NCATE Standard 5 | Faculty

5a. Qualified Faculty

*** See 'Evidence of Standard 5' at www.northgeorgia.edu/soe/5evidence ***

5a. 1. What are the qualifications of the full- and part-time professional education faculty (e.g., earned degrees, experience, and expertise)?

See Table 11 - Faculty Qualification Summary

5a. 2. What expertise qualifies professional education faculty members who do not hold terminal degrees for their assignments?

All full time professional education faculty members in the unit have earned an Education Specialist degree or doctorate. Professional Education faculty who do not have doctorates have demonstrated outstanding records of practice in public schools as well as in the unit and/or are near completion of doctoral programs.

5a. 3. How many of the school-based faculty members are licensed in the areas they teach or are supervising?  How does the unit ensure that school-based faculty members are adequately licensed?

The unit ensures that all faculty members have been licensed in their fields at some point, but does not require that the faculty maintain P-12 certification in their fields as NGCSU faculty members. However, the unit does require all but two faculty members to actively participate in candidate supervisory tasks every term (except summer).

5a. 4. What contemporary professional experiences do higher education clinical faculty members have in school settings?

In addition to the professional development school and supervisory requirements already described faculty engage in the following contemporary experience: Collaborative grant writing and implementation, provision of professional development training, receipt of professional development training, curriculum development for both P-12 and NGCSU programs, and NGCSU teacher preparation program reviews, and participation in conferences hosted by the National Association of Professional Development Schools.

 5b. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching

*** See 'Evidence of Standard 5' at www.northgeorgia.edu/soe/5evidence ***

5b. 1. How does instruction by professional education faculty reflect the conceptual framework as well as current research and developments in the fields?

NGCSU teacher education faculty actively model the three roles of instructors as described in the Metacognitive Model conceptual framework. Faculty model leadership through collaborative participation in professional development activities both as providers and recipients, participation in professional organizations, supporting teachers as researchers, grant writing, research and service. Faculty model facilitator roles by modeling best practices in the classroom including utilization of technology, and intellectual curiosity and enthusiasm for their content and the field of education. Faculty model the decision making through on-going exploration of effective performance assessment, and daily work with candidates in addressing authentic instructional and management challenges in clinical experiences in the schools.

5b. 2. How do unit faculty members encourage the development of reflection, critical thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions?

Reflection is an activity that is a systematic part of most coursework and field experience in NGCSU teacher preparation. It is required and assessed as a fundamental component of the teacher work sample, the portfolio and the internship, but also is a component of every lesson plan and unit that is implemented (See unit data). The focus of all programs to extensive field work by definition immerses candidates in situations requiring problem solving and display of professional dispositions. The conversations between candidates and their faculty supervisors and between faculty regarding the development of candidates is foundational to the culture of on-going program improvement in NGCSU teacher preparation programs.

5b. 3. What types of instructional strategies and assessments do unit faculty members model?

NGCSU teacher education faculty utilize a variety of instruction and assessment strategies including lecture, collaborative and cooperative group learning, Web supported distance learning, analyses of written and video case studies, and simulations.  As is evident in the program reports, the School of Education has significant focus on performance evaluations and portfolio assessment; however other forms of faculty assessments include reading responses, traditional essay, multiple choice and short answer exams. All common course assessments currently are performance based assessments that are archived in the Livetext system (visit www.livetext.com with visitor pass).

5b. 4. How do unit faculty members incorporate the use of technology into instruction?

Faculty utilize technology in instruction in the following ways: Web based support of course content, utilization of wikis, utilization of student response systems, utilization of elmos and smart boards, utilization of the Livetext course management system as a vehicle for formative feedback, utilization of flip cameras in clinical experiences, utilization of mobile Mac labs in classes, and utilization of Moodle and modeling and utilization of electronic archives of peer reviewed journals in research. The School of Education recently purchased StudioCode which permits candidate recording of teaching on flip cameras and computerized coding of effective and ineffective teaching behaviors. (See technology use by program charts)

5b. 5. How do unit faculty members systematically engage in self-assessment of their own teaching?

