Faculty Senate
Overview of Faculty Excellence Pilot Study
May 6, 2014
Context for Pilot Project Is Key
• Continued pressure concerning the cost and value of
higher education has brought the issue of faculty capacity
(excellence and productivity) to the forefront
• Questions have been raised regarding how VCU defines,
measures and promotes continued faculty excellence
• Understanding faculty capacity is important for providing
accountability to stakeholders
• The following slides provide a background on the current
state related to faculty excellence and a proposed timeline
for measuring and setting expectations moving forward
Defining Faculty Excellence: Productivity = Workload
Faculty Excellence can be described as intentionally establishing and
maintaining a balance among teaching, scholarship and service efforts
that supports and enhances the academic mission of the university and
its programs
•
•
•
Size and quality of faculty in strategically important academic areas
Assessment processes that evaluate performance and recognize
outstanding achievements
High levels of performance within core academic areas of focus
•
•
•
•
Research, scholarship and creativity
Teaching
Public service
Clinical activities (where applicable)
Faculty Capacity Is > Workload
• Workload is primarily about what faculty do (hours worked per week,
credit hours per faculty, number of students advised, research awards
administered, scope of research agenda, major service obligations)
• Productivity/excellence is also about the product or output of faculty
efforts, such as:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Which students are taught by which faculty with what type of results?
Are students graduating with marketable skills?
Are students continuing on to graduate study?
What research and scholarship activities are undertaken? With what
type of results?
Are faculty involved in service projects, professional obligations, or
other engagement activities?
What forms of awards and recognition do faculty receive nationally ?
Internationally?
Multiple Current Measurement Processes
•
SACS-COC 10-year Reaffirmation Process
o
o
•
Quest for Distinction performance tracking
o
o
•
Tracking system in place to identify faculty awards, academy memberships and
national / international honors
Target-setting and CMUP rankings
New faculty “Excellence” hires
o
•
Review and validation of faculty qualifications for teaching by course
Implementation of university-wide faculty “system of record” [Xitracs]
Set higher bar for recruitments: target for research $s already awarded or
national/international reputation within a discipline
State of the Faculty Report
o
o
First presented in November 2012
Annual updates every November, with continued expansion of faculty
information and analyses
Increased Emphasis on Infrastructure Support
•
Academic Analytics
o
o
o
•
Delaware Study: College of H&S (FY2011)
o
o
•
Quantify scholarly output by discipline
Comparisons to peers
Pilot completed FY13; university-wide implementation in FY14
Workload and expenditure data by discipline (CIP level)
Currently challenged to find peer comparisons by discipline
School-level faculty performance systems
o
o
Faculty Activity Reporting and Evaluation System (FARES) within 1st professional
schools
Faculty Evaluation System (FES) created within School of Business in FY 2011, built
off of FARES construct
Quarterly Updates to BOV AHA Committee
September
December
Background & Context
Faculty Panel
Presentation
•Rationale
•Methodologies
•Sample Metrics
•Current State
•Case Studies
•Discipline Variations:
•Arts
•Allied Health Professions
•Business
•Dentistry
•Education
•Measuring Excellence,
Capacity and
Productivity
Event cancelled –
scheduling conflict
February
Update on Pilot Study
•Metrics Selected
•Data Collection
Process
•Peer Identification
•Benchmarks and
Target Setting
Meeting cancelled snowstorm
May
Pilot Results & Next
Steps
•Performance by
Pilot Program
•Lessons Learned
•Recommendations
for University Rollout
•Implementation
Plan and Timeline
Preliminary Dashboard Concept
Initial Faculty Metrics
Description
Initial Student Metrics
Baseline
Metric
Description
Student HC : Teaching FTE Ratio
2nd Year Retention Rate
Average Student Credit Hours per
Teaching FTE
3rd Year Retention Rate
University Service per Service FTE
On-time Graduation Rate
(Graduate Programs only)
Professional Service per Service FTE
6-Year Graduation Rate
Sponsored Award $s per Research FTE
Noel-Levitz Student
Satisfaction: Curriculum
Scholarly Output per Research FTE
Clinical Revenues per Clinical FTE
Noel-Levitz Student
Satisfaction: Instruction
NSSE – 1st Year Freshman
Satisfaction
NSSE – Senior Satisfaction
Baseline
Metric
Goals and Key Findings
Pilot Study Goals
Key Findings
1. Balance common elements and
comparable metrics with unique
characteristics of disciplines;
1. More systematic effort tracking systems
occur when clinical activity and incentive
compensation plans are present
2. Highlight differences and similarities;
2. Existence of technology infrastructure
supports more detailed goal-setting,
tracking and reporting
3. Design a flexible methodology;
4. Allow for scalability across the
university;
5. Draw upon existing systems and data;
and
6. Identify needed infrastructure and
additional data elements
3. Teaching workload and related activities
represent greatest degree of consistency
across missions
4. Scholarship metrics may lack explicit
statements of relative value in defining
excellence
5. Service efforts are least well-defined,
documented and reported
Next Steps
• Engage Faculty Senate and University Council in the pilot findings and
implementation efforts
• Establish representative Steering Committee to address definitional,
metric and university policy issues
• Launch university-wide implementation
₋
Scale project across the university
₋
Use 6-year faculty hiring plan as a tool to begin to address capacity assessment
and planning
• Partner with Technology Services and Steering Committee to explore
technology infrastructure options
• Determine how results will be incorporated into annual goal-setting and
unit reviews