Faculty will be effective scholars as evidenced by the portfolio documenting their scholarship on an annual basis
KPI
Review Of Faculty Scholarship
For the Psychology Program: Evaluation of faculty scholarship portfolios according to the Program 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. For the Philosophy program, the rubric for Scholarship included: 5 points for Books and funded external grants; 4 points for publications in print and funded internal grants; 3 points for publication in press, submitted grants, and book chapters; 2 points for conference presentation, book reviews, and submitted articles. 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
Faculty Scholarship
Within the Psychology program, faculty scores based upon the rubric listed above ranged from 0 to 61 with a mean of 17.06. Ratings on a 1-5 scale had a mean of 3.53. Five of the 17 tenure-track or tenured faculty in the Program did not meet the criterion of 3. Each met individually with the Department chair and the progress of each was discussed at length. Each was encouraged strongly to put more effort into becoming more involved in scholarship. For the Philosophy faculty, scores based upon the aforementioned rubric ranged from 0 to 20 with a mean of 9.4. Scholarship ratings on a scale of 1-5 ranged from 1-5 with a mean of 3.2. One faculty member did not meet criterion. This faculty member met with the chair to discuss ramifications of scoring at this level and was encouraged to become more involved in research.
Action
Scholarship
In general, the chair was pleased with the performance of the Departmental faculty with respect to scholarship. There were some troubling issues, though. Five of the facuty members in Psychology failed to meet criterion. Interestingly, all five are tenured faculty members, one an Assistant Professor, one an Associate, and three Full. We have worked with the Assistant Professor over several years and will continue to work with that person. Sometimes, though, the onus falls on the faculty member and he or she should accept full responsibility for his or her own progress. The chair spoke at length with the Associate and she is becoming more engaged in working in a collaborative way with others in the Department. In fact, she currently has articles in the "pipeline," one currently being reviewed and others in various stages of preparation. Another factor is that over the past year, this faculty member was heavily engaged in preparing materials for program accreditation (which was successful), therefore, we understand this year's scores for that faculty member. Of the Fulls, one is on Administrative reassignment and shouldn't be counted in the total, one currently has several projects at various levels of peparation, and one wishes to be evaluated on a 4-4 load schema, as opposed to the 3-3 schema he currently is on. This is not a problem and his rating rose sharply when evaluated on the 4-4 schema.
Of the Philosophy faculty, only one individual failed to meet criterion. This is very troubling as this person does not have tenure. The chair spoke with the individual and encouraged that individual to become more involved. Again, at some point, the onus falls on the faculty member to perform.
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 (excellent faculty = .5), faculty track (teaching or research), number of sections, number of students in each section, etc. (=.5) The goal is that faculty score a minimum of 3 on a scale of 1-5.
Result
Teaching Excellence
For Psychology Program faculty, the Chair's Rating of Teaching Excellence, using the aforementioned rubric, ranged from 3.865 to 5.0 with a mean of 4.25. In only considering the student IDEA "Excellent Teacher" scores, the psychology faculty ranged from 3.4 to 4.87 with a mean of 4.41. For the Philosophy Program faculty, the Chair's Rating of Teaching Excellence ranged from 3.71 to 4.47 with a mean of 4.03. In only considering the student IDEA "Excellent Teacher" scores, the philosophy faculty ranged from 3.67 to 4.73 with a mean of 4.19. All tenured and tenure-track faculty from both programs met criterion.
Action
Teaching Excellence
The chair was pleased with the aforementioned results. There is a concern, though, because the reported results were with means over the various courses each instructor was teaching. This may tend to mask deficits in particular course for particular faculty members. Therefore, the chair is reviewing the scores on each course to determine if are any weaknesses that were masked. If this is the case, the chair will meet with the faculty and advise them of a potential problem and, if need be, see if the faculty member can be transferred to courses that seem to be a better fit for that faculty. The chair also is concerned using the five-point scale with respect to assessing faculty teaching effectiveness and will approach the members of the Department about using a perhaps more discriminative value, i.e., the t-score for "Excellent Teacher Compared to the Discipline." It is believed that this will give us a better indication of how well our faculty are doing compared with other institutions.
