculty
Early research on how faculty performance is evaluated were based on reports from academic deans or vice presidents. One of the earliest studies was by Gustad [2] and included a national sample of colleges and universities. The survey about five years later with a similarly extensive sample of all types of postsecondary institutions. Both studies asked administrators to indicate the importance of various sources of information in evaluating, first, faculty performance and, second, teaching performance. The results were analyzed by type of institution. In both surveys the university deans of arts and sciences ranked department heads as the most important source of information.In 1974, Seldin [3] repeated the Gustad and the Astin and Lee surveys in 1974 with Academic deans in liberal arts colleges in order to examine changes that might have taken place in the eight-year period. The deans reported more emphasis on systematic student ratings in evaluating teaching (an increase from 11 to 29 percent of the colleges) and slightly less emphasis on research in evaluating overall faculty performance. The increased use of student ratings in making decisions on faculty advancement was also reported in studies that included doctoral-level universities. A southern regional education board study found, in addition, that the major purpose of evaluation in doctoral-level universities was to make decisions on faculty advancement, rather than to improve instruction, and that department heads had greater responsibility than academic deans or vice presidents in making these decisions.
Use of a Teaching Portfolio/Dossier for
Faculty Evaluation of Teaching
explained later, but also provides validation for faculty scholarship and service.
A teaching portfolio is a factual description and reflection of a professor’s accomplishments of teaching service activities and scholarship accomplishments, which collectively suggests the scope and quality of the professor’s performance. It allows the professor to select samples of accomplishments and present them in an organized manner for display to others for their evaluation. Furthermore, it provides an opportunity for a professor to describe the uniqueness of his/her teaching, service, and scholarship from a separate reflection from each, and providing documentations for support in each of three categories.
Why should a faculty member spend time developing and organizing a Teaching Portfolio, which includes? writing reflections and gathering documents and artifacts to support and profile the reflections? Because it makes good accountability sense to publicly and professionally document teaching in the same public manner that service and scholarship is presented and documented with artifacts. Portfolios also elevate the importance of teaching on a par with service and scholarship. What are the uses of faculty teaching portfolios? Some uses may include developing documentation to change jobs to a different teaching position or a higher level position, future employer requirements for finalist candidates, merit pay consideration, leaving a legacy of accomplishments upon retirement for successors, applications for grants or release time, for institutional use to provide data for their performance to their board of trustees, external organizations, accrediting agencies for re-accreditation, government agencies for grants, etc.
However, the two most important reasons for a teaching portfolio are personnel in nature: re-appointment and promotion, and to enhance accountability of higher education institutions by
showing improvement of teaching.
Standardization of teaching portfolios, meaning that certain required components are needed for promotion and re-appointment.
National University Guidelines for
Faculty Evaluation
The teaching portfolio model has been in place at national university, which has included a standardized. teacher/dossier portfolio system for review by multiple evaluation channels for the evaluation for re-appointment and promotion of full and part-time faculty members. This
procedure has been approved by the university faculty-senate for their policies and bylaws, and adopted by the university board of trustees. faculty achievement in the teaching portfolio is presented and reviewed in the traditional three areas of higher education faculty evaluation: teaching, scholarship, and service, described in detail below. the provost’s office sponsors a dossier development in-service for interested faculty members, to provide faculty the “know how” in creating a dossier, in-services, faculty members base the design of their portfolio/dossier on their faculty development plan, which is submitted in june of each year before the new academic year, as a basis for their self-assessment.
The dossier teaching section provides evidence of successful teaching, including: written self-assessment by the faculty member, the department chair’s review, peer review, administrative review, student assessments, and review of student learning outcomes. The primacy of teaching should mean, among other things, that excellence in teaching carries more weight in deliberations regarding reappointment, promotion, and merit than does accomplishment in scholarship or service. Such evidence of teaching quality includes, but not be limited to these documents:
Self-assessment, including commentary on peer and/or administrative reviews;
Course syllabi and course material; Examples of student work;
Commentary on innovative teaching methods or upon any relevant information regarding courses taught;
Reflection on student advising;
Student evaluations and comments on the teaching/learning process.
