I.
Portfolios
A.
Goal of Portfolio Development
B.
Rationale
C.
Principles
D.
Ownership
II.
Faculty Collaboration
General
Principles
Guidelines
and Procedures for Colleague Clustering
A.
Goal
B.
Guidelines:
1.
Principles:
2.
Procedures
3.
Potential Rewards:
Guidelines
and Procedures for The Academy of Teachers
A.
Goal
B.
Guidelines
C.
Rationale
D.
Procedures:
E.
Funding Amounts:
III.
Peer Review of Teaching
A.
Goal of Peer Review
B. Conduct of Reviews
C.
Selection and Training of Peer Reviewers
D.
Process of Peer Review
1.
Review of Course Materials
2.
First Consultation
3.
Teaching Observation
4.
Second Consultation
5.
Format and Review of Written Evaluation
6.
Exit Survey
E.
Monitoring the Peer Review Procedure
Appendix
Checklist for Evaluation
of Course Materials
Checklist for First
Consultation
Teaching Observation
Evaluation Form
Student Feedback
Format of Written
Evaluation
Disposition of Peer
Review Evaluation Letter
Exit Survey
The objective of the Hazleton Campus Faculty Development Program will be to improve the effectiveness of teaching at this campus:
3. Peer Review
All faculty will be instructed to compile and maintain a teaching portfolio for every course they teach. The DAA will provide workshops to facilitate this process.
A. Goal of Portfolio Development
The goal of developing and maintaining portfolios will be
The peer review process encourages faculty to compile in a single place information about courses taught and teaching procedures used. The faculty collaboration procedures being recommended also suggest compiling and sharing such information. A teaching portfolio is the logical method of doing this in an organized and sharable way.
In addition, the Promotion and Tenure process often encourages development and presentation of course materials as part of dossiers. Many programs offered by the Commonwealth College are accredited every three to six years. Teaching portfolios are helpful in this accreditation process. Portfolios would also be helpful in orienting newly hired instructors as well as substitutes in case the regular instructor for any reason is unable to complete a course.
All faculty would maintain a teaching portfolio including information on each course that they teach. These may contain information from the faculty member, from students, and from faculty colleagues. Typical contents of portfolios may include:
From the faculty member:
These portfolios will be owned and housed by the faculty member, who alone will have the right to add and remove materials from them and to allow others to review them. Portfolios may be reviewed by colleagues, with the faculty member’s permission, during faculty collaboration or peer review. However, no formal assessment of portfolios will be required.
2. to facilitate sharing of effective pedagogical
ideas.
Definition: Colleague Clustering is a voluntary, informal cooperation among faculty colleagues consisting of supportive exchanges (which will include, but not be limited to, exchangesof ideas, teaching methods, techniques, expertise, and creative problem-solving) with the goal of improving teaching and learning on the campus.
The goal of colleague clustering is to improve individual teaching performance and provide assistance to one another in a spirit of cooperation so that our campus might provide a supportive, collegial teaching environment for faculty as well as a good learning environment for the benefit of the students we serve.
Although Colleague Clustering would be completely voluntary and informal, it should be systematic.
We propose the following formal elements:
1. Principles:1. The faculty strongly encourage all newly-hired faculty at all ranks to accept a colleague's invitation to collaborate within the first seven weeks of the semester. In this way, new faculty can benefit from the informal sharing of ideas, techniques, and perspectives in advance of formal peer review. This will also help integrate them into professional, academic life on our campus. Faculty Senate through its Instruction and Advising and Faculty Affairs Committees will create and publicize opportunities to facilitate such interaction.
2. The Faculty Senate through its Instruction and Advising and Faculty Affairs Committees will actively encourage all faculty to participate in Colleague Clustering. Clusters of two or more instructors will form around topics discussed at faculty development workshops.
3. The only reporting on the collaboration would be done by the instructor him- or herself to keep the DAA and Division Head informed of his or her work, as an indicator of dedication to good teaching.
4. No colleague who has been or is currently involved in collaboration with this instructor can be asked by the DAA or Division Head to report on their collaboration with this individual.
However, cluster participants can write a letter describing their work together and the progress that was made. This letter can, at the instructor's discretion, be included in his or her self-evaluation packet or teaching portfolio to document work toward the goal agreed on as a result of the workshop. Student and peer responses can also be included.
