Skip to Main Content
 


 
Logo: NCATE - The Standard of Excellence in Teacher Preparation
You are in the main content


Standard 5 Addendum:

Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development


Evidence for the OnSite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit:

1. Qualified faculty: Clarification of number of various types of unit faculty of unit faculty. The Faculty Qualifications Table provided for adjunct faculty lists supervisors and adjunct instructors for 2011-2012. Data are needed for year of record.

As discussed during the off-site visit, the information for this standard is for the current year (2011-2012) since it represents the faculty that the BoE team will interact with during the on-site visit. The faculty represented in Table 1 below are professional education unit (PEU) faculty with assignments in the professional education unit for the 2011-2012 academic year. There are 125 full-time unit faculty. Of these 68 have appointments in College of Education (both instructional and administrative/professional). Twelve are in the College of Visual & Performing Arts, 7 in the College of Math and Sciences, 32 in the College of Integrated Science and Technology, and an additional 6 are in the School for Strategic Leadership and the Graduate School. It should also be noted that additional faculty in these colleges as well as the College of Arts and Letters and University Studies are closely connected with the education programs. In addition to the full time faculty in the unit, 106 adjunct faculty teach courses and/or supervise field experiences. Of these adjunct faculty 76 supervise field experiences and/or clinical practice (university supervisors).

Table 1

2011-2012 Professional Education Unit Faculty

Professional

Education

Faculty

Full-time

in the Unit

Part-time at the Institution &

the Unit

(Adjunct Faculty)

Part-time at the

Institution & the Unit

(University Supervisors only)

Total # of

Professional

Education Faculty

(Full + Part Time)

Numbers

125

106

76

231

2. Qualified faculty: Clarification related to the use of adjunct and clinical faculty. For the year of record, clarify the percentage of course sections that were taught by adjunct and clinical faculty (preferably, by program).

Percentage of course sections taught by adjunct and CF ?

"Part-time faculty members who are assigned only teaching duties are adjunct faculty members." (JMU Policy 2104). Adjunct faculty must meet the qualifications for part-time faculty outlined in http://www.jmu.edu/JMUpolicy/2104.shtml. Adjunct faculty in the Unit have either a doctorate or master's degree with other specialized qualifications (e.g., clinical certification, school- or district-level teaching or administration). They are hired to teach courses in all programs in the Unit on an as-needed basis. Clinical faculty who are University Supervisors are considered by the university to be adjunct faculty. Standard 5 Addendum Exhibit 1: Percentage of Courses by Adjunct shows by program, the percentage of Fall 2011-Spring 2012 courses that were taught by adjunct faculty and the number of clinical practice sections which were supervised by adjunct, clinical faculty. As can be seen, use of adjuncts for teaching and supervision varies across the unit. In some programs, close to 100% of the supervision of field experiences, including student teaching is undertaken by adjuncts.

3. Unit evaluation of professional education faculty performance: Clarification on faculty use of evaluation data. Some department documents speak about faculty self-reflection; evaluation processes appear to generate a great deal of data. How do faculty make use of these data? How are these data factored into evaluation/reviews for promotion and tenure?

Across the university, evaluation of faculty is done at the academic unit level. Each academic unit provides annual evaluation and promotion & tenure guidelines to the dean and the University Provost. According to the Faculty Handbook, student evaluation data is one of several items considered when evaluating faculty performance:

Consideration of teaching performance must include, but need not be limited to, the following: self-evaluation, evaluations by peers and/or AUHs, and student evaluations. Consideration should be given to a faculty member's commitment to student advising and innovations in teaching as evidenced by development of new course work and teaching methodology. In those academic units that do not use student evaluations in all classes taught by a faculty member, the policy determining which classes will be evaluated shall be stated in the academic unit's evaluation procedures. Any such policy shall apply equally to all similarly situated faculty members in the academic unit.

More specific guidelines regarding the use of evaluation data are contained in the academic unit guidelines found in IR Exhibit 5.3.f. A sampling of responses from individual faculty member's Annual Performance Reviews (Standard 5 Addendum Exhibit 2: Faculty Use of Evaluation Data) provides additional evidence of how faculty reflect on and use evaluation data.

