Addendum for Standard 5
Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development
Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance; they also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.
5.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs)
No areas for improvement were cited at the previous visit.
5.4 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard
None from the off-site review.
5.5 Clarification of, and responses to, questions in off-site report
(1) Who reviews data from teaching evaluations and annual performance reviews? What is the process for addressing evaluations that are problematic and planning strategies for improvement of teaching?
It is the responsibility of the department chairs and program directors, in collaboration with the dean, to review individual faculty (including adjunct faculty) data from course evaluations as part of the annual review process. Course evaluations are reviewed after each semester – for individual progress as well as overall unit teaching. Full-time faculty must address their teaching evaluations in their annual self-evaluation, determining annual goals for teaching (in addition to scholarship and service). Chairs, directors, and the dean specifically address teaching in their annual evaluations, and ultimately in their recommendations for tenure and promotion for those faculty on tenure track. (Full-time faculty and adjunct faculty annual evaluations will be available in hard copy for the on-site visit.)
Concerns about the quality of teaching and/or candidates’ course evaluations are addressed formatively as well as summatively in annual goal setting conferences and annual evaluations of full-time faculty. All faculty are encouraged to continually reflect on and improve their teaching. When issues or concerns arise, individual faculty are assigned mentors, asked to observe “master teachers” and then have one of those individuals peer evaluate the faculty member’s teaching for formative feedback, and attend conferences (such as the Lilly Conference on College Teaching) and/or professional development sessions on effective teaching (such as the Spotlight sessions offered by the Faculty Development Office).
Individual adjunct faculty who are experiencing concerns with their teaching may not be re-hired, depending on the seriousness of the concerns, or may be advised to seek the same interventions as mentioned above. The unit will offer mentoring and additional formative peer evaluation for adjunct faculty, but will not pursue a high degree of intervention over time due to the supply of high quality adjunct faculty available to the unit to replace ineffective adjuncts.
The quality of teaching in the unit as a whole is examined annually during Data Day(s), looking at candidates’ course evaluations, survey data, and candidate feedback on preparedness.
(2) How many university supervisors provide support for candidates in field experiences and the professional semester? How many school-based faculty members supervise field experiences and the professional semester?
Field experience supervision is assigned to both full-time and adjunct faculty; however, most practicum (with the exception of the EdS program in instructional leadership) and clinical (professional semester) supervision is done by adjunct faculty. Field experiences that are assigned to a specific course in the initial certification programs are “supervised” by the course (or module) instructor to the extent that faculty read reflective journals, accompany candidates to a school on the initial visit, and monitor logs of hours and cooperating teacher evaluations. There is no separate course load for this “supervision;” it is part of the course instruction.
Junior Practicum for undergraduates involves supervision typically by adjunct faculty who are paid by the number of candidates supervised. At times a full-time faculty member may supervise candidates to fill out a course load (.2 credit hours per candidate). Additionally, full-time faculty may supervise candidates during the professional semester – again for course load (.67 credit hours per candidate). The following summarizes full-time faculty professional semester supervision since spring 2011:
Spring 2011-MAT only (n=28): 4 full-time faculty, 3 with 1 student teacher and 1 with 3 student teachers
Fall 2011-UG only (n=17): 3 full-time faculty, 1 with 1 student teacher and 2 with 3 student teachers
Spring 2012-MAT only (n=44): 1 full-time faculty with 3 student teachers
Fall 2012-UG only (n=31): 4 full-time faculty, 2 with 1 student teacher and 2 with 2 students teachers
The unit maintains a number of long-term adjunct faculty who supervise candidates in the professional semester who have excellent credentials and years of experiences in P-12 schools. Some of these faculty also teach a course in a specific semester. For example, Octavia Wilkins taught EDUC 342 in spring 2012, supervised secondary education majors in their Junior Practicum, and supervised one MAT student teacher.
See IR Exhibits 5.3.a.2 and 5.3.b for adjunct faculty and clinical faculty/supervisor rosters.
(3) Are faculty members from Arts and Sciences represented on this committee?
