1

MERIT PAY RUBRIC for Teaching School of Education - Department of Educational Studies, Department of Professional Studies STATEMENT OF PURPOSE OF MERIT PAY DOCUMENT This document constitutes the School of Education faculty's recommendations to the Department Chairs and to the Dean of the School of Education regarding the criteria and conditions for the distribution of merit pay to School of Education faculty. To qualify for merit pay a faculty member must, under this recommendation, be evaluated as either "satisfactory" or as "excellent." The criteria and conditions for each of these two categories are set forth below. IPFW SD 88-25, Section C.1., defines excellence in teaching as follows: “A candidate who excels in teaching is one who guides and inspires students and stimulates their intellectual interest and enthusiasm; one who displays a spirit of scholarly inquiry which leads him/her to develop and strengthen course content in light of developments of the field, as well as to improve methods of presenting material.” TEACHING Multiple Measures

Teaching Performance: Student Evaluation Data

SATISFACTORY

EXCELLENCE

One additional measure of teaching effectiveness is documented along with course evaluations.

Use of two or more measures of teaching effectiveness are documented along with course evaluations.

All quantitative and qualitative data from student evaluations are included for merit pay consideration.

All quantitative and qualitative data from student evaluations are included for merit pay consideration.

Generally adequate course evaluations (3.0-3.9 range) are indicated on nearly all items of the student evaluations. Occasional lower scores and negative student anecdotal comments do not indicate a pattern or a serious problem.

Outstanding course evaluations (4.0-5.0 range) are indicated on nearly all items of the student evaluations.

Quantitative Indicators • Student reviews that are considered satisfactory per department standards of (3.0-3.9) ; type of course must also be taken into account • A graph of the faculty member’s average course evaluation scores, over time, indicates that the numerical ratings are consistent or improving

Quantitative Indicators • Student reviews that are evaluated as excellent per department standards (4.0-5.0) ; type of course must also be taken into account • A graph of the faculty member’s average course evaluation scores, over time, indicates that the numerical ratings are consistent or improving

2

Teaching Performance: Student Advising

Curriculum Contributions: Continuous Improvement and Teaching Methods and Approaches

Qualitative Indicators: • comments are substantive and reflect learning by students, and that may be o consistent or show improvement over time o reflecting impact on students

Qualitative Indicators • comments are substantive and reflect learning beyond the text material, and may o reflect instructor’s ability to create a positive learning environment o be consistent over time, or improve over time o be consistent with the faculty member’s teaching goals

Faculty who are assigned advisees fulfill their responsibilities to advise students.

Documentation of student advisement activities that exceed commonly accepted expectations for faculty may be included.

Indicators of any of the following: • Student advising evaluations indicate student satisfaction per departmental standards • Advising evaluations from chair or dean indicate competency per departmental standards • Contributions indicate a leadership role in improving department advising -- Report number of students on advising list

Indicators of any of the following: • Student advising evaluations indicate advising exceeds departmental standards • Advising evaluations from chair or dean indicate advising exceeds departmental standards • Contributions indicate a leadership role in improving advising at school/campus level or beyond

There is a plan to respond to measures of teaching effectiveness.

There is a plan to respond to multiple measures of teaching effectiveness, to keep current in the field, and to try or refine new teaching strategies and learning activities.

Two or more of the following indicators: • evidence of continuing review and reflection on teaching practice in light of student or peer feedback • evidence of continuing review and reflection on teaching practice in light of developments in the field • methods used consistently are favorably received by students or favorably reviewed by peers • new methods developed or applied and favorably received by students or favorably reviewed by peers

Two or more of the following indicators: • evidence that changes in responses to student or peer feedback are successful • evidence of successful incorporation of new research, etc. into courses taught • methods used consistently and evidence that methods are effective • new methods developed or applied and evidence of effectiveness of new methods are successfully used by peers

3

• • • •

Other

new methods are successfully used by colleagues on campus use of technology is aligned with learning goals active learning techniques are appropriate to course, level, discipline, and linked to learning outcomes service learning or other experiential activity is appropriate to course, relevant to service agency or other environment, and linked to learning outcomes in a meaningful and informative way

Other evidence for teaching effectiveness may be included. For examples see IPFW OAA Memorandum 03-2.

• • •

beyond IPFW integration of technology and evidence that use of technology is effective in achieving goals activity learning technique meets criteria for “satisfactory” and has been assessed for impact on learning service learning activity meets criteria for “satisfactory” and has been assessed for impact on learning

Other evidence for teaching effectiveness may be included. For examples see IPFW OAA Memorandum 03-2.

4

RESEARCH OR SCHOLARSHIP

Other

There is evidence that an articulated research agenda is supported by research in progress..

There is evidence that the research agenda is guiding research productivity.

