1. Faculty Senate Overview of Faculty Excellence Pilot Study May 6, 2014

2. Context for Pilot Project Is Key Continued pressure concerning the cost and value of higher education has brought the issue of faculty capacity (excellence and productivity) to the forefront Questions have been raised regarding how VCU defines, measures and promotes continued faculty excellence Understanding faculty capacity is important for providing accountability to stakeholders The following slides provide a background on the current state related to faculty excellence and a proposed timeline for measuring and setting expectations moving forward

3. Defining Faculty Excellence: Productivity = Workload Faculty Excellence can be described as intentionally establishing and maintaining a balance among teaching, scholarship and service efforts that supports and enhances the academic mission of the university and its programs Size and quality of faculty in strategically important academic areas Assessment processes that evaluate performance and recognize outstanding achievements High levels of performance within core academic areas of focus Research, scholarship and creativity Teaching Public service Clinical activities (where applicable)

4. Faculty Capacity Is > Workload Workload is primarily about what faculty do (hours worked per week, credit hours per faculty, number of students advised, research awards administered, scope of research agenda, major service obligations) Productivity/excellence is also about the product or output of faculty efforts, such as: o Which students are taught by which faculty with what type of results? o Are students graduating with marketable skills? o Are students continuing on to graduate study? o What research and scholarship activities are undertaken? With what type of results? o Are faculty involved in service projects, professional obligations, or other engagement activities? o What forms of awards and recognition do faculty receive nationally ? Internationally?

5. Multiple Current Measurement Processes SACS-COC 10-year Reaffirmation Process o Review and validation of faculty qualifications for teaching by course o Implementation of university-wide faculty “system of record” [Xitracs] Quest for Distinction performance tracking o Tracking system in place to identify faculty awards, academy memberships and national / international honors o Target-setting and CMUP rankings New faculty “Excellence” hires o Set higher bar for recruitments: target for research $s already awarded or national/international reputation within a discipline State of the Faculty Report o First presented in November 2012 o Annual updates every November, with continued expansion of faculty information and analyses

6. Increased Emphasis on Infrastructure Support Academic Analytics o Quantify scholarly output by discipline o Comparisons to peers o Pilot completed FY13; university-wide implementation in FY14 Delaware Study: College of H&S (FY2011) o Workload and expenditure data by discipline (CIP level) o Currently challenged to find peer comparisons by discipline School-level faculty performance systems o Faculty Activity Reporting and Evaluation System (FARES) within 1 st professional schools o Faculty Evaluation System (FES) created within School of Business in FY 2011, built off of FARES construct

7. Quarterly Updates to BOV AHA Committee Background & Context Rationale Methodologies Sample Metrics Current State Case Studies Faculty Panel Presentation Discipline Variations: Arts Allied Health Professions Business Dentistry Education Measuring Excellence, Capacity and Productivity Update on Pilot Study Metrics Selected Data Collection Process Peer Identification Benchmarks and Target Setting Pilot Results & Next Steps Performance by Pilot Program Lessons Learned Recommendations for University Roll- out Implementation Plan and Timeline September December February May Meeting cancelled - snowstorm Event cancelled – scheduling conflict

8. Preliminary Dashboard Concept Description Baseline Metric Student HC : Teaching FTE Ratio Average Student Credit Hours per Teaching FTE University Service per Service FTE Professional Service per Service FTE Sponsored Award $s per Research FTE Scholarly Output per Research FTE Clinical Revenues per Clinical FTE Description Baseline Metric 2 nd Year Retention Rate 3 rd Year Retention Rate On-time Graduation Rate (Graduate Programs only) 6-Year Graduation Rate Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction: Curriculum Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction: Instruction NSSE – 1 st Year Freshman Satisfaction NSSE – Senior Satisfaction Initial Faculty MetricsInitial Student Metrics

9. Goals and Key Findings 1.Balance common elements and comparable metrics with unique characteristics of disciplines; 2.Highlight differences and similarities; 3.Design a flexible methodology; 4.Allow for scalability across the university; 5.Draw upon existing systems and data; and 6.Identify needed infrastructure and additional data elements Pilot Study GoalsKey Findings 1.More systematic effort tracking systems occur when clinical activity and incentive compensation plans are present 2.Existence of technology infrastructure supports more detailed goal-setting, tracking and reporting 3.Teaching workload and related activities represent greatest degree of consistency across missions 4.Scholarship metrics may lack explicit statements of relative value in defining excellence 5.Service efforts are least well-defined, documented and reported

10. Next Steps Engage Faculty Senate and University Council in the pilot findings and implementation efforts Establish representative Steering Committee to address definitional, metric and university policy issues Launch university-wide implementation ₋Scale project across the university ₋Use 6-year faculty hiring plan as a tool to begin to address capacity assessment and planning Partner with Technology Services and Steering Committee to explore technology infrastructure options Determine how results will be incorporated into annual goal-setting and unit reviews