Faculty will be effective scholars as evidenced by the portfolio documenting their scholarship on an annual basis
Indicator
Review Of Faculty Scholarship
Evaluation of faculty scholarship portfolios according to the Department guidelines for Scholarly & Artistic Endeavors. Factors in this category include: number and assessed quality of publications in externally reviewed journals; number of presentations at national, international, and regional conferences, number of students impacted by the faculty member in a mentorship role.
Criterion
Scholarship Evaluation Score
A score of 3 or more on a 5-point scale on the Scholarly & Artistic Endeavors Rubric is considered to be minimally satisfactory. The scale took into consideration: 1. published books; 2. articles printed in reviewed journals; 3. articles in print in non-reviewed journals; 4. articles submitted to reviewed journals; 5. articles in press; 6. presentations at regional/national/international conventions.
Finding
Scholarship Evaluation Score.
Seventeen of 21 faculty scored above criterion (3+) on the Scholarship Evaluation Assessment.
Action
Scholarship Evaluation Score
Four of the faculty did not meet criterion for this category. All four have met with the chair of the department and were encouraged to engage in scholarly activity over the next year. Two of those individuals were in the Psychology Program and two were in the Philosophy Program. The chair discussed with each the need to collect data and, if data had been collected, submit those data to regional, national, and international conferences before preparing those studies for publication. Two actually had studies/manuscripts in progress and they were urged to prepare and submit the materials as quickly as possible. The chair spoke with two to devise strategies that would increase the probabilility of involvement in research. These individuals were strongly encouraged to partake in research conferences offered by the College of Humanities and Social Sciences and the University. Laboratory space has been made available to the faculty and extra travel monies have been set aside for these individuals in the event that they do produce publishable/presentable data/manuscripts.
Goal
Teaching Excellence
Faculty demonstrate high level of teaching effectiveness
Objective
Teaching Portfolios
Faculty will engage in effective teaching as evidenced by a portfolio documenting their teaching activities on an annual basis
Indicator
Teaching Portfolio Review
Evaluation of faculty teaching portfolios according to the Department Chair Guidelines for Teaching Evaluations. Factors in this indicator include: number of courses taught, student evaluations, whether the course was required or an elective, level of the course (doctoral, MA, BS), number of students in each section, writing enhanced or not, content of the course, etc.
Criterion
Teaching Portfolio Ratings
All department faculty are expected to score a 3 or better on the Chair's evaluation of teaching rubric. Rubric for this evaluation consists of: 1. number of courses taught; 2. IDEA Excellent Teacher evaluation; 3. IDEA Summary Course evaluation; 4. Level of classes taught (e.g., Ph.D., MA, Undergraduate); 5. number of preparations; 6. number of students instructed.
Finding
Teaching Portfolio Ratings
All members of the program met criterion with respect to the Chair's rating of teaching. The range of scores was 3.65 to 5.00 with a mean of 4.55.
Action
Teaching Portfolio Ratings
Criterion was met, and actually, the scores exceeded those from 2008-2009 performance levels. We are pleased with this but will continue to explain to new faculty the importance of all of the factors in the teaching portfolios. In addition, any faculty falling below a 4.0 has met with the chair to discuss strategies to become a more effective teacher. Particular steps have included mandatory attendance at the College Teaching Conference in August, mentoring with more effective teachers in the department, being referred to the PACE Program on campus. Furthermore, starting with the next academic year, tenure-track faculty will be subject to peer review of teaching. Currently, members of Departmental Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee (DPTAC) are working on an instrument to evaluate teaching with peer review. The instrument will be in place by Fall 2010.
