Annual Faculty Performance Review July 31, 2003 Arthur Centonze, David Cohen, Harriet Feldman, Janet McDonald, Susan Merritt, Michael Roberts Marilyn Jaffe-Ruiz, Joseph Morreale, Yvonne Ramirez Consultant: Anne Saunier, Sibson Consulting

1 Goals for the new faculty evaluation are intended to be aspirational and set appropriately high standards 1. Adopt a University-wide faculty evaluation model which is clear, allows appropriate flexibility for varying endeavors, and achieves comparable rigor across Schools/College. The model:  Enables the deans with the faculty to tailor elements of the standards to the needs of the School or College, including professional accreditation requirements.  Is based on models currently used at Pace complemented by the work of Dr. Ernest L. Boyer.  Provides for review and calibrates standards in order to ensure a comparable level of rigor across Pace. 2. Require demonstrable outcomes in the faculty evaluation process to assure the fullest possible review of teaching, scholarship, and service.  Implement a University-wide instrument for student evaluations of teaching.  Require self-evaluation to encourage reflection and development.  Require peer and/or chair/associate dean evaluations. 3. Implement a University-wide rating system with specific definitions to be used in the annual faculty evaluation and merit increase process. Allow flexibility in weighting of the criteria based on the needs of the Schools or College.

2 Collaborative process will ensure faculty input within each School/College The Deans collectively review and calibrate School standards, agreeing on comparable rigor The Provost reviews, with input from University-wide Faculty Committee composed of representatives from each School, and approves Each School’s standards framework is distributed within the School Step 2Step 3Step 4 Each School (Faculty and Dean) determines how the elements of the standards framework will be demonstrated (refer to page 5) Step 1 Standard The following process will help ensure that School-specific standards are held to comparable rigor:

 Standards Framework and Criteria  Evaluation Inputs  Ratings and Weightings

4 The standards framework includes five elements STANDARDS FRAMEWORK AREASDEFINITION The areas to be evaluated DEMONSTRATIONEVIDENCEPERFORMANCE RATINGS The definition of each criterion How the criterion can be demonstrated Specific outcomes demonstrating that the criterion is met A rating rubric delineating what is required to demonstrate performance in each area at each rating level

5 The framework is set at the University level, while the Schools determine specific elements SCHOOL SPECIFICDEANS AND SCHOOLS UNIVERSITY-WIDE AREASDEFINITION TEACHING SCHOLARSHIP SERVICE DEMONSTRATIONEVIDENCEPERFORMANCE RATINGS  See page 6  See page 8  See page 10 Schools refine how criteria will be demonstrated The deans calibrate School- specific outcomes that determine each rating, subject to approval by the Provost Provost approves the entire standards framework to ensure there is comparable rigor across Schools and College. Schools provide specific examples of outcomes

6 The teaching criteria reflects Pace’s commitment to student learning AREA Teaching DEFINITION TEACHING Teaching excellence is the core of the faculty role, the commitment to student learning, development and achievement, and includes for example:  Engaged student learning  Mastery and continuous growth in subject matter knowledge  Reflective practice  Ability to organize and communicate class material  Competence and creativity in instructional design, delivery and evaluation  Integration of scholarship in teaching  Demonstrated effective course management

7 Each School identifies School-specific evidence that demonstrates excellence in teaching DEMONSTRATIONEVIDENCE Introduces tutorial web page for course topics Students report receiving timely and constructive feedback Timely grade submission in accordance with University policy Meets all classes and effectively utilizes full class periods Methods Presents subject matter logically, accurately, and with appropriate level of difficulty Uses technology to enhance teaching and student learning Applies fairness and sound judgment in the treatment and grading of students Revises and improves course Reflective Critique Receives input and revises course or improves pedagogy Creates clear course objectives Demonstrates currency in field Prepares comprehensive course syllabus Students report instructor was well prepared Students learn as documented by students, the faculty member, and others Class is interesting and stimulating as reported by the faculty member, students, chair, and faculty peers Goals Preparation Results Presentation Develops and communicates learning objectives for each course Prepares current classroom material Provides effective course and classroom management Students learn Students are interested and engaged Presents course material in a clear, well-structured, interesting, and involving manner Criteria (Illustrative) Areas of Excellence (Illustrative) TEACHING

8 Scholarship reflects original and integrative contributions to the field AREA Scholarship DEFINITION  Scholarship is original research, i.e. discovery, and/or serious disciplined work that interprets, brings new insight, and/or illuminates original research, the profession, or pedagogy, i.e. integration & application SCHOLARSHIP

9 Each School identifies School-specific evidence that demonstrates excellence in scholarship DEMONSTRATIONEVIDENCE Is able to place own work in context of the field. Reflective Critique Reflects on research outcomes and their significance Critiques strengths and weaknesses of research methodology and results Writes clear and achievable goals on proposals for scholarly publication or for professional presentation Receives research grants Executes a field study Publishes article in the Harvard Law Review Presents peer-reviewed paper at a scholarly academic meeting Goals Preparation Methods Results Presentation Sets research goals Organizes resources for efficient and effective research execution Uses appropriate scholarly research methodologies Publishes scholarly work Writes in clear and interesting manner; presents results in a clear and compelling fashion Criteria (Illustrative)(Illustrative) Areas of Excellence SCHOLARSHIP

