Annual Faculty Performance Review July 31, 2003

1. 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

2. Goals for the new faculty evaluation are intended to beaspirational 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.

3. Standard Collaborative process will ensure faculty input withineach School/College The following process will help ensure that School-specific standards are held to comparable rigor: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Each School (Faculty and Dean) determines how the elements of the standards framework will be demonstrated (refer to page 5) 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

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

5. The standards framework includes fiveelements AREAS DEFINITION DEMONSTRATION EVIDENCE PERFORMANCERATINGS The areas to be evaluated 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 STANDARDS FRAMEWORK

6. The framework is set at the University level, while the Schools determine specific elements UNIVERSITY-WIDE SCHOOL SPECIFIC DEANS AND SCHOOLS AREAS DEFINITION DEMONSTRATION EVIDENCE PERFORMANCERATINGS TEACHING SCHOLARSHIP SERVICE • 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 Schools provide specific examples of outcomes Provost approves the entire standards framework to ensure there is comparable rigor across Schools and College.

7. The teaching criteria reflects Pace’s commitment to student learning TEACHING AREA 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

8. Each School identifies School-specific evidence that demonstrates excellence in teaching TEACHING DEMONSTRATION EVIDENCE Criteria (Illustrative) (Illustrative) Areas of Excellence Goals Develops and communicates learning objectives for each course Creates clear course objectives Preparation Prepares current classroom material Provides effective course and classroom management Demonstrates currency in field Prepares comprehensive course syllabus Students report instructor was well prepared 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 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 Results Students learn Students are interested and engaged Students learn as documented by students, the faculty member, and others Presentation Presents course material in a clear, well-structured, interesting, and involving manner Class is interesting and stimulating as reported by the faculty member, students, chair, and faculty peers Reflective Critique Receives input and revises course or improves pedagogy Revises and improves course

9. Scholarship reflects original and integrative contributions to the field SCHOLARSHIP AREA DEFINITION Scholarship • 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

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

11. Service furthers the institution or discipline SERVICE AREA DEFINITION Service • 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.

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

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

14. 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.

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

16. Implement a University-wide system of studentevaluations of faculty teaching Implementation • 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.

17. Peer and Chair/Associate Dean evaluations provideobservations 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.

18. Faculty members complete reflective critique of their own performance in teaching, scholarship,and service Faculty submit annual self evaluations that include: • 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. • Self reflection also includes individual goals set in prior year.

19. 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.

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

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

22. Performance categories need to be uniform across Pace

23. Performance categories need to be uniform across Pace

24. Performance categories need to be uniform across Pace

25. The weighting of the criteria are banded to allow for some flexibility Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty • 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. Teaching Scholarship Service 40-50% 30-40% 20% Non-Tenure Track Faculty Teaching Scholarship Service 50-70% 0-20% 30-40%

26. Appendix

27. FACULTY EVALUATION SYSTEM CRITERIA PROCESS Appendix A: Pace Key Findings from School Material PACE 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