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, self-direction,
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 (UDELII)


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
The assessment officer aids faculty in achieving plans and goals
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?