Response 5

Download a Printable PDF File


5.5 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit

(1)   Number of professional education faculty. The IR states on p.32 that there is a “professional education faculty base of 13.” Exhibit 5.1 identified 14. Review of education website shows 13. How many full-time, adjunct, and clinical faculty are employed? Are adjunct faculty included in the number of professional education faculty? Who are the adjunct faculty?

Unit’s Response

While faculty numbers have somewhat fluctuated in the last two years due to retirements, faculty loss through death, and faculty transition to other opportunities, the total number of faculty has remained steady at between 13 and 14. Exhibit 5.1 indicates a total of 14 faculty members while the count is 13 on the Website following to the unexpected departure of Dr. Eric Barna in January 2011, who transitioned back to his home state of Virginia to assume a position in a local institution. The number of adjunct faculty was not included in the list available on the Website. The Unit has added Exhibit 5.5.1.1 which includes the list of adjunct faculty.

(2)   Qualifications of clinical faculty (cooperating teachers and university supervisors). Exhibit 5.2 provides licensure only. What are the P-12 experiences and academic background of the university supervisors?

Unit’s Response

Exhibit 5.5.2.1 would reveal that 100 percent of the part-time clinical faculty have post-graduate preparation, have P-12 experiences, and they hold licenses in their disciplines including Rank 1 designations.

(3) Clarification of faculty on tenure track. What faculty members are on a tenure-track? Are the four full-time faculty members with masters’ degrees on tenure track? Exhibit 5.1 identifies that three have assistant professor rank and one associate professor rank.

Unit’s Response

At the time of the July 12, 2011 off-site visit, the unit had three (3) full-time faculty members with master’s degree at the assistant professor rank and one (1) at the associate professor rank. All four (4) faculty members are not on tenure-track. Exhibit 5.5.3.1 provides a list of all Unit faculty, their academic credentials, and rank or tenure status. Individuals who are on the faculty on non-tenure track without terminal degrees were, at the time of their hiring, outstanding educators with exceptional expertise from the public school sector.

At the beginning of the academic year 2011-2012 (August) the unit hired two additional faculty members – Dr. Elisabeth Rogers and Professor Patricia Todd. Mrs. Todd does not have a terminal degree. However, she possesses extensive experience and was thus hired at the associate rank.

(4)   Quality of faculty teaching. What specific technology hardware and software do faculty integrate into their teaching. How are faculty members integrating technology into their teaching?

Unit’s Response

The University Office of Information Technology (IT) manages the University’s computer infrastructure, providing customer-focused delivery of our services in the use of information technology. Faculty and candidates heavily use the network. Standard equipment for many classrooms includes: a networked desktop computer, laptop cable hookups, a ceiling-mounted LCD video/data projector, a VCR/DVD combo unit, sound reinforcement, and a projection screen. All sources can be controlled with a projector remote control. A major enhancement to the technology infrastructure in classrooms is the addition of several SmartBoards. Mansion West 307, which is a dedicated classroom /instructional laboratory of the Unit, has a state of the art SmartBoard with an integrated high fidelity ceiling-mounted sound system. Faculty has opportunities to model as integrated technology into teaching.

(5)   Sample unit Score Card, as referenced in IR, p. 31. How is this score card being used?

Unit’s Response

The University has instituted detailed Balanced ScoreCards is an annual planning process based on the work of Robert Kaplan and David Norton. Because it is a university-wide process, the ScoreCard planning process is tied to the University’s strategic plan. The Unit is using James Nichols’ 5-Column Model for assessing and reporting the vitality of academic programs and institutional services; including as a major component, the assessment of student learning outcomes. This five-column model provides the framework that all programs and units must use in designing their assessment reports. The first three columns consist of the Strategic Plan Goal (Column 1), Intended Student Learning Outcomes (Column 2), and Means of Assessment & Assessment Criteria (Column 3). The assessment plan is laid out in these 3 columns.

The last two columns, Summary of Results (Column 4) and Use of Assessment Results (Column 5), primarily complete the assessment report. For the academic year 2011-2012 the Unit head encouraged each program area to complete its own ScoreCards [See current Balanced ScoreCard: Exhibit 5.1.1]. A sample of completed ScoreCards for each unit are also available as Exhibit 5.1.1. Not only does the Balanced Program review is a continuous university-wide process involving faculty, dean, chairs and the University Provost. Program review provides the means for monitoring and strengthening program coherence. For yearly internal review, each academic school across the University develops goals for the programs as documented in the Balanced ScoreCard. Changes in program content and unit operations are consistent with the “Use of Results” column of the ScoreCard.

The results of the ScoreCard process drive new action steps in the coming year, but also it allows all faculty and staff to have a sense of satisfaction about their specific role in the achievement of the University’s objectives and improvements. Additional samples of completed ScoreCards for previous years are also available as exhibits.

(6) Samples of completed faculty evaluations. How are the evaluations being used to improve faculty performance? How are adjunct faculty members being evaluated?

Unit’s Response

Spalding University regularly evaluates the teaching effectiveness of each faculty member (regardless of contractual or tenure status) through multiple mechanisms that include the following: annual evaluations, applications for promotion and/or tenure, third year review (for tenure track faculty), and seventh-year review (for tenure track faculty who have not been awarded tenure). The Faculty Governance Document Article XII outlines the evaluation process for all full- and proportionate-time faculty members (both undergraduate and graduate faculty members, regardless of tenure status). This provision mandates an annual review by the faculty member’s immediate supervisor and Dean that begins with a self-evaluation. The evaluation addresses three major areas: teaching effectiveness, professional development (including research and artistic production), and service. The evaluation process begins in January for the previous calendar year and concludes by July. The Instructions for Preparation of Annual Faculty Evaluation for Calendar Years are published by the Office for Academic Affairs outlines the processes and procedures to be followed and includes a time line.

Academic policies also require administrators (chair or program director) in each unit or their designee to evaluate all adjunct faculty who teach at Spalding University. Careful consideration is given to student comments, complaints, and student grade-appeals when considering whether to re-hire adjunct faculty. The Dean and or Associate Dean have counseled adjunct faculty regarding student feedback and, at times, decided not to re-hire certain adjunct faculty. The procedure for adjunct evaluation includes forms that are Unit developed. These evaluation forms [See  Exhibit 5.5.6.1] are filled out and signed by the Unit head (or their designee) and the adjunct instructor. In addition, adjunct faculty performance is reviewed with the respective program director at the conclusion of the semester. Evaluations of adjunct instructors are kept on file in the designated College or School office. In addition to the administrative process for faculty evaluation, all courses serviced by the unit are formally evaluated to provide evidence of faculty teaching performance. The results of these evaluations are required on individual faculty annual review documents.

The primary goal of faculty evaluation is to improve teaching, scholarship, and professional service. These evaluations lead to course and program evaluation and revision, and serve as key benchmark in faculty growth and program consistency. Overall, faculty performs well on their annual evaluations and every effort is made to ensure faculty success. Those who are not successful in advancing toward tenure, typically transition after the third-year review. Consequently, most faculty who make a bid for tenure are awarded tenure. Cooperating teachers’ effectiveness is assessed through the office of the Director of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice where candidates and university clinical faculty provide feedback/perception of the cooperating teacher.


Return to referring page.