As described in the IR, Standard 3 narrative, p. 19, “The Advisory Committee on Education (ACE), comprised of unit graduates, Arts and Sciences faculty, teachers, school administrators and district leaders, and community partners, meets once each semester to review programs and unit data, suggest improvements to practices, and provide feedback on new initiatives.” (see also Addendum Exhibit 6.4.1 and 6.4.1.a to address candidate membership.)
(4) The Adjunct Faculty Handbook describes the process for evaluating adjunct faculty. Please provide data from evaluations of adjunct faculty.
Individual adjunct faculty evaluations conducted by chairs and program directors will be available at the on-site visit. Adjunct faculty course evaluation data for under-graduate courses and advanced courses are provided in Addendum Exhibit 5.5.4, with an analysis and action plan.
(5) What has the unit learned from faculty evaluation data? What are the implications of the evaluation results for professional development?
The quality of teaching in the unit as a whole is examined annually during Data Day(s), looking at initial and advanced candidates’ course evaluations, survey data, and candidate feedback on preparedness. The unit believes that it should exemplify master teaching on the campus and it committed to offering continual professional development to accomplish that goal. Faculty meetings often include professional development on topics such as using technology to enhance learning, CREDE strategies to address diverse learners, and use of assessment clinic resources, particularly in assistive technology, to enhance the teaching repertoire of candidates. Potential faculty are informed during interviews with the unit and the university that teaching excellence is paramount and that achieving tenure and promotion is dependent on high quality instruction. As stated in 5.5.(1), concerns about the quality of teaching are addressed individually, with recommendations for intervention.
(6) To what extent do unit faculty members use their allocated travel funds? To what extent do faculty members seek additional funding for professional travel from the Office of Academic Affairs?
Most full-time faculty use all of their professional development funds for conference attendance; the funds can also be used for one professional association membership and/or journal subscription. In the event that a faculty member does not use his/her funds, the money becomes available for others to use – dividing it in an equitable manner. The unit does cover some professional development opportunities (particularly national conferences such as AACTE) for chairs and program directors to attend without having to use their own funds, as well as state conferences such as KACTE for interested faculty to attend. Additional funding is sought through the dean when either the unit’s budget cannot accommodate the request, or there are funds available in other campus divisions to cover the conference, event, or trip. For example, Dr. Paige recently made two trips to India to explore possible partnerships for the doctoral program, with partial funding from the unit and the remainder from the (SACS) Quality Enhancement Project through the International Programs Office. Faculty who have been invited to present at a national or international conference, and who have already expended their professional development funds, would be able to apply to the Office of Academic Affairs (through the dean) for additional funding.
(7) Is funding for professional travel available to adjunct faculty? Are adjunct faculty included in the in-house professional development provided by the unit and university?
Adjunct faculty are not included in the unit’s professional development fund allotment given to full-time faculty. Adjunct faculty are encouraged to attend and openly invited to any university-wide and AFTSE professional development opportunities, particularly those offered through the Bellarmine Center for Teaching Excellence and Leadership and the Bellarmine Center on Economic Education. All full-time and adjunct faculty are invited to monthly university-wide professional development such as the “Spotlight Series” offered monthly by the Faculty Development Center.
Additionally, adjunct faculty are encouraged to co-author publications and co-present at professional conferences. The AFTSE has funded adjunct faculty to attend AILACTE, for example, to present with full-time faculty on leadership preparation. There are, however, no regular professional development funds budgeted for each
adjunct faculty per year. There are no scholarship or service requirements of adjunct faculty, only high quality teaching and/or supervision of candidates. Therefore, participation in professional development is voluntary unless the adjunct faculty were recommended (by the dean or chairs) to improve teaching based on evaluation feedback in order to maintain employment.
Addendum Exhibit 5.5.4 Adjunct Faculty Course Evaluations
Addendum Exhibit 6.4.1 Collaboration between Unit and A&S Faculty
Addendum Exhibit 6.4.1.a Collaboration Supporting Evidence