Objective
Individual Development And Educational Assessment (IDEA) Evaluations
IDEA student evaluations of teaching will indicate that faculty are engaging in effective teaching as indicated by their summary scores
Indicator
IDEA Ratings
A summary IDEA score at or above the institution mean is considered to be satisfactory. Consistent with IDEA recommendations, converted averages on IDEA evaluations that are in the gray box (middle 40%) are considered to be "effective teaching." All faculty have students evaluate each of their classes during the Fall and Spring semesters using the IDEA teaching evaluations. The IDEA system focuses on student learning of 12 specific objectives, and the system solicits students' feedback on their own learning progress, effort, and motivation, as well as their perceptions of the instructor's use of 20 instructional strategies and teaching methods. In addition, the system surveys instructors regarding their overall goals and highlights for them in the analysis and report. The system adjusts evaluation scores for five areas beyond the instructor's control, such as class size; student motivation, effort and work habits; and disciplinary difficulty. The scores are then compared to national norms. Teaching effectiveness is assessed in two ways: A. Progress on Relevant Objectives, a weighted average of student ratings of the progress they reported on objectives selected as "Important" or "Essential" (double weighted) and B. Overall Ratings, the average student agreement with statements that the teacher and the course were excellent.
Criterion
Teaching Effectiveness
The criteria for teaching effectiveness are for each faculty member to score at or above a 3.8 on Progress on Relevant Objectives and at or above a 4.0 on Overall Ratings: the average of B (excellent teacher) & C (excellent course).
Each faculty member will receive a summary score at or above the institution average to be considered satisfactory.
Finding
IDEA Summary Score
1. Meeting Relevant Objectives: the mean for the faculty on this criterion was 4.293 with a range of 3.6-5.0. As for meeting relevant objectives, the University average on this item was 4.1 and the national average on this item was 3.8. Therefore, our Departmental average exceeded both these scores and we met this criterion. On the other hand, while the Departmental average was acceptable, two individual faculty members did not reach criterion. We have addressed "actions" for those faculty members in the sections below.
2. As for Overall Ratings, the mean IDEA summary score for SHSU was 4.1. Twenty of the 21 faculty members in the Department of Psychology and Philosophy received a score of 4.1 or better. Only one faculty member received a score below 4.1 (the one faculty member scoring a 3.7 on overall rating). In summary, the mean for members of the Department of Psychology and Philosophy was 4.425 with a range of 3.70 to 4.95.
Action
IDEA Scores
Criterion of meeting relevant objectives was met except that one or two faculty members fell below the 3.8 on a couple of courses. A member of DPTAC met with these faculty and advised them as to strategies to increase their particular scores on this measure.
With respect to Summary Evaluation Scores, the Department as a whole did quite well with only one faculty member falling below the 4.1 University mean. The chair, along with the program coordinator has met with the individual involved and devised a strategy for her to bring her scores in line with other members of the Department. These include: visiting the PACE Center, working with a senior faculty member on presentation of materials and expectations, etc.
Goal
Curriculum
Faculty asses the extent to which the curriculum covers a broad base of the filed of psychology
Objective
Curriculum Evaluation
Courses in the Department of Psychology will be evaluated in terms of the breadth of topics covered in the field.
Indicator
Curriculum Matrix
Courses will be compared to the matrix designed by Levy et al. & published in Teaching of Psychology (1999). The chair made the comparisons based upon the syllabi for each course. In addition, the chair asked individual faculty about specific courses and whether those courses met criterion for the Levy et al. matrix.
Criterion
Percent of Courses Covering Current Perspectives
50% of courses in the psychology curriculum are expected to require knowledge of the "Current Perspectives" section of the Levy Curriculum Matrix.
Finding
Current Perspectives
Nine of the 17 areas listed in the Current Perspectives section of the Levy Curriculum Matrix met the criterion requiring knowledge in that section.
Action
Current Perspectives
The criterion was met. In perusing the list of courses/areas on the Levy Curriculum Matrix, it was noted that courses within each Program Block, i.e., Experimental; Clinical-Adjustment-Applied; Personality-Social-Developmental, were represented in the Matrix. We will continue to monitor all courses in the curriculum to ensure that we satisfy the criteria of the Matrix.