Professional Development Policy for Faculty
Policy
The faculty development plan is a "blueprint" outlining a faculty member's proposed goals for the academic year, and the planned activities to accomplish these goals. Deans must review the plans annually to ensure that they match the goals and objectives of the University and College and to secure the needed resources to accomplish these goals. The FDP will form a basis for faculty evaluation at the end of the academic year in August.
1. Faculty Development & Evaluation Plan
At the beginning of every academic year (September), each faculty member must submit to the Dean a FDP on planned activities in the categories of teaching, intellectual contribution and service for the coming academic year. (Appendix 1, DBS and Appendix 2 CEIT, CoL & GUCR)
The expected breakdown in the areas of duties for faculty members who are not involved in administrative duties are outlined in FP 5.1 Faculty Role and include:
A. Towards the end of the academic year (early August), and before the preparation of the FDP for the following year, the faculty member must resubmit their FDP to the Dean with the performance/achievements sections populated which outlines their actual accomplishments for the year.
B. The Dean reviews with the faculty member their accomplishments in relation with the planned activities. This review forms the basis for the faculty member’s annual performance evaluation, which is used as the basis for further development efforts by individual faculty members.
Performance evaluation reports are also used as a basis for salary increases, promotion, and retention.
C. Faculty members assigned to senior administrative positions may have additional duties as prescribed in their assignments. Faculty involved in administrative duties may entail a reduced work load (refer to FP 5.1Faculty Role).
D. Where a faculty member is engaged in senior administrative duties, the weights are reduced to accommodate the new responsibilities as guided by the reduced teaching release mentioned in the appointment decree. Refer to FP 5.1 Faculty Role for details on weight distribution. Exceptions need the approval of the VPAA and President.
2. Faculty Development Support
In order to promote faculty development, UD provides support and incentives which include:
-
Financial support for professional conference attendance and development meetings.
-
Release time for intellectual contribution.
-
“Effective Learning and Teaching Forum” to be offered once a year.
-
“Research Forum” to be offered once a year.
-
A Research Seminar that is held throughout the fall and spring semesters.
-
Software packages needed for research and teaching, upgrade hardware and software.
-
Annual rewards for teaching excellence/effectiveness, services and for distinguished researchers.
-
Library access services to needed scholarly online databases.
-
Salary increases based on performance and achievements.
-
Financial support is provided to faculty in order to attend instructional development meetings.
-
“Innovation in Teaching” projects are funded to continuously encourage up-to-date instruction.
3. Faculty Performance Evaluation
3.1 Teaching Performance Evaluation
The ongoing evaluation of teaching performance is based on student evaluations (Student Learning Assurance), peer mentoring of faculty members, course-file evaluations, review of the faculty portfolio, and student access to the faculty.
-
Student Learning Assurance
At the end of each semester/term, students are asked to fill the Student Evaluation of Teaching Performance survey to assess and ensure the extent of student learning in each course.
This survey complies with the MOE and international accrediting bodies for assessing learning outcomes. It assesses the aspect of the availability of the instructor to students, commitment to office hours, and instructor’s encouragement to students to refer to him/her when needed. This information is included in the evaluation results subject to review by the Deans and Program Directors. Instructor’s encouragement of questions, discussion and interactions with students both inside and outside the classroom is also reflected in the student feedback for Student Evaluation of Teaching Performance.
B. Peer Review
A faculty peer observation system is in place at the UD where faculty reviewers act as observers using a standardized observation/report form to ensure greater teaching effectiveness. The form (Appendix 3) reflects the dimensions of teaching that are important for effective instruction in the field. The schedule of observation is negotiated with the instructor being observed and there is no unannounced peer observation. The peer observer discusses with the instructor after the visit the results and the instructor draws an action plan for enhancing teaching effectiveness.
Each full-time and part-time faculty member will be mentored by another faculty member regardless of their rank. Mentoring requires a faculty member to visit a class of another faculty member, from the same or different discipline, to obtain information on student perception of the method of delivery, communication, and behavior. This is done in an informal way where the visiting faculty sits with the faculty member being visited afterwards to depict any areas needing improvements as early as possible during the semester. The respective Dean is informed of any major concerns.
The peer review is conducted once a year on one course for all returning faculty. For new faculty all courses taught will be peer reviewed.
The Dean may also meet with students independently to obtain feedback on the performance of new faculty in the classroom.
C. Faculty Portfolio Evaluation
Faculty members must annually update their faculty portfolios to provide information on their teaching effectiveness. This documentation provides evidence of teaching and learning achievements, outcomes, and commitment to effective teaching performance. It also provides information on the diversity of courses taught and contributions to the development of academic plans, programs, courses, as well as the supervision of graduation research papers.
A list detailing criteria considered for teaching performance is shown in the FDP Appendix I.
3.2 Research Evaluation
The expected faculty research output is described in FP 5.1 Faculty Role, FP 5.6 Faculty Workload Policy & FP 5.13 Faculty Promotion Policy. A list detailing criteria considered for faculty research evaluation is shown in the related colleges FDP. .
Faculty members assigned to senior administrative duties have lower expectations (refer to FP 5.1 Faculty Workload for more details)and will be fully accounted for their research output only after one year from the date they get relieved from their posts. This period is provided for the faculty member to re-engage in research.
3.3 Service Evaluation
Contribution of faculty to University and community service is an integral part of the faculty duties and is considered in their performance evaluation. These services are listed in the FDP (Appendix I).
-
UD Service
UD services include student academic advising, mentoring at-risk students (Details are provided in FP 5.1 Faculty Role), participation in committees, and other developmental activities (workshops) for other faculty/staff.
B. Community Service
Contributions to the community include professional consultations, practical training, lectures/talks/addresses, serving on editorial boards, peer reviewing for journals, board memberships, service in professional associations, and other contributions that are deemed appropriate.
3.4 Academic Administration
The work of faculty members engaged in senior administrative duties will be considered toward their performance evaluation based on the position duties.. Further details on the weight allocated to various functions is shown in FP 5.1 Faculty Workload. See FDP Form III for the detailed assessment matrix.