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 by looking at Overall Ratings, the average student agreement with statements that the teacher and the course were excellent.
Result
IDEA Scores
During the fall 2012 semester, 77% of the section taught by the Department of Psychology and Philosophy were above the IDEA database average. During the spring 2013 semester, 74% of the sections were above the IDEA database average. These percentages are based upon t-scores with the mean being 50. The rubric used by the Department of Psychology and Philosophy, currently, is that faculty members should score in the "middle 40%." In using that standard, of the tenured and tenure-track faculty, 98 sections were offered. Of those sections, 91 sections were in that gray box or higher and 7 were below that level. Thus, for the academic year 2012-2013, 92.9% of the courses were deemed acceptable, by the rubrics used during that academic year.
Action
IDEA Score Evaluatons
The Department did well with respect to IDEA score evaluations. In retrospect, though, using the middle 40% as an acceptable level of performance may be a bit lenient. During the next academic year, and OATdb cycle, the Department will make a change using the minimum acceptable criterion at 50 or above on the "Summary Evaluation" with respect to the discipline. It is believed that this will give us a better view as to how well the Department is doing compared to other institutions. Criterion would be that we would have 75% or our courses over that 50% level.
We continue to have concerns about courses taught by adjunct faculty. Over the past year, adjunct faculty having low IDEA scores have had meetings with the Chair of the Department and given advice as to how to handle problems that seem to have occurred with respect to evaluations. Some have gone to the PACE center, some to teaching workshops, and some have sought the expertise of faculty members who traditionally get high evaluations. We have had individuals who have chosen not to return to the University and have replaced these individuals with, hopefully, more effective instructors.
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 Psychology Program 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
Eleven of the 17 courses listed in the Levy Curriculum Matirx met criterion requiring knowledge in the "Current Perspectives" section of the Matrix.
Action
Curriculum Evaluation
Faculty proposing new courses will be given a copy of the Levy Curriculum Matrix and it will be impressed upon them that the factors listed in the "Current Perspectives" section of the matrix should be considered prior to the courses being submitted to the Curriculum Committee.
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% for Challenging Program, High Quality Program, and Diversi Program.
In addition, we sought to measure the ability the apply and communicate scientific knowledge and generate scientific knowledge. These two factors were assessed by looking at embedded questions on the Psychology 3101, Elementary Statistics Laboratory, final exam. Criterion was set at 80% for each factor.
Result
Senior Survey
Results from the Senior Survey show that: 1. 72% of our graduating students view the program as a "challenging" program; 2. 87% viewed the program as of "high quality;" 3. 63% rated the program as diverse.
With a criterion set at 75%, we met criterion only on "Quality of Program" and fell short on the other factors.
With respect to Applying and Communicating Scientific Knowledge, 79% of the students were able to do this. As for Generating Scientific Knowledge, 72% were able to do this.
As for Applying and Communicating Scientific Knowledge and Generating Scientific Knowledge, we failed to meet the 80% criterion.
Action
Senior Survey
The percentages for Quality, Diversity, and Challenging Program are up from the previous cycle. Thus, it appears that changes we have made are working, although at a slower pace than we sould like. One must keep in mind that these changes were instituted this past year and, thus, only affected the students over a maximum of 50%, and perhaps even 25%, of their time in our program. As these changes affect freshmen, sophomores, and juniors, we expect that the numbers will continue to rise. Faculty members are encouraged to give comprehensive final exams, increase writing assignmens, and toughen up standards for their specific classes. With respect to Applying and Communicating Scientific Knowledge and Generating Scientific Knowledge, we are attempting to make the students more aware of how statistics and being able to communicate information in an informed way is a valuable asset in their lives. To do this, we are trying to make the course materials as germane to their lives as possible. We believe this will have the benefit of making them realize the value of scientifically-based, informed decisions.