Assist Instructors To Become More Effective Teachers
The Professional and Academic Center for Excellence (PACE) was created to promote excellence in teaching among faculty.
Objective
Effective Teaching
Instructors who consult with PACE regarding their teaching will demonstrate effective teaching strategies.
KPI
Active Learning
Research informs that using active learning activities in the college classroom increases student learning outcomes; the indicator will be use of active learning techniques. Individual faculty consulting with PACE will use at least one active learning strategy during the academic year.
Result
Active Learning Result
Consultees reported using at least one learning activity or were observed to use several learning activities during an observation.
KPI
Teaching Effectiveness
Effective teaching will improve student perception of the instructor as indicated on the Individual Development and Educational Assessment (IDEA). The score Excellent Teacher and excellent Course on IDEA will increase for each individual participant in PACE by one-tenth point (e.g., from 2.25 to 2.35).
Result
Teaching Evaluations
Although faculty have received their IDEA results for Spring 2012, they are not yet available to the PACE Center. In looking back from fall 2011 - Fall 2010, gains for faculty evaluations were very modest if increased at all. Faculty reports for Spring 2012 have been positive; however, these reports cannot be verified yet.
KPI
Consultation
The number of faculty consulters during 2011-2012 will be 14.
Result
Consultees
There were ten consultees during the year. Some of them met with the consultant more than one time and were observed one to three times over the year.
Action
Mixed Results
It became clear during observations that faculty know how to use learning activities and engage students. They do not always use their skills as reported by students who related to the observer that the class was better when the observer was present. Consistency in using teaching skills will need to be addressed.
Teaching effectiveness was mixed with some instructors improving modestly or maybe even decreasing in score. However, the most recent faculty evaluations are not yet available for perusal. Once the spring 2012 evaluations are available, comparisons can be made and reported next year.
Individual consultees did not reach the goal of 14; however, the ten were frequently seen several times or were observed one to three times. The director will be assigned as director for 50% of time, up from 25%. This may provide more time to increase number of consultations.
Goal
Professional Development For SHSU Staff
The goal is to include staff in professional development.
Objective
Time Management Workshop For SHSU Staff
SHSU staff who attend a time management workshop will be able to name at least one strategy they plan to try.
Indicator
Workshop Evaluation
The evaluation requests that attendees list at least one area of time management where they feel successful. They were also asked to name at least one time waster they would consider discarding. Finally, they were asked to name at least one time management tip from the workshop they thought they could utilize.
Criterion
Time Management
After staff attend the time management session, 80% will be able to name at least one area of time management where they already believe they are successful. 85% will be able to name at least one time waster they would consider discarding.
Finding
Time Management For Staff
Approximately 97 staff members from SHSU attended the time management where PACE also provided a lunch. However, we were able to collect only 91 evaluations. 92% of staff could name at least one area in which they were successful with time management. Only 41% had discovered a time waster they would consider discarding.
The way the evaluation is set up, there seems to be a tendency to answer the first couple of items and then blow the rest off to some extent. PACE needs to remember this when evaluating workshops.
Action
Evaluations
In the future the goal items will be listed first on the evaluation; we will also need to keep the evaluation short with just significant items included.
Goal
New Faculty Investment
The goal is to present a yearly effective New Faculty Investment.
Objective
New Faculty Investment
New faculty attending the New Faculty Investment will be able to list at least one fact learned from each presentation.
Indicator
New Faculty Orientation To SHSU Services Evaluation
The evaluation requests a rating of how helpful the presentation was and listing at least one thing learned during the presentation.
Criterion
New Faculty Investment Evaluation Results
New faculty will be able to list at least one fact learned from each presentation. Additionally, at least 80% of attendees will rate each presentation as helpful.
Finding
New Faculty Investment
Seven out of nine presenters were rated above 80% for being helpful. Computer Services was listed as 78%, and 2nd Year Faculty was rated as 55% helpful. Having the new faculty jot down something they learned from the presentations was not as high. The lowest was 2nd Year Faculty with 22% learning something from the presentation. There were three presenters who rated the highest at 78%: SAM Center, Computer Services, and NGL Library.
This is the second year in a row that the 2nd year faculty presenters have been rated lowest in their helpfulness and providing new faculty with something they did not already know.
Action
New Faculty Investment
The 2nd Year Faculty will not be part of the evaluative process next year. Computer Services is odd in that 78% found it helpful and 78% said they learned something, a rating that was among the highest. The Dean of Students was higher this year than last year with 89% rating his presentation as helpful. We will be inviting everyone back except the 2nd year students.