NGCSU teacher education faculty are required to provide analysis of their teaching evaluations by candidates as a part of their annual evaluations. This requirement also is a critical component of  the promotion and tenure process at all levels. Faculty also engage in analysis of candidate performance outcomes by course as a part of the School of Education program retreat for the purpose of establishing program improvement goals. (See evidence.)

5c. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship

*** See 'Evidence of Standard 5' at www.northgeorgia.edu/soe/5evidence ***

5c. 1. What types of scholarly work are expected of faculty as part of the institution's and unit's mission?

The institution and the unit vision is founded on an expectation for outstanding instruction. This value is reflected in the requirement that at least 60% of all faculty evaluations are related to evidence of instructional ability. As a result of the commitment of the unit to development of  outstanding teacher preparation and professional development school models research that contributes to both personal professional growth and program improvement are encouraged. Additionally, research collaboratives with international partners that supports institution and unit priorities for global engagement is currently being discussed.

Faculty are expected to provide at least one peer reviewed publication and one presentation for a national professional association or two peer reviewed publications at each level of promotion.

5c. 2. In what types of scholarship activities are faculty members engaged?  How is their scholarship related to teaching and learning?  What percentage of the unit's faculty is engaged in scholarship?

School of Education faculty are involved in a variety of scholarship activities, most of which are related to their teaching activities.  Scholarship activities include sponsored professional learning circles with other university faculty, significant curriculum development efforts, program evaluations for area school systems, presentations at regional and national conferences of discipline-related organizations (e.g., National Association of Professional Development Schools), and publication of articles in peer-reviewed journals.  Scholarship requirements for tenure track faculty are enumerated in the SOE and University Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure.  Approximately 50% of the SOE faculty (including all tenure track faculty) are actively engaged in scholarship as defined by the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. (See SOE Tenure guidelines and chart)

The establishment of the Professional Development Communities has led to regular presentations and publications by faculty and school partners, most notably at the annual convention of the National Association of Professional Development Schools.  In addition, one of the partner systems contracted with SOE faculty for the most extensive program evaluation of Singapore Math ever undertaken in the United States. Results of the evaluation project were presented to the Hall County Board of Education, as well as at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association. 

The SOE Science Education Faculty have been particularly active with research investigations and presentations concerning teacher efficacy in science.  They have also secured university grant funding for innovative infusion of technology into the teacher preparation programs.  These technologies include iPads for instruction and observation, StudioCode ^© for video analysis of teaching, and a variety of portable science lab technologies for classroom use.

Scholarship activities for the SOE faculty include curriculum development, grant applications, and extensive involvement in the scholarship of teaching activities on campus. Almost every undergraduate and graduate program in the SOE has undergone significant review and revision over the past five years, and new programs are under development at the masters and specialist levels.  The SOE faculty have submitted a Race to the Top Innovation grant application for approximately $500,000 (notification in spring 2012) and are involved in a Planning Grant for the development of a regional STEM Academy for three area counties to attract underrepresented groups into the STEM disciplines.

Indicative of the leadership of the School of Education in the Scholarship of Teaching, faculty member James Badger served as the Faculty Associate for 2009-2010 for the NGCSU Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence.  Dr. Badger’s selection was based in part on his ongoing and published research on peer review of teaching.  As the faculty associate, he provided a series of workshops on improving instruction in the college classroom and establishing peer mentoring programs to improve instruction.  In a similar vein, SOE faculty have been awarded institutional grants to organize and participate in faculty learning circles related to the improvement of teaching and learning in higher education.  Topics have included improving the instructional management of the college classroom and establishing rigorous and viable assessments for instructional improvement.

5d. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service

*** See 'Evidence of Standard 5' at www.northgeorgia.edu/soe/5evidence ***

5d. 1. What types of service are expected of faculty as part of the institution's and the unit's mission?