The second major component of the national university teaching portfolio, dossier is scholarship. teaching and scholarship being closely linked intellectual activities. Evidence of scholarship is varied but follows norms and standards legitimized throughout higher education:
Documented and available for circulation and publication;
Available for professional peer review;
Grounded within a body of established learning and in some way extends or changes acomponent of that knowledge;
material, persuasion, refutation and both Interpretive rigor and interpretive differences; Significant and worthy of disciplinary or
professional respect.
Application of knowledge to problems or challenges in a discipline or community; or teaching which results in acquisition and utilization of knowledge in the teaching/learning process rests first with the individual faculty, but also with the reviewing Department Chair and School Personnel Committee.
Service is the third major component of the National University Teaching Portfolio/ Dossier, which is defined as the work of Faculty which employs professional expertise to meet the mission of the institution. Faculty carry out service in many ways: to the University and its schools and departments; to communities and organizations; to national or local academic and professional organizations establishes evidence regarding service to include a detailed self-assessment and documented activities such as:
Organizing seminars, panels, or colloquia;
Participating in and serving on departmental functions and committees that address and foster departmental goals and outcomes;
Developing training programs, continuing education programs, consulting;
Chairing a department;
Participating in the recruitment, selection, appointment and mentoring of full-time and part-time Faculty;
Developing professional growth programs for full-time and part-time Faculty;
Serving on the Faculty Senate, school and University committees, task forces, or special projects;
Leading community organizations in work relevant to one's academic discipline;
Serving in leadership positions in professional organizations and societies;
Assuming special administrative responsibilities or assignments;
Participating in continuing education;
Developing and implementing new academic programs;
Leading effective academic program review.
National University Steps and Timeline
for Faculty Evaluation
Faculty Dossiers go through several evaluation steps with finite timelines to lend maximum objectivity, quality and fairness and equity for
each faculty member seeking promotion and/or re-appointment. At every level, summary letters are sent to the faculty member who authored the dossier for evaluation with copies to representatives of each of the five below levels of evaluation. The university requires a strict timeline submission schedule to assure completion of the process.
At each level, the faculty member has right to write an appeal, if she/he disagrees with the written report and recommendations at any one level. The written appeal is limited to correction of any inaccurate information submitted by any of the levels, and must be written to the next higher level in time for dossier consideration at that level.
The first evaluation step begins with a faculty member submitting his/her dossier to his/her department chair, who reviews and writes an evaluation on teaching, activities, and scholarship based on a rubric: not meeting expectations, meeting expectations, and exceeding expectations.
The second step is at the faculty-elected School Personnel Committee reviews and considers the Faculty review dossier and the Department Chair’s report in the context of reports of other Department Chairs. This Committee prepares a recommendation for each Faculty member seeking promotion. The committee seeks to ensure equity of evaluation across all departments of the school, then forwards its report to the appropriate School Dean for a similar dossier review, review of previously written reports by both the school personnel committee and department chair.
The third evaluation step is the school Dean, who reviews the faculty dossier along with the reports from both the department chair and school personnel committee, based on the rubric found in the university board polices on faculty evaluation. The school Dean writes her/his report based on her/his evaluation of the dossier along with recommending re-appointment and/or promotion, and submits to university faculty personnel committee (UFPC).
The fifth step of evaluation is at the provost level, who also follows the same previously mentioned procedures, culminating in a written report for the university chancellor/president. She will recommend the length of re-appointment, ranging from four to six years for an assistant professor, six to eight years for an associate professor and eight to ten year term for a full professor.
