The evaluation of faculty is conducted regularly, systematically, and comprehensively. Evaluation includes self-evaluation, evaluation by teacher/counselor candidates, and evaluation by department chairs. Full-time faculty submit self-evaluations based on their attainment ofannual professional development goals. The goals refer to the categories of faculty responsibilities, including at least one scholarship goal from the Boyer Model of Scholarship (FROG, Section 2.8, pg.16). The self-evaluation is complemented with evaluations by faculty members’ chairs. Chairs’ evaluations provide performance feedback to individual faculty relative to the performance expectations of peer faculty. Additionally, department chairs conduct periodic formal classroom observation evaluations of faculty. The faculty self-evaluations and evaluations by chairs provide sources of data for administration to use in making personnel retention decisions. Also, evaluations are components of promotion and tenure decisions.
Systematic evaluation of faculty by teacher/counselor candidates occurs through the application of evaluation instruments from the Individual Development of Educational Assessment (IDEA). Annually full- and part-time faculty members will have at least one course evaluated by students each semester and will have each of their courses evaluated at least once within a two-year period. Tenure-track faculty who have not yet received tenure and all adjunct faculty members are expected to have all their courses evaluated unless advised otherwise by their department chair or program director. University-wide, faculty are evaluated through the Mid-tenure Review process. This is a formative assessment of tenure track faculty, usually in year three of the tenure cycle. The final/summative assessment is conducted in the sixth year of the tenure cycle where the member illustrates their performance, including recommendations from the mid-tenure review, on all tenure components.
Two sources of faculty performance evaluation are employed by the unit. The first is based on the internally-developed instruments, Full-Time Education and School Counseling Faculty Self-Evaluation. In reality, the instrument is a means of documenting the self-evaluations of individual faculty members and the chair’s evaluation. The evaluation process employing the Full-Time Education Faculty Self-Evaluation occurs annually. In academic year 2008-2009, however, the university transitioned from an academic year evaluation cycle to a calendar-year evaluation cycle. Therefore, the three years of scores presented cover academic years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, followed by results from calendar year 2009.
The second source of faculty performance evaluation is the Individual Development of Educational Assessment (IDEA) assessment model. This model generates two types of reports: first, Individual Class Reports, which are evaluations of individual faculty and courses; and, second, Group Summary Reports, which are aggregates of individual faculty evaluation scores reported by program. According to university policy, tenure-track faculty who have not yet been reviewed for tenure must undergo individual class assessments in all courses, every semester. Other faculty members are required to undergo periodic evaluations as determined by department chairs and school deans. In practice, however, all faculty members, both full-time and adjunct, tenure and non-tenure track, have individual class assessments performed in all courses, every semester.
Overall, candidates rate their courses positively. Generally, progress on relevant objectives is rated higher than either teacher or course excellence. Scores on instructional effectiveness in the baccalaureate Exceptional Needs Program exceed those in the post-baccalaureate programs (Master of Science in Education). Generally, in post-baccalaureate programs, candidate ratings of teacher excellence are the same as or below their ratings of course excellence, with the lowest ratings overall occurring in these programs. Tables of IDEA Group Summary Reports provide an overview of the Department of Education’s instructional effectiveness since spring 2007, the first semester such reports became available.
A component of the previously noted Full-Time Education Faculty Self-Evaluation formcompleted by faculty members includes Areas for Improvement, where faculty, with guidance from chairs, note professional development needs. Chairs’ responses include recommendations that impact identified needs of the faculty. Annually, faculty submit to chairs and the dean provisional professional development plans. Also, in fulfillment of university requirements (see FROG, Sections 4.4, pg. 38) both tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty consult with their Peer Development Committees to establish short, intermediate, and long-term plans for professional development.