Nursing Education and Evaluation of Faculty Performance
Evaluation of Faculty Performance in Nursing Education, Evaluation of Learning Resources in Nursing Education.
Evaluation of Faculty Performance in Nursing Education
Evaluation of performance faculty is intended to promote quality improvement. The focus of faculty performance evaluation is guided by the philosophy, mission, and goals of the parent institution and the school or division in which the nursing program is housed. Faculty evaluations may be structured against specific job descriptions related to classroom or clinical teaching assignments and include expectations for scholarship, and service.
Junior and community colleges and some colleges and universities focus heavily on the teaching and service mission of the institution within the community it serves. Faculty evaluation reflects this emphasis. Research universities share the teaching and service missions but include an emphasis on research and scholarship as well. Colleges and universities with religious affiliations may include expectations for church-related service in faculty review policies and standards.
The policy and process for faculty performance evaluation should be clearly communicated to faculty. A common approach is to require faculty to submit an annual assessment of their performance during the preceding year and a development plan to the immediate supervisor that is consistent with the university and department missions and the department goals.
Individual faculty goals may also be part of the development plan that includes the faculty member’s goals as well as those identified by the supervisor. Goals can be short term and long term and should include strategies or activities planned to fulfill the goals and a timeline for completion. The goals and activities are not just related to teaching but may also be related to acquiring tenure and promotion.
Periodic meetings with the faculty to review progress on development goals should be conducted by the supervisor or administrator. The faculty member is expected to provide a self-evaluation at the end of the academic year that documents how performance and development goals were achieved, what barriers blocked achievement of goals, and how these barriers will be overcome in the future so that performance will be improved.
A portfolio process may also be used, in which the faculty member includes the development plan, self-evaluation, copies of student course evaluations, examples of scholarly work and service, or other artifacts that demonstrate faculty productivity.
During the annual performance review, the supervisor reviews the faculty member’s portfolio and provides written feedback on the faculty member’s progress in fulfilling the job description and expectations. Depending on the processes used throughout the institution, performance evaluation may be done using standard forms with numerical rating scales.
The use of standardized forms provides the opportunity to consistently analyze faculty performance across the unit and determine whether the faculty demonstrates development needs in any one area. For example, if a number of new faculty are not performing well on a certain measure, additional orientation or training may be needed. Peer review provides another component for the evaluation of faculty performance.
Promotion and tenure review is a well-established form of peer review already in place in most institutions of higher learning. The criteria for the evaluation are developed by faculty and implemented through a faculty committee. Committee reviews usually are composed of both formative and summative evaluation procedures. A common practice is to review faculty at the midpoint of the probationary period, usually in the third year of appointment.
A formative review may occur at regular intervals before the summative tenure review is conducted. Formative reviews allow the committee to provide advice to individual faculty members in preparation for the summative review that occurs near the end of the probationary period, usually the sixth year after the initial appointment.
In larger institutions, a primary committee of peers at the school or division level may do the initial review of a faculty member’s final tenure portfolio, along with their recommendation regarding promotion or tenure, before it is forwarded to administration and a campus committee of peers and Colleagues for further review.
Final recommendations are submitted to institutional administration, the board of trustees, or other institutional governing bodies for final approval. Variations on this theme relate to the unique features of a given institution. A common problem in higher education, especially in research intensive universities, is the lack of evaluation plans and criteria for all classifications of faculty.
Although the criteria and processes for promotion and tenure of tenure-track faculty are usually in place and subject to ongoing review and refinement, such criteria do not always exist for others beyond the routine annual review. Some schools have non–tenure-track faculty serving in lecturer, scientist, or clinical appointments who would benefit from the same careful delineation of criteria for systematic review of their roles consistent with their job descriptions and productivity expectations.
Boyer’s model of scholarship and the six attributes for evaluation may provide a consistent approach to performance review for non–tenure-track faculty (Wood et al., 1998). Another group of faculties that requires evaluation and the opportunity to grow and develop is the part-time faculty cohort.
Increasingly, expectations for annual review of part time faculty with reappointment are contingent on favorable reviews. Adaptation of the tenure-track evaluation format can provide direction to create similar evaluative processes for non–tenure-track and part-time faculty. External factors may influence elements of faculty evaluation.
For example, external bodies such as state legislatures and education commissions may establish standards for accountability that must be met by all higher education programs in the state. A common example is in the teaching component of the faculty role. There are often mandates for faculty workload in terms of credit hours or classes taught. There are multiple ways to address this standard.
Whatever productivity model is used, certain general standards apply. Faculty workloads should be designed to meet the mission and goals of the parent institution and the school or division and include those elements of the professional role of faculty emphasized by the institution (teaching, service, research). Although equity of workload expectations is an important standard, so is the flexibility to negotiate assignments to meet the needs of the school.
Evaluation of Learning Resources In Nursing Education
Classroom and laboratory facilities need to provide an effective teaching and learning environment to support program effectiveness. A review of instructional space includes evaluation of support space and a determination of whether classrooms are of sufficient size, number, and comfort to facilitate teaching and learning. Support space might include a learning resource center, a simulation laboratory, a computer cluster, and storage for instructional equipment and supplies.
Additional support space may include lounges for students, staff, and faculty. In addition, office space and equipment, as well as conference rooms and space to support faculty teamwork and research, are needed. Faculty need to have individual offices that have floor-to-ceiling walls to provide privacy for counseling, sensitive advice, and evaluation conferences.
Beyond these basic elements, space requirements are dictated by the mission and goals of the program. The space available should be congruent with the productivity expected of those who use the space, equipment, and supplies. This element is often reviewed through surveys of faculty, students, and staff. Another component of this review is documentation of holdings.
It is important not only to have the space and equipment needed to accomplish the mission and program goals but also to know where it is located and how well it is maintained. Clinical facilities should be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in providing appropriate learning experiences in relation to the mission and goals of the program.
This evaluation includes consideration of the patients served by the facility. It is important to assess whether the patient population profile is consistent with the learning objectives of the program and whether the number of patients is sufficient to support the student population. It is equally important for the standard of care provided by the institution to be of high quality so that students will be socialized to high standards. One measure of quality is the accreditation of the facility.
Another is the expert judgment of the faculty members who review the facility. The willingness of staff to interact with students in a facilitative manner is important, as is the skill of staff as role models. It is important to know how many other student groups are using the same facility and units within the facility and how easily reservations for these areas can be scheduled. Any special restrictions or requirements may also influence decisions about the use of the facility.
Evaluation of the clinical experience may also include review of agency contracts. These contracts should be filed in a central location and should be reviewed on a regular schedule. The conditions of the agreement should be spelled out, and some standards must be met. For example, all contracts should include the process and time frame for canceling or discontinuing the contract with a clause that allows any students scheduled for that facility to complete the current course of study.
It is also important that faculty maintain control of student assignments and evaluations within the framework of the agreed-on restrictions and regulations A review of contracts by legal counsel will ensure that expert judgment has been applied to the legal parameters of the contract. Some schools have developed and implemented faculty-run clinics that also serve as learning sites for students. Reviews and contracts related to student learning in these clinics should be subject to the same evaluation as any other facility under consideration.