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 (5 pts); number and assessed quality of publications in externally reviewed journals or funded grants (4 pts); number of presentations at national, international, and regional conferences, or submitted grants, or book chapters (3 pts); conference presentations, book reviews, submitted articles (2 pt); first author (1 pt). Totals were summed and results were put on a scale of 1-5 with 0-5=1; 6-10=2; 11-15=3; 16-20=4; 21+=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/or funded internal grants; 3 points for submitted grants and/or book chapters; 2 points for conference presentation, book reviews, and submitted articles; 1 point for first author. Totals were summed and results were put on a scale of 0-5 with 0-5=1; 6-10=2; 11-15=3; 15-20=4; 21+=5. Criterion for an individual faculty member was set at 3.
Result
Scholarship
Within the Psychology program, faculty scores based upon the rubric listed above ranged from 2 to 66 with a mean of 26.6. Ratings on a 1-5 scale had a mean of 3.89. Three of the 18 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 7 to 17 with a mean of 13.2. Scholarship ratings on a scale of 1-5 ranged from 2-4.5 with a mean of 3.5. 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
The chair was pleased with the performance of the Departmental faculty with respect to scholarship. In psychology, the mean overall scholarship score increased over the previous year as did the mean of the scholarship ratings. The previous year five of seventeen faculty members failed to reach criterion. This year, three of 19 faculty members failed to reach criterion. All three not meeting criterion are tenured faculty members, one an Assistant Professor, one an Associate, and one a 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 Full Professor and urged them to become more engaged in scholarship and to work in a collaborative way with others in the Department Of the Philosophy faculty, only one individual failed to meet criterion. This is very troubling and 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. And, I should point out that this person will not be rejoining our faculty after the 2014-2015 academic year.
Goal
Teaching Excellence
Faculty demonstrate high level of teaching effectiveness
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, in the past we had used converted averages on IDEA evaluations that are in the gray box (middle 40%) to be considered "effective teaching." 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 adjusted course summary compared to the discipline with a mean of 50. Criterion for effective teaching is that the deparment's average scores will exceed the IDEA system mean and will exceed the Institution mean on the adjusted Summary Evaluation. We also will expect that the Department's percent of classes at or above the IDEA database average and at or above the Institution's average will be 70% or higher.
Result
Idea Ratings
Results from the Fall 2013 semester for the Department of Psychology and Philosophy show that the Idea Summary Evaluation (Adjusted) for the Department exceeded the IDEA System scores by 3 points, 54 to 51, and 4.2 to 3.9 on a 5-point scale. Additionally, the department's average scores exceeded the Institution by two point, 52 to 50, and 4.2 to 4.1 on a 5-point scale. The percents of classes at or above the Idea Database average was 71% and 68% when compared to the Institution's average.
Action
IDEA Ratings
We did well with respect to departmental ratings when compared with the IDEA system, exceeding the criterion of 70%. The department ratings did not quite reach criterion when compared to the Institution's ratings. The chair will review each class and each faculty member to determine if there are specific courses or specific instructors who consistently have scored below the departmental mean. The chair then will meet with the faculty members and encourage them strongly to assess their presentation styles and to attend the teaching conference offered by the College each fall semester.
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 teacher = .8), faculty track (teaching or research), number of sections, number of students in each section, etc. (=.2) The goal is that faculty score a minimum of 3 on a scale of 1-5.
Result
Teaching Portfolio
Scores on the Chair's Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness ranged from 3.4 to 5 with a mean of 4.46 for the Psychology program in the Department. For the Philosophy Program, scores ranged from 4.0 to 5, with a mean of 4.53.
Action
Teaching Portfolio
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 poll the faculty as to how teaching effectiveness may be better assessed.
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 Matrix
76.47% of the couses in the Levy Curriculum Matrix met the criterion of the Current Perspectives section of the matrix.
Action
Curriculum Matrix
The chair will continue to evaluate syllabi to ensure that the courses meet criterion for the Levy Curriculum Matrix.
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 a Challenging Program and a High Quality Program, as indicated by a 4 or a 5 on a 5-point likert scale.
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 for the senior survey show that: 1. Seventy-one percent of our students graduating student view the program as a "challenging" program; 2. Eighty-six percent rated the quality of the program as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point likert scale.
With criteria set for 75% we fell short on "Challenging Program" and but reached our criterion for "Quality of Program."
With respect to generating, applying and communicating scientific knowledge, results from embedded questions in the Psychology 3101 lab final show that 83% of our students were successful in generating and applying scientific knowledge but only 64% were successful in communicating scientific knowledge. Thus, we reached criterion on one measure but did not on the other measure.
Action
Senior Survey
The data show that our stduents regard our progam as being a quality program. We could score a little better on "Challenging" program and we will open up a discussion among the faculty this fall as to how we might make the program more challenging.
We also need to find out why our students have difficulty in "communicating scientific knowledge." It may be a lack of generalization or it may be we are not stressing this type of knowledge in our classes. Regardless of the reason, we will open up discussions this fall to try to rectify the situation.