4. Qualified faculty: Clarification of "faculty teaching and other professional experiences in P-12 schools." Nearly 30 faculty members left this information blank of the Faculty Qualifications Table.

The majority of the faculty for whom this information is missing work in advanced programs, and have related clinical and/or professional experiences, though not necessarily experiences in P-12 schools. An updated table with descriptions of these experiences will be available on site

5. Modeling best professional practice in teaching: Candidate evaluations of teaching. It is not clear what analyses are done to determine what these data show (i.e. what is the standard for adequate and exemplary performance?) Analyses including means, standard deviations, and ranges of results would be helpful (by program of study, if available).

As shown in Standard 5 Addendum Exhibit 3: CoE Course Evaluation Data, overall student evaluation of courses for both full time and adjunct faculty were high, with a average scores ranging from 4.01-4.60 on a 5 point scale, with 1 being the low end, and 5 the highest score.

Currently there is not a university-wide student evaluation tool. Thus there is no centralized mechanism for providing the range of results with means and standard deviations across unit programs that are administratively housed in different colleges. The university has recently purchased an on-line course evaluation system and will begin using it this summer with on-line courses, and piloting its use among colleges and departments next year. As a college that has used an on-line course evaluation system for several years, the College of Education will take part in the university pilot. It should be noted, that current implementation plans do not include standardized aggregate comparisons outside of the academic department level.

The unit assessment committee reviewed course evaluation instruments last year and identified strengths and weaknesses. The length of the form (too long), few opportunities to provide comments, and irrelevant items were identified as areas for change. The committee worked to reduce number of items, inserted a text area for comments under each item, and reviewed questions carefully to determine their relevance. To improve response rate, we piloted a new procedure in spring 2011: students completed course evaluations in the classroom during class time, using laptops brought in at the beginning or end of class specifically for that purpose. The method was implemented across all CoE courses in fall 2011, with professors and instructors given the choice whether to have their students complete evaluations during class time or on their own time (link to survey emailed to student). Focus group data conducted with faculty early in 2012 indicate that faculty are pleased with the in-class evaluation option, received more qualitative feedback from students, got a better response rate, and in general, appreciate how in-class evaluation fosters greater appreciation for and understanding of evaluation in their students.

There is no university policy as to what range of scores would be considered satisfactory, excellent or unsatisfactory. University guidelines state that student evaluation of teaching is one of several components that should be considered when evaluating faculty's teaching performance. As demonstrated in the guidelines of departmental evaluation expectations in IR Exhibit 5.3.f., some academic units have chosen to specify a range of scores as part of their evaluation guidelines for teaching (see EXED example below) and others, such as LTLE, use more general guidelines, and some combine ratings and comments in their evaluations (e.g. PHETE).

EXED: Maintain average ratings on student evaluations of teaching.

Possesses teaching evaluation ratings that average at least a 3.0 - 3.9.

LTLE: Student evaluations: Good (at or above college average) evaluations that indicate students benefited from taking the course.

PHETE: Exceptional (excellent) - Evidence indicates superlative teaching performance across all courses taught during the evaluation period. Across all courses student evaluations indicate superlative teaching.

Exemplars include, but are not limited to:

1. On items 21 and 22, on the Course Evaluation form, 95% of the respondents are within the above average to excellent range.

2. Within the comments section on the Course Evaluation form, students on 75% of their responses list three or more common positive aspects of the course and minimal areas to improve.

6. Modeling best professional practices in teaching: Candidate evaluations of teaching. Mean course evaluation results are provided on separate table for online/practicum and standard courses. Provide analyses that directly compare distance/on campus; on-campus and off-campus; and full-time/part-time and adjunct faculty.

Currently we do not have any programs that offer two different course formats. The Educational Leadership and Reading M. Ed. Programs both operate as off-campus courses only. The Educational Technology M.Ed. program was revised and now is solely an on-line program. All other programs are taught on campus. The on-line course data in IR Exhibit 5.3.f contains courses that are part of licensure programs. Standard 5 Addendum Exhibit 3: CoE Course Evaluation Data provides the mean students course evaluation ratings for full time unit faculty and part-time/adjunct faculty for different formats of delivery. Please note that on-line sections are not taught for every course every year.

