OATdb Archive

2011 - 2012

Psychology And Philosophy, Department Of

Goal
Faculty Scholarship
Faculty generate and disseminate scholarship

Objective
Scholarship Portfolios
Faculty will be effective scholars as evidenced by the portfolio documenting their scholarship on an annual basis

KPI
Review Of Faculty Scholarship
Evaluation of faculty scholarship portfolios according to the Department guidelines for Scholarly & Artistic Endeavors. Factors in this category include: text books written (4 pts); number and assessed quality of publications in externally reviewed journals or funded grants (3 pts); number of presentations at national, international, and regional conferences, or submitted grants, or book chapters, or publications in press (2 pts); conference presentations, book reviews, submitted articles (1 pt). Totals were summed and results were put on a scale of 1-5 with 0-2=1; 3-5=2; 6-10=3; 11-15=4; 16+=5. Criterion for an individual faculty member was set at 3.

Result
Scholarship
Scholarship over the past year was assessed using the aforementioned criteria. Scores between Psychology and Philosophy are reported separately as the qualitatively different fields may require different expectations.

For both programs, portfolios were rated on a scale of 1 to 5.

For Psychology, the mean rating was 3.41 with a range of 1-5.
For Philosophy, the mean rating was 3.80 with a range of 3-4.


Action
Scholarship Evaluation Actions
Two faculty members failed to meet the minimal standards set forth by the Department guidelines. One of these faculty members has habitually been at this level of productivity and the other appears merely to have had a "down" year. Each member of the faculty had a meeting with the chair to discuss professional scholarship. The former faculty member actually since has submitted an IRB form to carry out a research project. The latter currently is working with several students who are collecting and analyzing data.



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

KPI
Teaching Portfolio Review
Evaluation of faculty teaching portfolios according to the Department Chair Guidelines for Teaching Evaluations. Factors in this indicator include: student evaluations, faculty track (teaching or research), number of sections, number of students in each section, etc. The goal is that faculty score a minimal of 3 on a five-point scale.

Result
Chair's Rating Of Teaching Effectiveness
For the Psychology program in the Department, the Chair's ratings for individual faculty members for the fall semester ranged from 3.55 to 4.95 with a mean of 4.40. For the spring semester, the range was 3.40 to 5.00 with a mean of 4.09.

For the Philosophy program, the Chair's rating for individual faculty members for the fall semester ranged from 3.59 to 4.85 with a mean of 4.23 for the spring semester, the range was 3.20 to 4.20 with a mean of 3.60.

With the criterion of an overall minimal score of 3.0, all faculty members attained the necessary level of performance. A problem that comes to mind is that evaluations of particular course formats, i.e., on-line courses, seem to be rated consistently lower than in-class courses. To deal with this, the chair is working with the Office of Distance Learning at the University to see if any specialized training programs can be made available to those faculty involved in on-line courses. 

Action
Teaching Portfolio Review
As stated above, on-line courses consistently are rated lower than in-class courses. The Chair of the Department has spoken, and will continue to speak, with representatives from the Office of Distance Learning to see what sorts of support systems will be in place in the Fall 2012 semester to negate this effect. Additionally, the College of Humanities and Social Sciences recently received a "permanent" representative from the Office of Distance Learning, so that faculty involved in those courses will have easier access when problems arise. This individual already has been apprised of the situation. Finally, portions of the Distance Learning Funds will be set aside for a Departmental representative for Distance Learning and for support for faculty to attend conferences specifically aimed at bettering Distance Learning.

For all courses in the Department, we are targeting faculty members with low teaching evaluations, giving them individual strategies that appear to increase those evaluations, and having them visit the PACE Center for further help.


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

KPI
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 these 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.

Result
IDEA Teaching Results
The mean Summary IDEA scores for the Psychology/Philosophy programs of the Department for the Spring and Fall semesters were 3.9 and 4.1, respectively.

The University summary for Spring and Fall semester were 4.2 and 4.2, respectively

Concerning Progress on Relevant Objectives, the University means were 4.2 for Spring 2011 and 4.2 for Fall 2011. The Departmental means were 4.0 for the Spring 2011 and 4.1 for the Fall 2011. 


Action
IDEA Evaluations
These data are very troubling. The Chair of the Department currently is inspecting results for individual courses and individual faculty members to determine why our scores fell below the University average. Once these have been determined, the instructors will be required to attend the College Teaching Conference offered each Fall. In addition, these faculty will be given information as how to more appropriately designate which descriptors should be rated as "essential," "important," and "minor." 
We have instituted teaching mentors for all new faculty and the Department Promotion & Tenure Advisory Committee (DPTAC) is assigning senior faculty to visit and assess classes within the Department.  

As stated in the previous objective, on-line courses consistently are rated lower than in-class courses. The Chair of the Department has spoken, and will continue to speak, with representatives from the Office of Distance Learning to see what sorts of support systems will be in place in the Fall 2012 semester to negate this effect. Additionally, the College of Humanities and Social Sciences recently received a "permanent" representative from the Office of Distance Learning, so that faculty involved in those courses will have easier access when problems arise. This individual already has been apprised of the situation. Finally, portions of the Distance Learning Funds will be set aside for a Departmental representative for Distance Learning and for support for faculty to attend conferences specifically aimed at bettering Distance Learning.