At NGCSU, service is measured not simply by membership on committees, but by the active contributions to the school, the university and the profession, or by the fulfillment of leadership roles to that effect. Annual evaluations of faculty allow for service to account for 10%-30% of the faculty member’s productivity.  Of particular interest in the School of Education is service to students through the School of Education Advisement Center, service on significant university-wide committees (e.g., Academic Activities, Graduate Council), service to area schools through professional development and scholarship activities, and service to the profession through committee membership and leadership. 

SOE faculty are extensively involved in service to the SOE, the university, the profession and the community at-large.  For example, an Exercise Science faculty member, sponsored by the Georgia High School Association, provides hydration testing for high school wrestlers in the NGCSU service area.  An Educational Leadership faculty member directs the Georgia Appalachian Center for Higher Education that provides technical support and funding to area high schools to increase the post secondary enrollment rates for students with risk factors predictive of high school drop out.  Additionally, a Middle Grades faculty member is the director of the Appalachian Studies Center, an academic center within the SOE and Georgia’s official center for the study of Appalachia, as designated by the state legislature.  The Center facilitates campus and community collaborative projects and activities on local, state, and regional levels, seeks opportunities for NGCSU students to engage in service learning and community-based education experiences, and provides a deeper understanding of the Appalachian socio-cultural experience.

All SOE faculty serve in the SOE and University advising centers, and they serve as advisors during the university INTRO sessions for new students, including incoming first year students and transfer students.  The faculty members advise not only students who have declared majors in SOE programs, but they also advise students who have registered as undecided.  Thus, SOE faculty have a deep understanding of the core curriculum as well as the wide array of university academic and co-curricular programs.

5d. 2. In what types of service activities are faculty members engaged?  Provide examples of faculty service related to practice in P-12 schools and service to the profession at the local, state, national and international levels (e.g., through professional associations).  What percentage of the faculty is actively involved in these various types of service activities?

All ECE/SPED faculty are involved in professional development school sites including common curriculum planning and scheduling with administrators at teachers, providing and/or receiving common professional development training, and shared supervision and evaluation of teacher candidates. The Middle grades program is piloting professional development sites this year- this effort includes the efforts of at least three of the middle/secondary programs faculty. All of our faculty are members of the National Association for Professional Development Schools (NAPDS) and several faculty groups have made presentations that included P-12 partners in 2010 and 2011. All faculty in the NGCSU SOE are expected to meet at least twice a month in workgroups to address on-going development of curriculum and assessment. Faculty participate in the traditional university wide committee work expected at all universities.

For a detailed summary of faculty service activities see Table 11.

5e. Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance

*** See 'Evidence of Standard 5' at www.northgeorgia.edu/soe/5evidence ***

5e. 1. How are faculty evaluated?  How regular, systematic, and comprehensive are the unit evaluations of adjunct/part-time, tenured, and non-tenured faculty, as well as graduate teaching assistants?

All university faculty have an annual formal evaluation as stipulated in Section 4.3 of the NGCSU Faculty Handbook. In addition, all teaching faculty (including adjuncts) are evaluated by students through the Instructional Assessment System and the results are available to the faculty at the end of each academic term.  Teaching evaluations are monitored closely for any developing trends that might indicate a strength or an area for improvement.

The university guidelines for annual evaluation document was developed to assist the faculty of NGCSU in completing the Annual Faculty Evaluation Form. The guidelines were also developed to as a means of establishing consistency and continuity of definitions and policies for both faculty and evaluating supervisors. 

Our systematic and comprehensive annual evaluation policy includes processes for the ongoing review of faculty teaching, scholarship, and service productivity and collaborations and leadership in the professional community. The performance of all full-time faculty members is evaluated annually by the immediate supervisor. The performance evaluation includes a description and critique of performance during the past year in light of the faculty member’s self assessment of performance. The faculty member meets with his or her supervisor to review the evaluation and together they set goals for the coming year. Information from both the annual evaluation and the pre and post-tenure reviews is used to inform final recommendations relative to reappointment, non-reappointment, acquisition of tenure, or other personnel actions.

