Engaging Contingent Faculty in Assessment

Our InstitutionsOur Institutions

CSB/SJUCSB/SJUTwo schools, one academic program

Liberal Arts, Residential, Catholic, Benedictine

3,900+ undergraduates

300+ FTE faculty

80% of faculty tenured or tenure track

First Year Seminar First Year Seminar

Required of all FY (approximately 1000)

Year long

65 sections, 50 faculty

55% of sections taught by contingent faculty

Most contingent teach two sections, so 4/6th contract for year

Most tenure track faculty rotate in and out; contingent stay

All introduced at opening all campus convocation

What are the What are the barriers?barriers? To getting all faculty – regular and contingent –

to adhere to learning goals in multi-section General Education courses

To inclusion of contingent faculty in assessment

To inclusion of contingent faculty in faculty development efforts

Barriers we saw

Need greater sense of common endeavor

Need more uniformity across 65 sections

Need to get faculty teaching FYS to focus on learning goals

Need to find people to do assessment

Need more effective use of assessment results

Need to do all of the above with contingent faculty and tenure track people who don’t necessarily teach in the program year to year

Expanding the Pool of Expanding the Pool of Assessment “Experts”Assessment “Experts”Four year grant from Teagle Foundation

Stipend, 12 meetings over year

Trained 39 faculty and 13 staff

5 were contingent faculty teaching in FYS

FYS Assessment FYS Assessment TeamTeamFive contingent faculty who went through Teagle

program

Two more contingent faculty with interest in assessment

One tenure track

Assistant Dean

Assessment of FYSAssessment of FYS

DiscussionDone by individual faculty, results tabulated and

distributed

Writing, critical thinking, information literacyUse research paper that is central to second

semester of FYSAssessment team scores a sample of papers (three

from each section)

Research Paper RubricAbility to Present a Clear Argument

Ability to Address Different Points of View

Ability to Use Evidence in a Convincing Manner

Assessment Output Assessment Output

Eight faculty divided into teams of two

Read sets of papers, score and compare ratings

RatingExceptionalAcceptableUnacceptable

Also provide three-five sentence explanation of why they scored as they did

If teams can’t agree, paper sent to third reader

Closing the LoopClosing the Loop

Discussion of collective results at FYS department meeting

Faculty receive results for their sections, including the short explanation from assessment team

Discussion at department meetings of barriers and solutions

Training offered that targets ways to teach the more difficult areas

Tangible BenefitsTangible Benefits

Collective agreement on need to revise minimum expectations

Evidence of much greater adherence to collective standards

Evidence of improved student learning

Learning Gains 2009-2012 Learning Gains 2009-2012

Percent rated Exceptional and Acceptable

Present a Clear Argument56.4% to 70.8%

Address Different Points of View49.3% to 61.4%

Use Evidence in a Convincing Manner 60.8% to 79.1%

Less Tangible Benefits

More sense of being involved in collective endeavor – all faculty teaching FYS

Contingent faculty engagedIn assessmentIn guiding program as a whole

Discussion

What questions do you have?

What might be applicable to your institution?

What barriers remain?

Take AwayTake Away

Please write down the one thing you want to take back to your campus from this session.

Contact InformationJohn Kendall

[email protected]

Ken Jones

[email protected]