For all courses in the Department, we are targeting faculty members with low teaching evaluations, giving them individual strategies that appear to increase those evaluations, and having them visit the PACE Center for further help.

Goal
Curriculum
Faculty assess the extent to which the curriculum covers a broad base of the field 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.

KPI
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.  50% of courses in the psychology curriculum are expected to require knowledge of the "Current Perspectives" section of the Levy Curriculum Matrix.

Result
Curriculum Evaluation
Ten of the courses/areas listed in the Current Perspectives portion of the Levy Curriculum Matrix met the criterion requiring knowledge of that section.

Action
Curriculum Evaluation
We are assessing courses taught in the department with respect to the Levy Curriculum Matrix. Faculty proposing new courses will be given a copy of the matrix to help guide them in developing the new courses.

Goal
Undergraduate Student Perception Of Psychology Learning
Undergraduates students will be satisfied with learning opportunties.

Objective
Undergraduate Student Perception Of Psychology Offerings
Students will indicate an appreciation for the diversity of fields within psychology and their realization that elementary statistics has enabled them to improve critical thinking to evaluate ideas and arguments in problem-solving.


KPI
Senior Survey
The Psychology Senior Survey is given to graduating seniors. The goal for ratings is at least 75%.

Result
Senior Survey
The percentage of students filling out the Senior Survey that rated the diversity of the program at 4 or higher on a five-point Likert scale was 62% for the 2011-2012 academic year. Thus, criterion of 75% was not met.

With respect to the psychology program being academically challenging, 72% of the students rated the psychology program at a 4 or above on a five-point Likert scale.

Finally, 77% rated their "Quality of Experience" in our program at a 4 or higher on a five-point Likert scale.

Action
Student Perceptions
Concerning the student perceptions of our program, while a majority of those responding to the Senior Survey rated the psychology program as "Diverse,", "Challenging," and "Of High Quality," we don't feel that the percentages were high enough. With respect to diversity, one approach is to advise more students to take more of their elective courses from the Experimental Block. As for "Challenging," faculty will be encouraged to give comprehensive final exams, to increase writing assignments, and to toughen up standards in their specific classes. With respect to "High Quality," we believe that the steps outlined in the previous sentence will work here also. 


Update to previous cycle's plan for continuous improvement
Plan for continuous improvement With respect to Teaching Excellence, as measured by Teacher Portfolio Rating, all members of the Department met the criterion. The IDEA evaluation summary scores were a bit discomforting as the Department means fell below the Institution means. Inspecting individual faculty member's scores, we found that, eight of twenty-two faculty members failed to score at or above the Institution average, i.e., 4.2.  Three of those four individuals scored between a 4.06 and 4.18; four scored between 3.8 and 3.95; and one scored a 3.65. The five that were below a 4.0 are the most troubling and each will be asked to evaluate his or her courses and what may have caused them to fall below criterion. Two of the faculty are in their first or second years and are being monitored by senior faculty teaching mentors.

All faculty, regardless of IDEA scores will be encouraged, strongly, to attend the CHSS Teaching Conference in August. 

With respect to "Meeting Relevant Objectives" on the IDEA forms, the Department, the data are troubling in that criterion was not met. These data, though, included scores from TAs and adjunct facuty. When you eliminate those scores, our means are 4.3 and 4.3, for the Fall and Spring, respectively, which surpass the Institution standards. We still have a problem, though, with a few faculty not quite meeting the standards expected by the Department and demanded by the University. These faculty have been identified and are being directed in reassessing their goals and expectations for individual courses. As for the TAs and adjuncts, we are being more directive in how faculty should assess their courses and the chair is assessing desirability of particular adjuncts as continuing faculty. In addition, at the beginning of the Fall 2012 semester and at the time that evaluations are to be done for the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 semesters, the chair will schedule meetings with all faculty and the Director of the PACE Center to advise them as to how to best deal with the "Meeting with Relevant Objectives" component of their courses.

With respect to Curriculum Evaluation, the Department met its criterion with classes in each category of the Current Perspectives of the Levy Curriculum Matirx. We continue to monitor these courses and encourage consideration of the Matrix when faculty are developing courses to be added to the curriculum

Concerning Faculty Scholarship, five of 22 faculty members failed to reach criterion. Two of those were brand new faculty who currently are working on building a research program, a third is actively collecting data with a group of undergraduate and graduate students serving as her research team, and the fourth is being encouraged to become more involved. The last person has been afforded laboratory space and money has been set aside for travel. When it comes down to it, though, it really is up the the individual faculty member to take advantage of the opportunities made available by the department and the university. The chair is fairly limited to providing encouragement and incentives.

We also need to incorporate more methodology in the content courses that we teach. This will only reinforce how scientific decisions are made how we gain knowledge through methodology and testing that is based upon theory.

Our program is viewed as relatively diverse but we need to make sure that we consider adding new courses or adding alternative ways of presenting courses to reach the maximum number of students with the maximum impact.

Sam Houston State University | A Member of The Texas State University System