The FUS Faculty

Evaluation System

IDEA Workshop
Cleveland Ohio
October, 2008

The Purposes of the

FUS Faculty Evaluation
System
Provide an opportunity for self-reflection, selfdirection, and practical reasoning in departments
for both faculty and program improvement
Provide feedback from Chair and VPAA for
faculty development
Provide evidence of distinction in performance
areas for merit award decisions
Provide comparative data for enquiry seeking
standards of internal practices of FUS faculty

FUS a Catholic and

Franciscan University
is:
Faithfully Catholic and purposefully seeking to operate from
the Heart of the Church
Comprehensive; Associates, Bachelors, and Masters liberal
arts University located in Steubenville
At about 2400 students and 40+ programs
Has a structure with a strong VPAA and rotating
Department Chairs as well as Graduate Program Directors
who are teaching and researching while managing
2 Decade User of IDEA

Since 2002 at FUS:

Fr Terrence Henry was named as President

Dr. Max Bonilla took the position as acting VPAA and then in
2004 was named VPAA
Completed a NCA/HLC PEAQ Team visit resulting a progress
report on Assessment due in Fall 2009
Saw Dr. Bonilia commit to the faculty in 2004 that he would
seek appropriate ways to widen the evidence used in Faculty
Evaluation at FUS
New CORE Program Development starts in 2007
A revised set of forms for faculty evaluation was used,
starting in 2007, which asks for more quantitative evidence
and allows participation in The University of Delaware Study

Practical Reasoning
Franciscan University, in its very Mission, as a part of its self understanding
as a community, is committed to a wide conception of rationality with a rich
understanding of practical reason.
Department Chairs and Faculty have been individually and collectively
encouraged to consider the connections between Department Planning (Program
Review), Assessment of Student Learning data and evidence, and individual
Faculty Performance Evaluation - especially in setting future goals
It is through the qualitative narrative in these documents that Chairs and
faculty communicate the situational contexts in which their performance efforts
are intentionally made. The arguments made for funding, curriculum changes,
faculty development or other items needing approval are made in these reports.
The argument is part of our praxis, practical reasoning
This practical reasoning of the faculty and chairs closest to the Internal Goods
(in MacIntyres Sense) of the practices of Teaching/Learning, Scholarship and
Service

IDEA is Great - but not for

Measures and Evidence
of :

Instructional Design & Planning

Instructional Delivery & Innovation
Feedback Given to students on work
Advising, thesis mentoring and other
instructional departmental activity valued at
FUS and your Universities
Scholarship, Internal Service or External
service

Evaluating Teaching and

Learning is hard, but
Scholarship and Service?

The University of Delaware Outside the Classroom

Productivity Study (UDELII) Measures and definitions
Operationally defining, and therefore understanding
better many of the tasks, projects and processes which
make up the practices of Teaching, Scholarship and
Service at Universities
The study aims at the widest generality and most
exhaustive comprehension of measures prudent
Comparative data from other institutions can inform
the practical reasoning demonstrated in evaluations and
reports

Review, Consider and

Comment on FUS Reports
Participants at tables review sample
Analysis Reports

IDEA and UDEL Reports at

FUS
The following IDEA
analysis is like one
given to each faculty
member each
evaluation at FUS
Note: Average among
courses for evaluation
Comparative Z scores
Discipline vs. Overall T
score

The following UDEL

analysis gives data by
CIP CODE from
participating institutions
These are not intended
and cannot be used
through simple
comparisons as norms
These can inform
prudential argumentation
about contribution
These can inform the
dialogue about standards
of practice

Triangulation and Practice

Quantity is not Quality
But quantity is one
dimension or aspect of
quality - just ask the working
parent who tries intensely to
have Quality Time
Faculty at FUS are
encouraged to put the
quantitative aspects (UDEL)
of faculty efforts in dialogue
and in context through their
narrative
SoTL like projects and
funded projects are asked
for in quantitative sheets

These are Funded through

mini-grants from
Assessment Office
They are accompanied by
AQIP like action planning
(NCA/HLC alternative
accreditation path)
These then become
exemplary projects for
assessment / accreditation
and faculty development
They are saved on the
ASPIRE website at FUS and
become artifacts in our
Narrative of Practice at FUS

On Going
Faculty Formation and
Input
Faculty may (and have) added items to the
quantitative worksheet
Faculty are encouraged and paid to engage in SoTL
activities and advance their own development in
Scholarly Teaching as well as Scholarship Proper
(including SoTL)
The assessment office helps with project preparation
and seeks approval from VPAA as well as aids in getting
SoTL work published or presented.
Assessment office helps with the creation of the Flight
Plan which is a larger Narrative or plan for Teaching
Scholarship and Service

Appraisal and Action

The appraisal for Merit (or probation) level award is made by the
VPAA in consultation with the Chair after reviewing evidence and
commentary from the faculty narrative, the chair evaluation, and
an analysis from a central office reader and preparer of the
materials.
The consistency of merit recommendations between the
preparer and the VPAA is calculated via inter-rater reliability. Last
years Kappa Value was at at 0.76 or substantially similar
The Faculty member and chair are encouraged to create
individual action plans and longer range Flight Plans
The VPAA sends suggestions for goals and actions with his
feedback to each faculty annually

IDEA and UDEL help in

achieving some level of
objectivity in measures
but
by definition the
personal judgment used in
making a performance
appraisal is subjective

SOFIA: A Continuous
Improvement Process

Seeking-Searching for Standards of our Practices at

FUS IDEA, UDEL, Faculty Standards Committee at FUS,
Best Practices from Peer Universities etc.
Ongoing Formation Feedback &
Input - from Faculty through the assessment office to
aid in creating excellent practices at FUS and when
possible to create public SoTL projects
Appraisal (summative) Annual or other (Promotion
Tenure) and Action Planning
SOFIA is also evolving and ongoing as we assess our
appraisal system and its value to us at FUS

Like others, we at FUS

have found stages of
faculty resistance*
Stage 1: Disdainful Denial.
Stage 2: Hostile Resistance.
Stage 3: Apparent Acquiescence.
Stage 4: Attempts to Scuttle.
Stage 5: Grudging Acceptance. After two (or more- we will
see) years of operation, the faculty find that the system can
actually be of some value. This is as good as it gets! There is no
subsequent stage where faculty are happy with the system.
*Taken and adapted from: http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings/610.html 7/7/08

Conclusion
Thank you for your attention.
Any Questions?