Accreditation Preparation: A Faculty Evaluation Model Based on

1
Accreditation Preparation A Faculty Evaluation
Model Based on WCET Best Practice Standards
Amber Dailey, Emily Donnelli, Linda Passamaneck,
Marthann Schulte Park University
2
Presentation Outline

• Fitting best practice to institutional context
• Breaking the mold of faculty evaluation to
  inspire institutional change
• Sharing our process and feedback from our pilot
• Generating dialogue and application

3

• History/Context of Park University
• 21,000 students annually in Parkville, Mo,
• throughout the US at over 40 campus centers
• Online
• Began as a pilot in 1996 with 20 students
• 7 BS Degree Completion Programs 3 Online
• Masters Degree Programs
• Courses offered in 5 8-week terms

4
(No Transcript)
5

• Park Universitys Online Programs
• Over 8,000 enrollments per term / Over 40,000
  enrollments annually
• Over 400 course sections per term
• Over 250 Online faculty per term
• Online faculty retention is determined by
  departmental program coordinators
• Online faculty evaluated their first term and
  then annually thereafter

6
Issues Faced with Legacy Evaluation System

• 3 part-time Online faculty to conduct
  evaluations, and handle student complaints /
  academic honesty issues
• Essentially a replication of the Face-to-Face
  system
• Not based on what instructors were trained on or
  needed to know to be successful Online
  instructors
• Video Clip Dr. John Noren, Dean, College for
  Distance Learning

7
Park University Vision Mission
Park University Vision international leader,
innovative opportunities, global society. Park
University Mission entrepreneurial institution,
access to academic excellence, think critically,
communicate effectively, lifelong learning.
8
Park University Vision Mission School of
Online Learning Vision Mission
SOL Mission premier provider, opportunities,
adult learners, nation-wide. SOL Vision Access
to academic excellence, think critically,
communicate effectively, lifelong learning,
global community.
9
Park University Vision Mission School of
Online Learning Vision Mission Seven
Principles for Good Practice
1 Contact 2 Reciprocity 3 Active learning 4
Feedback 5 Time on Task 6 High Expectations 7
Diverse Talents
10
Park University Vision Mission School of
Online Learning Vision Mission Seven
Principles for Good Practice WCET Best
Practices
1 Institutional Context Commitment 2
Curriculum Instruction 3 Faculty
Support 4 Student Support 5 Evaluation
Assessment
11
Park University Vision Mission School of
Online Learning Vision Mission Seven
Principles for Good Practice WCET Best
Practices Course Standards
12
Park University Vision Mission School of
Online Learning Vision Mission Seven
Principles for Good Practice WCET Best
Practices Course Standards Faculty Evaluation
Program
13
Functions and Goals
The intent of the Park University Online
Instructor Evaluation Program is to ensure
quality in all Online classrooms.

• Inform personnel decisions
• Improve instructor performance
• Enhance student satisfaction
• Identify professional development needs
• Encourage scholarship of teaching
• Prepare for accreditation visit

14
Evaluation Components
Formative Instructor Appraisals
Student MidtermFeedback
Faculty Professional Development Plan
End of Term Student Evaluations
Summative Instructor Appraisal
Faculty Reflective Self-Appraisal
The process emphasizes the instructor as a
reflective and involved participant in the
evaluation process.
15
Implementation Stakeholders
Student
Instructor
Program Coordinator
Instructor Evaluator
Summative
Formative
16
Implementation Stakeholders
Student
Program Coordinator
Instructor
Instructor Evaluator
Summative
Formative
17
Implementation Stakeholders
Student
Program Coordinator
Instructor
Instructor Evaluator
Summative
Formative
18
Implementation Stakeholders
Student
Program Coordinator
Instructor
Instructor Evaluator
Summative
Formative
19
Implementation Stakeholders
Student
Instructor
Program Coordinator
Instructor Evaluator
Summative
Formative
20
Evaluation Guide
21
Instructor Retention Recommendations

• Along with the Evaluation Program Documentation,
  the
• Instructor Evaluator also sends a Recommendation
  Form
• which includes notes, observations, and one of
  the
• following options below
• Recommendation to Retain
• Recommendation to Retain with Contingencies (i.e.
  limit sections, limit number of students, follow
  evaluation subsequent term, etc.)
• Recommendation to Not Retain

22
How did it Work? Instructor Feedback

• It helps knowing that Park is committed to our
  success as new online instructors.
• I have printed out copies of all my appraisals
  and I review them all every couple of days to
  make sure that I am on track.
• Thanks so much for taking the time to review my
  class. It is obvious that you have invested a
  lot of time in the evaluation process.
• I love the constructive criticism and since this
  is my first time teaching online courses, it is
  greatly appreciatedas I go through the course I
  see my mistakes as well as the positives. Your
  suggestions are great...
• The appraisal process is worthwhile will
  benefit me for many future terms, so I feel it is
  an important investment in the future of Park
  faculty and students.
• Video clip Mr. Ken Austin Introduction to
  Macroeconomics Instructor

23
How did it Work? Evaluator Feedback

• Time commitment to complete formative appraisals
• Content development v. content facilitation
• Developing relationships with instructors through
  formative appraisals

24
Pilot II Revisions

• Formative appraisals reduced from 9 to 5
• Further refinement of evaluation instrument
  questions to emphasize course facilitation over
  content development
• Comment banks to ensure consistency and to
  provide more time to develop collegiality

25
Questions Challenges to Consider

• Implementation
• How to best put the program online and collect
  data?
• How many instructors can one instructor evaluator
  reasonably handle each term?
• What will be the ongoing costs?
• How to record these results in legacy data
  system?
• What will the Reactions to the Evaluation Program
  be from
• Current Instructors?
• Program Coordinators?
• How will the Evaluation Program Effect Related
  Processes?
• Instructor Scheduling
• Instructor promotion
• Faculty training development

26
(No Transcript)