F. 2. Growth. Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

F.2.b. Continuous Improvement

The most significant changes related to Standard 5 that have led to continuous improvement are in the following six areas:

Growth Opportunities

Our strategy

Concrete Accomplishments

1. Faculty Evaluation needed more consistency, rigor, and transparency To collaborate in developing clear policy and procedures New CEBS Comprehensive Evaluation Guidelines STE Annual Evaluation Guidelines
2. Ensure fairness in work load assignment To collaborate in developing clear policy and procedures Differential Staffing and Workload Plan
3. Improve faculty retention and performance Create a policy and a program of mentoring College-Wide Mentoring Program
4. Funding shortages and the need to support faculty research activities Provide intensive training and support to grant applicants External Grant Funding increased from 8.9 in 2006/07 to 13.3 million in 2008/09
5. Growth of online teaching prompted a change in evaluation instruments To collaborate in redesigning the course evaluation instrument and procedure to accommodate both online and face-to-face teaching. Redesigned Course Evaluation form (Page 8); adoption of EvalKit on-line module.
6. Need to provide stronger support for professional development Increase funding; develop professional development infrastructure In 2009/10, some schools’ faculty received $2300 for professional development from various sources; CETL has significantly enhanced professional development opportunities

Faculty Evaluation

During the 2003-2004 academic year, the CEBS Dean organized a Faculty Evaluation Criteria Committee to review, update, and clarify the criteria used across the annual and comprehensive faculty review. The Faculty Evaluation Taskforce, convened in October 2003, completed its charge given by the Unit Head to establish standardized procedures for use in faculty comprehensive evaluations by all Units in the CEBS and to develop college-wide performance expectations in the three work areas of instruction, research, and service.

Implemented in 2007, the "Comprehensive Review Process and Guidelines" include a narrative overview of the review process, provide a basis for recommendations for tenure, promotion and post-tenure review, outline the content of the recommendation, and include a section on how to use the guidelines provided in the extensive rubrics used to guide instruction, professional activity, and service.

The five new Schools in the Unit were in the process of revising procedures and guidelines for annual and comprehensive/post-tenure faculty evaluations. School committees developed new procedures and criteria for how faculty evaluation should be completed. School committees were encouraged to align their annual criteria with the new guidelines.

College-Wide Mentoring Program

The CEBS Dean’s Office initiated a College-Wide Mentoring Program which organizes several lunch meetings during the year with the first-year faculty at which broad topics are discussed. These topics include: collegiality, time management, progress toward tenure and promotion, college culture, quality teaching, etc. The meetings are designed to be informative and to build a sense of belonging and culture. Second-year faculty members are sometimes invited to the meetings.

During the 2008-2009 academic year, the CEBS School Directors, along with the Dean, lead discussions on general topics. Thus, new faculty had more access to College leadership. Sample topics include: “The Missing Professor,” Advising, Strategies for Getting Published, Balancing Faculty Roles and Responsibilities, Navigating the University System, and Working with Colleagues and Administrators: Collegiality. The Dean’s Office also provides workshops on applying for tenure and promotion and sabbaticals. New and junior faculty members are invited to these workshops.

Increased External Grant Funding

When the total amount of the grant awards in the unit are compared to the total amount of grant awards for the institution, it is evident that topics related to K-20 education are at the heart of our research and service projects.

UNC Unit-wide Grant Summary 2006-2009





N of  Unit-wide Grant Awards 30 33 31
Total Award Amount $ 8,868,341 $ 5,312,977 $ 13,337,890
Amount of Institutional Grant Awards $11,345,405 $6,705,111 $16,644,826
% of Institutional Grants Awarded to the Unit 78% 79% 85%

Evaluation of Faculty Teaching Performance

The teaching quality of our faculty was analyzed across the last ten semesters (from summer 2006 to fall 2009) via a thorough review of the Instructor Evaluation Survey. At the end of every semester students complete the survey in all courses. The results allow us to document our faculty’s strong teaching performance, especially on items “instructors are knowledgeable, approachable, and helpful.” The New Course Evaluation form has been adopted, partially because of the study.

Unit Facilitation of Professional Development

The primary goal of The Provost Fund for Scholarship and Professional Development is to encourage faculty scholarship and professional activity at all levels of expertise in the faculty's efforts to develop as teachers, researchers, scholars, and artists. Funded activities are intended to support the mission and strategic goals of the university and the colleges. Eight of the 24 Research, Dissemination and Faculty Development Awards for 2008-2009 were related to research in education. The Provost’s Travel Fund also supported 44 faculty members with opportunities to share their research and to develop new knowledge and skills.

The Unit has well laid plans for recruiting and retaining qualified faculty; modeling best practices in teaching, scholarship, and service; conducting systematic and comprehensive reviews of the faculty’s teaching, scholarship, and service (e.g., faculty comprehensive review process and guidelines; evaluation of faculty teaching performance, and differential staffing and workload plan), and facilitating faculty’s professional development (e.g., college-wide mentoring program, increased external grant funding, and Unit facilitation of professional development). All of these activities help the Unit either moving toward or continuing meeting the Target level under Standard 5.