Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance; they also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.

Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit

1) Qualifications of faculty. The exhibit on Faculty Qualifications Summary shows two faculty members with only a BA/BS degree. What specific role/job responsibility do they perform in the unit?


We checked the exhibit on Faculty Qualifications Summary and confirmed that both Dr. Pete Kastner and Dr. Ann Keller-Lally earned doctoral degrees. The original information provided for two faculty members in the Institutional Report were unfortunately data reporting errors.

2)University supervisors of clinical practice. What is the status of the university supervisors (e.g., full-time or adjunct faculty)?


The University Supervisor Qualifications Summary provides detail on the quality of the university supervisors.  Supervisors complete the Teacher Education Faculty Application Form.  Highlights from the report document that of the 66 supervisors 20% are professors, 8% associate professors, 11 % assistant professors, 15% adjunct, 36% are part-time supervisors, and 1% is a graduate-level teaching assistant.  Overall, 39% of the supervisors have earned doctorates and 55% have earned an MA.  A resounding 81% of the supervisors have had professional experiences in the P-12 setting; 26% have had 1-3 years experience in higher education, 23% have had 4-6 years, and 24% have had 16+ years in higher education.

3) Faculty evaluation system. Why did the unit decide to modify the system, which became effective in spring 2010?  How will the unit determine if the new revised system is an improvement compared to the old system?  What research studies (based on data generated from the assessment system) are in progress or are being planned to determine if the system has achieved the intended outcomes?     


As mentioned in the UNC Institutional Report under Standard 4: Diversity, Goal 2: Design and implement fair, accurate, and unbiased assessments to evaluate faculty, candidates, staff, and administrators: “…The Diversity & Equity Committee also reviewed the Faculty Course Evaluation Form and made recommendations for adding questions that would allow candidates to directly evaluate how well the faculty member addressed diversity in the course. In addition to the existing question “The instructor demonstrated respect for multiple points of view,” the Leadership Council approved adding the following question to the new survey to be implemented spring 2010, “The instructor created a classroom environment that was inclusive and respectful of diversity.” Course evaluations are conducted every semester in all on-campus, off-campus, and distance learning courses and results are returned to faculty members and their directors.” (page 26). In addition, some studies based on data generated from the assessment system have been conducted and are reported in the 2009-2010 Unit Assessment Report under the subheading of Faculty Quality as Demonstrated on Course Evaluations (page 20 to page 23).

4) Faculty service in P-12 education. To what extent are unit faculty engaged in dialogues about design and delivery of instructional programs with local P-12 school and community partners? What are some examples of this involvement? How are unit faculty providing leadership for the local schools in the area?


Two partnership reports document the extensive engagement of unit faculty in school districts.  The UNC-District Six Report outlines the many grants and centers involved in the local district.  The Thompson District Report provides information about a partnership started in spring 2010.  The report outlines initial unit proposals for how the faculty can become even more involved in the Loveland area, fifteen miles west of UNC.  To date the Special Education Program has designed a certificate in Autism that will address one of the districts’ areas of need.

5) Collaboration with P-12 school partners. What are some examples of program changes resulting from collaborating with P-12 school partners?


The 2006 redesign of the Elementary PTEP, the development of the Reading Achiever Program, and the changes made to the elementary program from the 2009 focus group analysis. These changes are discussed in greater detail under Standard 2, Question 3. 

6) Mentoring program for new faculty. Although the mentoring program is relatively new (started only 2 years ago by the dean), what evidence indicates that it will be successful?


New faculty who were hired in the past two years attended the college-wide mentoring program at UNC. These mentoring sessions were conducted by the CEBS Dean's Office, their directors, and/or their program coordinators. They thought those mentoring sessions were helpful to them as new faculty. Some comments from new faculty included the following:

  • “It was helpful just to meet with the director and talk about expectations and answer any questions we had.  Additionally, we met with the Dean and he talked about strategies for successful progress toward tenure and promotion.”
  • “Those mentoring sessions provided guidance on balancing the multiple roles as a new faculty member and how to work with students effectively.”
  • “They provided opportunities for me to interact with other “new hires” in the college. They also gave me insight into the policies, procedures and regulations of the college and university at large. Some topics were very useful—such as being a new faculty/ instructor for courses - e.g., policies around plagiarism.”
  • “The mentoring sessions helped in explaining the tenure and promotion policy and in providing helpful tips in order to successfully proceed toward tenure and promotion.”
  • “They were helpful for providing relevant information and for networking with fellow recent hires.”
  • “Meet with other new faculty, learn how the college functions and some general information in regard to UNC.”
  • “It was helpful to hear the issues other new faculty were dealing with.  It was also helpful to get some advice about time management, planning for annual reviews and tenure, financial issues, and managing a heavy teaching load in general.”
  • “It was helpful; particularly the discussion on what is valued when it comes to tenure.”

The CEBS Dean’s Office is also planning to develop procedures and implement assessment systems to ensure the mentoring program for new faculty will be successful with the following evidences:

  • Increase retention for faculty
  • Increase publication rates
  • Better time management
  • Deepened involvement in college-wide services
  • More collegial atmosphere
  • Continue high performance in teaching
  • Better preparation for tenure and promotion applications
  • Less trepidation