The annual faculty evaluation process is a time for reflection and analysis of past performance.  The goal of this process is not punitive in nature but one of increased accountability and guidance.  The guiding principle of the process is a simple one: How can each of us improve service to our constituents?  The performance of each faculty member needs to be examined in terms of goals related to education based outcomes.  These outcomes, while inclusive of fundamental and specific knowledge goals, embrace a wide range of activities that go far beyond the walls of the traditional classroom setting. 

Performance Categories and Percentages

Members of the faculty are evaluated based on their activities in three broad categories: Teaching, Service, and Scholarship.  The percentage values of each of these categories are to be determined through an agreement between the department head and the faculty member.   The "standard" percentage values are 60% Teaching, 10-30% Service, and 10-30% Scholarship.  Variation in these percentage values are permitted, but must be agreed upon by both the department head and faculty member and justified in a written contract.  This contract must then be approved by the appropriate dean.  The percentage accorded each category of the evaluation, whether within the standard field or by contract, should be determined at the beginning of the evaluation year. 

5e. 2. How well do faculty perform on the unit's evaluations?

All university faculty have an annual formal evaluation as stipulated in Section 4.3 of the NGCSU Faculty Handbook. In addition, all teaching faculty (including adjuncts) are evaluated by students through the Instructional Assessment System and the results are available to the faculty at the end of each academic term.  Teaching evaluations are monitored closely for any developing trends that might indicate a strength or an area for improvement.

Members of the faculty are evaluated based on their activities in three broad categories: Teaching, Service, and Scholarship.  The percentage values of each of these categories are to be determined through an agreement between the department head and the faculty member.   The "standard" percentage values are 60% Teaching, 10-30% Service, and 10-30% Scholarship

SOE faculty meet or exceed university standards for performance in terms of median scores on student evaluations of instruction and in terms of teaching, scholarship and service benchmarks for promotion and tenure.  Faculty evaluation scales range from low of 1 to a high of 7, and SOE faculty consistently perform at or above the mid-range of this scale.  In terms of faculty performance in relation to university standards, the SOE faculty success in terms of promotion and tenure applications can be used as an indicator.  Over the past five years, the SOE has forwarded seven applications for promotion, and five (72%) were approved at the university level.  During this same period, the SOE forwarded five applications for tenure, and four (80%) was approved.

While the quantification of faculty performance in teaching, scholarship and service is somewhat straightforward, it is the fourth dimension of faculty evaluation – collegiality – that can be quite challenging, SOE faculty conduct most of their work as members of a variety of teams, and their contributions to these teams serves as an excellent barometer of collegiality.  Over the past three years, because of the extensive efforts of all faculty to conduct or work as valued and contributing colleagues, there have been only two faculty members who resigned their positions due, in part, to differing work styles that ran somewhat counter to collegiality as practiced in the SOE.

5e. 3. How are faculty evaluations used to improve teaching, scholarship, and service?

Faculty evaluations are considered developmental in nature. Candidate course and instructor evaluations and examination of candidate performance outcomes as well as contributions in service and scholarship are all considered and discussed. Faculty are expected to reflect on these assessment outcomes prior to the review meeting. Faculty and evaluators identify both personal professional development goals and program improvement goals for which the faculty member will be held responsible. Resources needed by the faculty member to achieve these goals are also identified. One way that the department is trying to improve the quantity of scholarly publications in the department is through identification of the research questions of faculty and examination of ways to include data responsive to those questions through the systematic common course evaluations currently in place. (See Open-Ended Survey documentation)

Our systematic and comprehensive annual evaluation policy includes processes for the ongoing review of faculty teaching, scholarship, and service productivity and collaborations and leadership in the professional community. The immediate supervisor evaluates the performance of all full-time faculty members annually. The performance evaluation includes a description and critique of performance during the past year in light of the faculty member’s self-assessment of performance. The faculty member meets with his or her supervisor to review the evaluation and together they set goals for the coming year. Information from both the annual evaluation and the pre and post-tenure reviews is used to inform final recommendations relative to reappointment, non-reappointment, acquisition of tenure, or other personnel actions.

