Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.1 Facilitators: Janet Lange and Bob Munn Faculty evaluation and peer review.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.1 Facilitators: Janet Lange and Bob Munn Faculty evaluation and peer review."— Presentation transcript:

1 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.1 Facilitators: Janet Lange and Bob Munn Faculty evaluation and peer review

2 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.2 Preliminaries

3 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.3 About the workshop As a result of this workshop you should be able to  Identify criteria and measures and develop policies and procedures for faculty evaluation and peer review  Design and implement effective faculty evaluation and peer review systems  Align faculty evaluation and peer review systems with institutional and programme missions and objectives  Discuss with peers and explain principles, concepts, and good practice related to performance evaluation  Lead and support others in designing faculty evaluation and peer review systems to meet NCAAA requirements

4 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.4 About us: Janet Lange Principal Lecturer, Learning Development Unit University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) Director, Centre for Employability through the Humanities (ceth: a Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning) UCLan 2008 – 10 University Review Panel Chair since 2000 QAA Auditor for Further Education provision Mechanical Engineer

5 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.5 About us: Bob Munn Consultant, Finchwood Academic, U.K. Vice-President for Teaching & Learning The University of Manchester, U.K., 2004 – 7 Dean of UMIST, 1994 – 9 QAA Auditor since 2000 Professor of Chemical Physics since 1984 Over 200 refereed scientific publications

6 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.6 About you Group activity Please tell your group  Your name  Your institution  Your job Then referring to the preliminary work you did on Handout 1.0, share with the group  What levels of strategy and development you can influence (institution, department, programme, course)  What you hope to get from the workshop

7 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.7 Workshop structure Day 1  Introduction and evaluation criteria  Evidence for evaluation  Faculty evaluation system Day 2  Peer review  Self-evaluation and personal development  Recognition and reward

8 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.8 Faculty evaluation system: overview The sessions will cover the linked elements of an effective overall faculty evaluation system Evaluation criteria Evidence Peer reviewSelf-evaluation Recognition and reward Evaluation process Personal development

9 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.9 Workshop approach We shall…  Encourage active learning, interaction and discussion  Show theory is relevant through practical applications You should…  Respond during the presentations and work hard during the practical activities (So please put cell phones on silent now…)  Learn from each other as well as from us  Try out the ideas and materials after you leave Each session will end with a time for questions, but feel free to clarify points as we go along

10 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.10 1. Faculty evaluation criteria

11 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.11 NCAAA expectations The NCAAA Standards include 4.9.3All teaching staff should… remain up to date with the latest developments in their field… 9.3.1Criteria and processes for performance evaluation should be clearly specified and made known 10.2.1Expectations for teaching staff involvement in research and scholarly activities should be specified and … considered in performance evaluation and promotion criteria 11.2.1…staff should be encouraged to participate in forums in which significant community issues are discussed and plans for community development considered

12 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.12 Why evaluate faculty? The teaching, research and community engagement of a university or college are done by the faculty Evaluation can be both summative and formative:  To establish that faculty are doing what is expected  To see how well faculty are performing  To determine where faculty need to develop  To develop cases for promotion and other rewards We now need to look at what to evaluate

13 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.13 What to evaluate The NCAAA Standards (e.g. 4.9, 9.2, 10.2.2) expect faculty to have appropriate qualifications and experience This mostly concerns appointment of faculty Evaluation concerns what faculty do once appointed  How far faculty do the right things  How well they do those things Hence it is necessary to establish  What faculty should do in their particular post  What level of performance is expected We consider these for teaching, research and community engagement in turn

14 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.14 Teaching criteria What should faculty do in their teaching duties?  Prepare and present teaching materials  Prepare and administer assessments  Provide feedback to students  Provide guidance to students  Keep up to date in the subject What measures the quality of that work?  Clarity, coherence and relevance of materials  Success of students in assessments  Influence on other faculty Scholars make their learning work for other people

15 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.15 Research criteria What should faculty do in their research duties?  Conduct original research  Secure research funding  Publish results  Supervise postgraduate students What measures the quality of that work?  Number and impact of publications  Volume of research funding  Success of research students  Influence on the research community Scholars make their learning work for other people

16 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.16 Community engagement criteria Group activity Handout 1.1 is an extract from the NCAAA Standards Use it to prepare up to four answers for each of the questions already discussed for teaching and research:  What should faculty do in community engagement?  What measures the quality of that work? Please be prepared to report back Scholars make their learning work for other people

17 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.17 Community engagement – ideas What should faculty do in community engagement?  Take part in community forums  Deliver programmes with local employers  Maintain contact with schools  Maintain contact with alumni What measures the quality of that work?  Response from the community  Feedback from students and employers  Response from schools including enrolments  Response from alumni including time and money Scholars make their learning work for other people

18 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.18 Comments on criteria We have approached the criteria going from easiest to hardest  Research and especially community engagement depend strongly on mission  That is why we asked you to work in detail on community engagement  The NCAAA standards also provide valuable inputs It is also easier to decide what faculty should do than to decide what measures the quality of that work  If you have an indicator you need to calibrate it  That means you need benchmarks for its value Hence Session 2 considers what evidence you need for evaluation and how to get it

19 Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.19


Download ppt "Faculty evaluation and peer review, December 2011 1.1 Facilitators: Janet Lange and Bob Munn Faculty evaluation and peer review."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google