10 Service furthers the institution or discipline AREA Service DEFINITION  Service is using scholarship and/or knowledge to further individuals, institutions, the profession, and disciplines by contributing to the University, School, students, department, and academic community. SERVICE

11 Each School identifies School-specific evidence that demonstrates excellence in service DEMONSTRATIONEVIDENCE Participates in curriculum committee meetings and makes a contribution, carries share of the workload Methods Engages in the endeavor Reflects on one’s role and contributions to a committee assignment and seeks to improve it Reflective Critique Reflects on participation in service and critiques method and results as well as own contribution Prepares a clear goal statement for a faculty affairs committee. Uses research in an area of service (e.g., curriculum development) and is prepared to make a contribution Curriculum committee completes proposal for changes in curriculum Selected to present committee findings to faculty Goals Preparation Results Presentation Sets clear goals for outcomes of service and for personal contribution Approaches problems with purpose, sufficient background knowledge, and with appropriate skills to achieve the desired outcome Assures appropriate outcomes Writes in clear and interesting manner; presents results in clear and compelling fashion Criteria (Illustrative)(Illustrative) Areas of Excellence SERVICE

 Standards Framework and Criteria  Evaluation Inputs  Ratings and Weightings

13 Student evaluation instruments need to be consistent across the University  Set of common questions used across Pace.  Allow additional questions to be determined by the School. Text response questions are determined by the School, department, or faculty member.  Centralize the administration of the questionnaire by School.  Publish results of the common questions on a Web site. Keep the results of other questions and text responses confidential.

14 Student evaluations will have a common set of core questions that address University-wide standards for teaching excellence ILLUSTRATION

15 Implement a University-wide system of student evaluations of faculty teaching Implementation A.University-wide Faculty Committee representing all Schools recommends a set of common questions and scale to the deans and Provost.  Schools design additional questions to supplement the common questions.  Schools distribute evaluations at the end of the semester in class or electronically, preserving anonymity.  OPARAS coordinates the evaluation process with Schools including scoring, analyzing and disseminating the results of the questionnaires. Scores are electronically posted for the Pace University community.

16 Peer and Chair/Associate Dean evaluations provide observations of faculty teaching performance Peer Review  Peers of the same or different department and of same academic rank or higher, observe teaching annually for untenured, tenure-track faculty, and at least once every three years for tenured faculty, and write faculty teaching evaluations using a University-wide peer review instrument.  Peers use the teaching definition to gather observations and evaluate.  Each School determines its process for peer reviewer selection. Chair/Associate Dean Review  Chair and/or associate dean observes teaching annually for untenured, tenure-track faculty, and at least once every five years for tenured faculty.  Annual review for all faculty includes review of syllabi, assessment instruments, peer reviews, and other evidence of performance.  Chair and/or associate dean comments on the faculty member’s self-reflection on teaching performance.

17 Faculty members complete reflective critique of their own performance in teaching, scholarship,and service Faculty submit annual self evaluations that include: 1.Evidence of how all criteria in teaching, scholarship, and service were met. The self- reflection must be supported by this evidence. The quality of self-reflection will be part of each faculty member’s final assessment. 2.Self reflection also includes individual goals set in prior year.

18 Final assessment of performance in teaching, scholarship, and service is completed 1. The chair and/or associate dean, in consultation with the faculty member and the dean, completes a formal evaluation statement summarizing the faculty member’s performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. The final assessment is based on the following:  Student evaluation results  Peer and chair/associate dean observations of faculty teaching performance  Faculty member’s self evaluation including all supporting evidence 2.The chair and/or associate dean reviews the formal evaluation statement with the faculty member. The faculty member may provide written comment on the formal evaluation statement. A copy of the statement is provided to the faculty member.

 Standards Framework and Criteria  Evaluation Inputs  Ratings and Weightings

20 Performance categories 4. Exceeds established standards with distinction 3. Exceeds established standards 2. Meets established standards 1. Does not meet established standards Deans in consultation with chairs and/or associate deans evaluate faculty performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service using the following categories:

21 Performance categories need to be uniform across Pace

22 Performance categories need to be uniform across Pace

23 Performance categories need to be uniform across Pace

24 The weighting of the criteria are banded to allow for some flexibility  The dean, in consultation with the chair and/or associate dean, sets the weighting for each faculty member within the ranges established above, balancing the needs of the School and the faculty member.  Each criterion (teaching, scholarship, service) is evaluated separately and is multiplied by the weighting for that criterion. The three performance outcomes are then added in order to convert performance to an overall faculty rating that will be used solely for determination of annual merit increase. ServiceScholarshipTeaching 40-50%30-40%20% ServiceScholarshipTeaching 50-70%0-20%30-40% Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Non-Tenure Track Faculty

Appendix

26 Appendix A: Pace Key Findings from School Material Similarities  Use traditional criteria outlined in faculty handbook  Do not provide overall definition of performance criteria  Provide a description of how criteria can be demonstrated by performance level (application)  Do not provide a description of how criteria can be demonstrated by performance level by rank (except Nursing)  Provide examples of demonstration that meet criteria Differences  Provide varying amounts of detail in description of how criteria can be demonstrated by performance level  Provide varying amounts of detail and examples for demonstrating criteria PROCESSCRITERIA FACULTY EVALUATION SYSTEM PACE