During the evaluation conference, the faculty member and the supervisor complete the Faculty Evaluation Contract, which formalizes an agreement between a faculty member and their evaluative supervisor to vary the standard values of the categories in the annual evaluative process. The supervisor needs to provide justification for the variance and an impact statement on the faculty member.  Special note needs to be made regarding the possible impact on promotion and tenure.  The supervisor should then specify the agreed upon percentage value of each category and the activities that the faculty member is expected to engage in that justify the value of each evaluative component.  

At the annual SOE retreat, faculty develop their professional development funding requests based on the previous year’s Faculty Evaluation Contract and the work group annual professional development plans.  The faculty work group is seen as the primary source for supporting professional development plans, particularly with the emphasis on capitalizing on program assessment data and curricular changes as sources for scholarship.  In addition, as school-wide and university-wide service and scholarship opportunities arise, faculty can self-nominate or are appointed by their work group coordinator or the dean in order to support a faculty member’s scholarship and service needs.

5f. Unit Facilitation of Professional Development

*** See 'Evidence of Standard 5' at www.northgeorgia.edu/soe/5evidence ***

5f. 1. How is professional development related to needs identified in unit evaluations of faculty?  How does this occur?

Professional development needs are identified through faculty evaluations of performance as identified by program coordinators, by identification through workgroup feedback, and through responsiveness to changes in program deliver (such as the PDS models) standards, and makeup of the faculty. Some professional development is common to all faculty including attendance at NAPDS and technology training on Livetext or smart boards. Some professional development is specific to workgroups. For instance this past year the Middle Grades faculty attended AMLE (formerly NMSA) in anticipation of changing program standards, and two new faculty attended grant development workshops offered in Washington by the Office of Education. All new faculty receive training in Banner, and Livetext and Moodle or (Vista if relevant), as well as training in the Teacher Performance Record.

5f. 2. What professional development activities are offered to faculty related to performance assessment, diversity, technology, emerging practices, and/or the unit's conceptual framework?

The Conceptual Framework is reviewed at the annual faculty retreat. Workgroups review their common course assessments and grading as needed. The SOE office of Assessment provides inter-rater reliability data when multiple sections of courses are involved (see Livetext reports by program with visitor pass). All faculty receive training in the use of smart boards, the Teacher Performance Record (online), and the Livetext system.

Faculty are encouraged to become member of the Center for the Advancement and Study of International Education (CASIE) and 10-15 recently attended their international Project Zero conference in Atlanta. Several faculty members belong to Project Dignity on campus that supports gay, lesbian, and transgender students at the university. At least 10 faculty have attended NCATE training conferences in the past two years. Most of the faculty have been trained in best practices through the Center for Research on Learning at the University of Kansas which has developed institutes to support research best practices in university teaching.

5f. 3. How often does faculty participate in professional development activities both on and off campus?

On campus professional development is on-going in the sense that the NGCSU School of Education culture is focused on collaborative development of courses, programs and assessments thereby exploiting the intellectual capital of the faculty (though it is time consuming to be sure). The Middle Grades Faculty attend AMLE (formerly NMSA) each year. At least ten faculty attend National Association for Professional Development Schools (NAPDS) each year. At least two new faculty are sent to the Center for Research on Learning at the University of Kansas each summer. At least 10 faculty attended the CASIE conference this year. All faculty who have presentations accepted at national conferences receive support to attend. The institution provides on- going professional development through the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence on campus on a monthly basis which faculty have attended and have provided. There is at least one technology related training opportunity for faculty each year. Training in TPR and Livetext, as well as development of professional portfolios and scoring of the teacher work sample occur annually.

Part time faculty are invited to these sessions as is relevant. All part time faculty who supervise students in the field receive annual training in the TPR, the teacher work sample, and Livetext annually.

1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 5?

The unit is effective in balancing the personal professional development needs of small groups with the training and preparation required to initiate and support program or unit wide initiatives. The dean has been extremely effective in obtaining the financial resources to support faculty development even during challenging budget years.

2. What research related to Standard 5 is being conducted by the unit or its faculty?

A goal of the unit is to develop a map of unit and program research questions and embed the required data collection and analysis into the existing system to support faculty research and program improvement efforts more effectively.