The sixth and final level is the evaluation from the chancellor/president, who also writes a report based on the recommendations of the previous five levels, and is considered the final decision. The chancellor/president also has the option of
providing a one or two year deferred re-appointment/ promotion for any faculty member’s dossier not meeting the rubric standards for re-appointment /promotion. This deferral provides a faculty member additional time to correct dossier deficiencies for appointment/promotion re-consideration. The below data shows a recent past
year statistics of faculty
re-appointment/promotion attempts and successes in both the fall and spring cycles during the 2012-2013 academic year when the two authors served on the school of education personnel committee.
National university School of education full-time faculty
Reappointment requests Promotion requests Requests for both Total
2012 Spring Total 1 3 1 5
Approved 1 3 1 5
Deferred 0 NA 0 0
Denied 0 0 0 0
2012 Fall Total 3 5 1 9
Approved 2 5 1 8
Deferred 1 NA 0 0
Denied 0 0 0 0
2013 Spring Total 11 2 3 16
Approved 9 2 3 14
Deferred 1 NA 0 1
Denied 0 0 0 0
Other* 1 0 0 1
2013 Fall Total 1 0 0 1
Approved 1 0 0 1
Deferred 0 NA 0 0
Denied 0 0 0 0
National university school of education associate faculty
Reappointment requests Promotion requests Requests for both Total
2012 Spring Total 6 0 0 6
Approved 5 0 0 5
Deferred 0 NA 0 0
Denied 0 0 0 0
Other* 1 0 0 1
2013 Spring Total 3 0 1 4
Approved 2 0 0 2
Deferred 0 NA 0 0
Denied 1 0 0 1
Other*** 0 0 1 1
Results, Discussion, and Conclusion
As readily apparent, the success rate of both full time and associate faculty members seeking re-appointment and promotion or both is very high for several reasons: 1) Provost’s Office Dossier Development Workshop for faculty prior to each fall and spring cycle, which was well-attended by faculty promotion and re-appointment candidates, 2) Multiple evaluation review levels of faculty dossiers with letter documentation for each level, which allows faculty members to submit additional data of letters if deficient in dossier, 3) Peer assistance to faculty members developing and organizing their dossiers by borrowing models of successful dossiers, and 4) Dedication and determination of faculty members to submit complete dossier with the goal of success for promotion and re-appointment. In addition tosuccess of this process, faculty members believe that this process assures a consistent, objective, and equitable review of performance for effective teaching. To conclude, recommendations for the future include digital submission of dossiers online for quicker review of multiple levels as opposed to the traditional operation of development, and continued assistance of promotion/re-appointment faculty candidates to assure their continued success. Software to make this possible is still in the development stage and is probably three to five years in the future for implementation [4-9].
Acknowledgements
Special Recognition goes to Debra Bean, University Provost and Gail Atherton, Office of the Provost for providing the data for this paper.
References
1. National University General Catalog, 2012, p. 20 2. Gustad, John W (1961) Policies and practices in
faculty evaluation.” Educational Record, 42:194-211.
3. Seldin Peter, Miller J Elizabeth. Seldin, Clement A (2010) The Teaching Portfolio: A Practical Guide to Improved Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decision. 4th Edition. Jossey-Boss: A Wiley Imprint. 4. André Butler, Andre Schultz, Scott. Sumner, Loren. (2009) “Revising Faculty Performance Evaluations: Not for the Faint of Heart.” Presented at ASEE Southeast Section Conference.
5. Centra John (1977) How Universities Evaluate Faculty Performance: A Survey of Department Heads.” GRE Board Research Report (GRB 75-5-BR).
6. Centra John (1978) Using Student Assessments to Improve Performance and Vitality. New Directions for Institutional Research, 20 :31-49.
7. Costing Frank, Greenough William T, Menges Robert (1971) Student Ratings of College Teaching, Reliability, Ratings and Usefulness. University of Illinois-Urbana. Champaign, Illinois. Review of Educational Research.
8. National University Office of Provost Statistical Data on School of Education Re-appointments, Promotions. December 19, 2014