Indicator

Indicator

- A self-report that describes the emerging research

- A self-report that describes the research agenda and how

agenda and how the faculty member’s productivity supports it.

the faculty member’s productivity supports it.

Research in progress can be documented with evidence

For excellent research performance, a refereed or scholarly publication is required, along with another indicator(s) listed below:

Indicators − letters of collaboration regarding the research partnership, − IRB proposals, − conference papers or slides presented, − submitted grants, or − manuscripts under review

Scholarly Publication Indicators − grant submissions (as PI, co-PI, or author), − publication of refereed journal article(s), − book chapter(s), − book(s), − refereed conference paper(s). − work dissemination beyond the university of professionally produced media developed by the faculty member, such as training materials, instructional material, videos, or computer software.

Verifiable information is included for journal or scholarly publications.

Verifiable information is included for journal or scholarly publications.

Indicators (as applicable) − letter acknowledging submission − journal’s acceptance rate − type of review of manuscript − word limit of journal and actual page number of manuscript − breadth of readership

Indicators (as applicable) − letter acknowledging acceptance for publication − journal’s acceptance rate − type of review of manuscript − word limit of journal and actual page number of manuscript − breadth of readership

Other evidence for research or scholarship may be included.

Other evidence for research or scholarship may be included. For

5

SERVICE

For examples see IPFW OAA Memorandum 05-6.

examples see IPFW OAA Memorandum 05-6.

Service to any one of the SOE Standing Committees and one or more of the following must be documented: SOE task forces or committees, university-wide committees, or one’s professional association(s) (locally, regionally, or nationally) or the community.

Service to and leadership in one’s program, the SOE, campus, or professional field that is clearly above and beyond the satisfactory ranges of participation must be documented. Outstanding service may include recognized service to the SOE, the university, or to professional associations at the local, regional, national, or international levels.

Based on the following indicators: • Faculty member participated regularly • Contributed to the efficient conduct of necessary business and tasks of committee • Accepted responsibility at the level to which faculty member was appointed Additional indicators are: • Contributed equitably (in relation to other committee members and faculty member’s expertise) to the goals of the committee • Evaluations document the quality and impact of the work and value to constituents • Documents that result reflect positively on the contributions to the outcome • Faculty member contributed to the dissemination of results • Faculty member participated in improvement efforts initiated by others. • Community service/outreach is related to a University/Community Partnership representing the university in professional service/consulting for the community

Based on one or more of the following indicators: • Assumed a leadership role that positively affected the outcome, and one or more of the following: o Helped to solve a problem or develop a plan for a new initiative, or implement a plan or complete other essential work consistent with the goals established o Shaped the planning, drafting and completion of report/project o Helped to shape new policy and/or negotiated satisfactory outcome of a contentious process o Evaluations document significance of contributions based on faculty member’s expertise to the work of group o Reports or presentations for regional or national audiences meet relevant standards of peer review o Presentations or publications are cited as models for others engaged in related work. • Colleagues or administration assess faculty member as excellent per the unit’s standards and identify specific examples of his/her leadership • Faculty member’s exemplary performance led to his/her seeking out and/or being asked to assume increasing levels of responsibility • Service accomplishments contribute to the mission of the committee/position and advance it in at least one of three ways of teaching, research or its service mission.

6

Publications or presentations to regional or national audiences contribute to scholarly discourse beyond the campus and document candidate’s growth in the respective area • Faculty member provided leadership to an existing partnership, or initiated a new partnership to meet university and community needs • Constituents provide documentation of the importance of the faculty member’s leadership and identify specific examples. As well as any of the above indicators, the following may also apply to professional service • Frequent invitations to review or perform professional services reflect expertise and high quality contributions • Published reviews appear in recognized media for high quality and significance to the discipline. • Leadership, creativity and expertise in editing a volume contributed significantly to a high quality volume • Leadership and expertise contributed to reports that were disseminated to agencies or other universities • Evaluators assess the faculty member’s contributions as excellent per accepted standards -- Leadership in research such as editorial service on scholarly journals Other evidence for service may be included. For examples see IPFW OAA Memorandum 04-2.

•

Professional Service

As well as any of the above indicators, the following may also apply to professional service • Occasional invitations to review or perform professional services reflect competent performance • Published reviews appear in recognized media appropriate to the discipline. • Contribution to an edited volume resulted in an efficient and timely publication • Participated and contributed to reports that were disseminated to agencies or other universities • Evaluators assess the faculty member’s contributions as satisfactory per accepted standards

Other

Other evidence for service may be included. For examples see IPFW OAA Memorandum 04-2.

Notes: 1. Merit points are awarded on a 0-2 scale based on .5 increments, where 0.5-1.0 indicates satisfactory performance and 1.5-2.0 indicates excellent performance. 2. Bullets indicated as “dots” are copied and edited from the OAA Memorandum Documents regarding promotion and tenure. The bullets indicated as “-“ are from the SOE FAC.