1. A faculty development workshop on an appropriate topic relating to the improvement of some aspect of instruction might conceivably be the beginning of the process. To facilitate the likelihood of this:
b. The I&A Committee in collaboration with the DAA, Faculty Resource Coordinator, and IDS will compile and publicize a list of University-sponsored faculty development opportunities. Opportunities for informal sharing from the previous semester's clustering results and sharing of conference presentations relevant to pedagogy generally should also be scheduled at this time.
c. A list of the dates of campus and other workshops (with a contact person for each event) should be published no later than the last Faculty Senate meeting of the semester before the workshops are to take place. Faculty should have the opportunity to schedule one or more of these workshops into their planning for the next semester's instruction to minimize canceled classes or missed workshop opportunities that might otherwise result.
3. At the end of the semester the cluster should write an account of their activity and its outcomes which may be included in the dossier and annual activity reports of the participants at their discretion.
Since Colleague Clustering is not required and cannot be used for formal evaluative purposes, colleagues will be motivated to participate by the potential rewards of the activity which we anticipate may include:
Definition: The Academy of Teachers is a program that solicits and funds proposals from all campus faculty for ways of enhancing or sharing their teaching expertise.
The goal of the Academy of Teachers is to encourage ways of encouraging effective teachers to enlarge the traditional domain of learning at this campus.
Proposals might include plans to:
This program would reward those who excel at enhancing learning with the chance to continue their good work and to help others interested in improving their teaching, without taking them out of the classroom. Students would benefit by having opportunities to work with our best faculty under enhanced conditions. Providing teaching-focused rewards would validate the claim that outstanding teaching is a goal of our campus and College.
Participation in the Academy of Teachers would be completely voluntary and flexible enough to include the specific interests and goals of those chosen to work in it. But it should be consistently and fairly run. We propose the following guidelines.
The intent is to provide grants in the $300-$500 range for small-scale projects or as supplements to funding from other sources such as Project Empower. If merited, The Instruction and Advising Committee may consider proposals for larger amounts, particularly if matching funds can be located in the Hazleton community or elsewhere in the Penn State system.
Proposals may request funding for expenses directly tied to instructional needs, such as:
The Goal of peer review shall be to generate more thorough documentation of faculty members' teaching methods and effectiveness. This documentation may become part of faculty members' permanent personnel file in combination with SRTEs and other relevant evidence provided by the faculty member, by students, or by the DAA. At the faculty member’s request, the result of the review may be used by the DAA for evaluating the faculty member’s annual performance in teaching, for recommending faculty for jobs or teaching awards, or for any other purpose deemed appropriate by the DAA and the faculty member.
Peer review documents shall remain confidential but may be examined at any time by the faculty member under review.
1. Faculty will be subject to peer review according to the following schedule:
(a) Tenured faculty once every three years, or whenever requested by the DAA.
(b) Fixed Term 1 (FT-1), Fixed Term Multi-year (FT-M), Fixed Term 2 (FT-2), and Instructors on standing appointments once a year for their first two years in that status and every third year thereafter, or as deemed necessary by the DAA.2. All new faculty, regardless of their hiring status, will be reviewed in the beginning of the semester. The process will begin no later than week three (3) and end with the letter submission by the end of week five (5). All other reviews are to be completed by the tenth (10th) week of the semester.
3. Faculty on the tenure track will always be reviewed during their first year, and then once again before their final tenure track decision, during an academic year when they are not also subject to a Promotion and Tenure Review. Tenure-track faculty may choose to take part in peer review more frequently as a form of constructive mentoring.
4. Notwithstanding the above, at any time any faculty member may request that a review be conducted and the DAA will honor such a request.
C. Selection and Training of Peer Reviewers
1. All Hazleton Campus tenured and tenure-line faculty members who have successfully completed their fourth-year review , and those who have held Fixed Term 1, Fixed Term Multi-year, Fixed Term 2, or Instructor-level positions at the Hazleton campus for at least four consecutive years, will serve as peer reviewers.
2. A slate of ten faculty reviewers will be selected at the beginning of each academic year by the Instruction and Advising Committee. Reviewers should represent as many different colleges and programs as possible and be drawn from faculty of all eligible ranks. Peer reviewers may serve no more than two consecutive years.