7. Modeling best professional practices in scholarship. Provide a listing of faculty scholarly productivity for the year of record. Include publications, presentations (international, national, regional, local) and grant/contracts.

Unit faculty are actively engaged in scholarly endeavors that inform their teaching and the profession. As a required NCATE exhibit, IR Exhibit 5.3 provides an overview of the type and extent of scholarly activity by unit faculty over the last three years. Faculty selected up to three major accomplishments to include in this exhibit. The wide variety highlighted in IR Exhibit 5.3 speaks to the productivity of the faculty as does the more detailed examples found in departmental Annual Reports, (IR Exhibit 2.3.d. Annual Reports.) and activity highlighted during a May 2011 university scholarship forum (IR Exhibit 5.3.d: Scholarship Presentation). Documented activities include submission and successful publication in professional journals, authorship of books and book chapters, reviews of proposals and manuscripts, editor and/or co-editor of professional journals and books, and serving as members of editorial and review boards for professional journals. Faculty also engage in invited keynotes and presentations, and local, state, national and international conference presentations. Faculty across the unit are actively engaged in grants and contracts from state, federal and foundation sources. Faculty vita provide a comprehensive view of faculty contributions and will be available on site.

8. Modeling best professional practices in service: Provide a listing of faculty service for the year of record.

As referenced in the response to (7) above, IR Exhibit 5.3 provides three major contributions of current unit faculty in the areas of Scholarship, Leadership in Professional Association, and Service over the past three years, 2008-2011. As evidenced in this exhibit and the departmental annual reports in IR Exhibit 2.3.d, faculty are active and serve in leadership positions in a broad spectrum of university committees, task forces, and governance structures. Some of these university structures include the Faculty Senate, the University Graduate Council, the Institutional Review Board for Research Involving Human Subjects, and the Interdisciplinary Liberal Studies Advisory Committee. In addition, unit faculty advise numerous student clubs and organizations, volunteer for the Freshman Reading program, serve as freshman advisors, and participate on a variety of search committees. In the local community, individual members of the faculty serve on the Harrisonburg Education Foundation, The Rockingham Education Foundation, The Children`s Museum, the Rockingham Community Services Board, The Arc and the MidValley Education Consortium.

A sampling of activities providing service to area P-12 schools includes coordinating and/or teaching for the annual Teaching/Content Academy, hosting summer teacher workshops and other professional development in-service activities, directing children's choral and art camps, and assisting with grant writing and development. Faculty are also active in a large number of state, regional, national, and international professional organizations and serve in leadership roles that include board members and officers, program and conference chairs, and members of accreditation and academic review teams. On the professional front, college faculty hold positions of leadership on a number of governing boards. Faculty vita provide a comprehensive view of faculty contributions and will be available on site.

9. Unit evaluation of professional education faculty performance: Results of faculty evaluations. Provide a synopsis of decisions based on data.

During 2010-2011, 48 faculty members in the College of Education were evaluated and rated. One faculty member was a first-year employee and participated in initial evaluations. The ratings earned by this faculty member on their annual performance evaluation is presented below:

Initial Evaluations of New Faculty

N

Teaching

Scholarly Activity

Service

1

S

S

S

In addition to the first-year faculty data presented just above, 47 of the tenured or tenure-track faculty members in education programs received annual evaluation ratings during 2010-2011. Percentages of those faculty earning each rating are presented here:

Annual Faculty Evaluations

N = 47

Rating

Teaching

Scholarly Activity

Service

Number

%

Number

%

Number

%

Unsatisfactory

0

0

0

Satisfactory

12

26%

18

38 %

9

19 %

Excellent

35

74%

29

62%

38

81 %


10. Unit evaluation of professional education faculty performance & unit facilitation of professional development: Evaluation of part-time, clinical, and adjunct faculty. Provide clarification of processes used, decisions made based on data.

Academic unit heads have the responsibility for part time faculty evaluations. Feedback is received via student evaluations of courses and/or student teaching experiences, as well as individual conferences with the faculty member. Decisions are based on the part time faculty members' performance as well departmental need.