1 / 10

Faculty Senate Overview of Faculty Excellence Pilot Study May 6, 2014

Faculty Senate Overview of Faculty Excellence Pilot Study May 6, 2014. Context for Pilot Project I s Key. Continued pressure concerning the cost and value of higher education has brought the issue of faculty capacity (excellence and productivity) to the forefront

vevina
Download Presentation

Faculty Senate Overview of Faculty Excellence Pilot Study May 6, 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Faculty Senate Overview of Faculty Excellence Pilot Study May 6, 2014

  2. Context for Pilot Project Is Key Continued pressure concerning the cost and value of higher education has brought the issue of faculty capacity (excellence and productivity) to the forefront Questions have been raised regarding how VCU defines, measures and promotes continued faculty excellence Understanding faculty capacity is important for providing accountability to stakeholders The following slides provide a background on the current state related to faculty excellence and a proposed timeline for measuring and setting expectations moving forward

  3. Defining Faculty Excellence: Productivity = Workload • Faculty Excellence can be described as intentionally establishing and maintaining a balance among teaching, scholarship and service efforts that supports and enhances the academic mission of the university and its programs • Size and quality of faculty in strategically important academic areas • Assessment processes that evaluate performance and recognize outstanding achievements • High levels of performance within core academic areas of focus • Research, scholarship and creativity • Teaching • Public service • Clinical activities (where applicable)

  4. Faculty Capacity Is > Workload Workload is primarily about what faculty do (hours worked per week, credit hours per faculty, number of students advised, research awards administered, scope of research agenda, major service obligations) Productivity/excellence is also about the product or output of faculty efforts, such as: Which students are taught by which faculty with what type of results? Are students graduating with marketable skills? Are students continuing on to graduate study? What research and scholarship activities are undertaken? With what type of results? Are faculty involved in service projects, professional obligations, or other engagement activities? What forms of awards and recognition do faculty receive nationally ? Internationally?

  5. Multiple Current Measurement Processes SACS-COC 10-year Reaffirmation Process Review and validation of faculty qualifications for teaching by course Implementation of university-wide faculty “system of record” [Xitracs] Quest for Distinction performance tracking Tracking system in place to identify faculty awards, academy memberships and national / international honors Target-setting and CMUP rankings New faculty “Excellence” hires Set higher bar for recruitments: target for research $s already awarded or national/international reputation within a discipline State of the Faculty Report First presented in November 2012 Annual updates every November, with continued expansion of faculty information and analyses

  6. Increased Emphasis on Infrastructure Support Academic Analytics Quantify scholarly output by discipline Comparisons to peers Pilot completed FY13; university-wide implementation in FY14 Delaware Study: College of H&S (FY2011) Workload and expenditure data by discipline (CIP level) Currently challenged to find peer comparisons by discipline School-level faculty performance systems Faculty Activity Reporting and Evaluation System (FARES) within 1st professional schools Faculty Evaluation System (FES) created within School of Business in FY 2011, built off of FARES construct

  7. Quarterly Updates to BOV AHA Committee February December May September Event cancelled – scheduling conflict Meeting cancelled - snowstorm

  8. Preliminary Dashboard Concept Initial Faculty Metrics Initial Student Metrics

  9. Goals and Key Findings Pilot Study Goals Key Findings Balance common elements and comparable metrics with unique characteristics of disciplines; Highlight differences and similarities; Design a flexible methodology; Allow for scalability across the university; Draw upon existing systems and data; and Identify needed infrastructure and additional data elements More systematic effort tracking systems occur when clinical activity and incentive compensation plans are present Existence of technology infrastructure supports more detailed goal-setting, tracking and reporting Teaching workload and related activities represent greatest degree of consistency across missions Scholarship metrics may lack explicit statements of relative value in defining excellence Service efforts are least well-defined, documented and reported

  10. Next Steps • Engage Faculty Senate and University Council in the pilot findings and implementation efforts • Establish representative Steering Committee to address definitional, metric and university policy issues • Launch university-wide implementation • Scale project across the university • Use 6-year faculty hiring plan as a tool to begin to address capacity assessment and planning • Partner with Technology Services and Steering Committee to explore technology infrastructure options • Determine how results will be incorporated into annual goal-setting and unit reviews

More Related