3. The DAA will be responsible for organizing training sessions for peer reviewers. The training session will include a discussion of such topics as:
1. Once selected, the slate of peer reviewers will be circulated to all faculty, including those subject to review during that academic year.
2. From the list of eligible peer reviewers, the faculty member being reviewed will select at least five names, and the DAA will select the reviewer from this slate. Whenever possible, the reviewer will be from the same college as the faculty member. In the event the DAA cannot satisfy your request, the DAA will contact you to discuss another option, such as choosing another reviewer or delaying the process until the next semester.
3. The DAA may invite a peer reviewer from another campus, provided that this reviewer has been trained in a way similar to reviewers from this campus and the faculty member agrees to the choice. Similarly, peer reviewers trained at this campus may be invited to review colleagues at these other campuses, provided this is agreeable to the reviewer and the faculty member reviewed.
4. Peer review will consist of these basic elements, conducted in this order:
1. As soon as the peer reviewer is selected, the faculty member under review will provide a copy of the course syllabus and a set of the major tests or assignments administered in the course for that semester.
2. If the faculty member wishes, he/she may supply to the reviewer a copy of his/her teaching portfolio containing additional course materials, such as course objectives, textbooks, handouts, etc.
3. The reviewer will use the "Checklist for Evaluation of Course Materials" as a guide for evaluating the instructor's course materials.
1. Prior to the teaching observation, the reviewer will schedule a meeting with the instructor at which the following points may be discussed:
b) Objectives for the specific learning event to be observed.
c) Teaching method for the learning event.
d) Course materials.
e) Other topics considered important by either party, e.g.
1. Observations are mandatory.
2. Whenever possible, the choice of what class or teaching event is observed should be fixed by mutual agreement between reviewer and faculty member. In particular, the faculty member may request the mode of instruction to be observed, whether lecture, discussion, workshop, tutorial, or laboratory. Care should be taken to observe the primary teaching mode used in the class.
Notwithstanding the above, it will be the prerogative of the reviewer to choose the teaching event observed.
3. The reviewer will make one observation; however, if the reviewer or the faculty member so desires a second observation will be made.
4. The reviewer will use the attached "Checklist for Teaching Observation" as a guide for evaluating the faculty member's performance.
5. At the end of the visit, the reviewer will ask students to comlete a "Feedback Form" on whether the class observed was typical of the course’s norm.
1. Within one week of the observation, the reviewer will schedule a meeting with the faculty member at which the following points may be discussed:
5. Format and Review of Written Evaluation
1. Immediately after the post- consultation, the reviewer will prepare a written evaluation of the faculty member's teaching and supply the evaluation to the DAA. The DAA will supply the faculty member with a copy of the evaluation within two weeks of receiving it. This will take place no later than the end of the fifth week (for new hires) or the tenth week (for all others) of the semester in which the peer review took place, unless the faculty member has requested a second review.
2. The faculty member will then have the opportunity to respond to this evaluation in writing. This response will be made or transcribed on the same sheet of paper as the reviewer's evaluation, or attached to it so that it cannot be separated from the evaluation. The faculty member may also request a second peer review and the DAA will initiate this process immediately.
3. After this review, a copy of this evaluation will go to the DAA. The faculty member will have a choice of whether or not to include this written evaluation in their permanent file, and if put into their permanent file, how it will be used as an evaluative tool. There will be a “Disposition of Evaluation Letter” form to indicate the choice made.
4. The faculty member will have the right to review his/her peer review evaluations at any time.
5. At the faculty member's request, a copy of the evaluation may also be included in his/her annual Faculty Activity Report, or tenure and/or promotion dossier, as appropriate.
1. The faculty member being reviewed will
complete an Exit Survey, that will serve to give
the DAA and the Instruction and Advising Committee feedback regarding the
Peer review process. The Exit Survey will be given to the DAA when the
written evaluation is discussed, DAA will forward the Exit Survey to the
Instruction and Advising Committee.
E. Monitoring the Peer Review Procedure
The Instruction and Advising Committee, in consultation with the DAA and other interested parties, shall reevaluate this peer review procedure every five years, or whenever charged to do so by majority vote of the Hazleton Campus Faculty Senate. The results of this review shall be presented to the Faculty Senate in writing, along with any recommendations on how the procedure should be amended.
No changes shall be made in this process unless approved by the Faculty Senate.