Faculty Performance Review
The College knows that it has many excellent faculty on staff. As with any other professional body, it is assumed that all professionals
will want to grow and develop in their role. It is also the responsibility of the College to provide opportunities for reflection and review.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the Faculty Performance Review Model?
The George Brown College Faculty Performance Review Model consists of four components:
- The development of a teaching portfolio
- A Peer Class Observation or engagement in Learning Squares
- A class observation by their Chair
- A meeting between the Chair and the faculty member resulting in a summary memorandum indicating the process has been completed and outlining
the agreed upon faculty professional development goals.
2. Why is the College initiating a Faculty Performance Review Process?
There are a number of reasons.
- Many faculty members have requested feedback and an opportunity to take part in a performance review.
- The literature and research shows that self-reflection and feedback are the most important factors in improving teaching and learning.
- Faculty performance review was a key recommendation from the College community in the development of the 2005-08 Academic Strategy.
- At present administrative staff, support staff and students all benefit from an opportunity to reflect on and discuss their work. It
seems important to include faculty in a reflective process.
- The College believes that faculty performance review is key to developing excellence in teaching and learning, promoting student learning
and fostering a learning community.
3. How do I become engaged in this faculty performance review process?
There are two ways to become engaged in the faculty performance review process. Either your Chair will ask you to participate when discussing
your swf, or you may request to participate. You may also engage in aspects of the performance review such as Learning Squares or development of
your teaching portfolio at any time by contacting the Organizational and Staff Development Department.
4. How often can I expect to participate in the faculty performance review process?
The College expects that most post-probationary faculty will participate in the faculty performance review once every three years. Of course,
there may be exceptions in certain circumstances. Some faculty may want to participate in some aspects of the process more frequently. For example,
they may wish to update their portfolios on an annual basis and participate in Learning Squares every year as a way of sharing best practices and
mentoring others.
5. What is a teaching portfolio?
A teaching portfolio is a collection of documents that represents the faculty’s teaching and professional experience, knowledge and skills. It
is an opportunity to reflect on their teaching. The sole purpose of the teaching portfolio is to improve teaching which, in turn, will lead to
improved opportunities student learning. The teaching portfolio allows faculty members to document, over a period of time, the full range
of their teaching abilities. The following is a partial list of items to be included in a teaching portfolio:
- A Teaching Philosophy which states your beliefs about teaching and learning;
- A list of teaching responsibilities,
including current courses, samples of course outlines, class sizes, instructional techniques (e.g. lectures, laboratories, demonstrations, use
of technology, group work);
- Examples of courses that the faculty member has revised or curriculum development work underway;
- A summary of the faculty member’s student feedback questionnaires together with a one-page reflection on the faculty’s
strengths, possible areas for improvement, and other key insights;
- A minimum of two samples of lesson plans, graded assignments, exams, tests, marking rubrics and any other evidence of the work carried
out in the learning environment; these should demonstrate an application of “outcomes based learning” principles;
- A list of professional development courses, workshops, conferences attended;
- Any documentation of new degrees or credentials;
- Any examples of publications, completed research, volunteer activity, honours or awards or committee work within the college;
- Examples of activities engaged in to maintain or enhance industry, professional or subject currency;
- A professional, current resume.
- A two to three-page reflection on the contents of the portfolio indicating what the faculty has learned from the process. The portfolio
should demonstrate the faculty member’s “dual professionalism”, that is an expert teacher with industry/community expertise. The
faculty should show through their portfolio their application of their subject matter content to the needs of and practices in industry or the
community in assistance the student’s learning about and preparation for the world of work.
6. What are the support systems that will be in place for the portfolio development?
The first time the faculty complete the review they will be provided with the equivalent of one course (3 teaching contact hours for the equivalent
of 14 teaching contact weeks) on their standard workload formula to provide time to reflect and to work on their portfolio development. The
College needs to further consider and determine the amount of time allocated for subsequent completion of the performance review process.
Staff Development has seconded a faculty member to facilitate meetings and provide training, support and guidance throughout the process.
Staff Development is also sponsoring information sessions, training and workshops for faculty and Chairs/Academic Leaders/Directors regarding
portfolio development and other aspects of the performance review process. Staff Development is also developing a Web-site and supporting
materials for faculty to fully understand the model and to see examples of portfolios et cetera.
The Learning Innovations and Development Department (LIAD) will provide support for those faculty wishing to do an on-line portfolio.
7. The Chairs seem too busy. Can they fit this in to their workloads?
The Chairs are certainly busy. This model is specifically designed to focus on “relationship and dialogue about learning and teaching” and
less on completion of forms and paperwork. This focus, and the 3-year cycle, will make it easier to manage administratively. As the
Chairs’ primary responsibility is to promote academic excellence and student learning, performance review will be a priority.
8. If it is about teaching, can a Chair who has not had significant teaching experience effectively
assess what is going on in a classroom?
The pre-meeting before a classroom visit will develop a protocol regarding the context of the class, what the faculty member hopes to achieve
in the class, what the faculty would like the Chair to observe and comment on and the agreed upon method for feedback. The classroom visit
is not only about assessment but is also about “engaging all in the learning process”. It is anticipated that through class visits
the Chairs will improve their overall understanding, awareness and appreciation for the classroom learning experience. The information
a Chair provides to the faculty as a result of a classroom visit is intended as information that will assist the faculty in self-assessment and
in the development of their long term professional development towards excellence in teaching and learning.
9. What is the Union’s position on this process?
The College cannot speak for the Faculty Union regarding their position. However, the College has discussed the faculty performance review
model and process with the Faculty Union on a regular basis. The Faculty Union raised a number of issues early on in the project. These
issues were all addressed in the design and implementation of the plan. The College continues to review the model and procedures with
the Faculty Union at Union/College committee meetings.
10. What were the issues raised by and addressed with the Faculty Union regarding the Faculty Performance
Review Model and Process?
The issues raised and addressed were as follows:
1. Union’s issue: The College will use the faculty performance review to stop faculty step increases above the “control
point” as is the College’s right under the Academic Collective Agreement. The College must guarantee that no faculty will ever
have their step increase held back.
College’s response: The faculty performance review model and process is designed to foster a positive learning community, student-centred
learning and excellence in teaching and learning. It is not intended to be used to determine step adjustments.
The College however cannot provide a guarantee that no faculty will have his/her step increase held back for the following reasons:
- The College may wish to hold back a step increase for a faculty who has committed a serious action, warranting some form of significant discipline
but short of termination. This situation will not arise out of the performance review situation, but rather as a result of a significant,
disciplinary event.
- It is a management right within the collective agreement;
- The performance review process is quite different from the performance management process: the first is developmental, the other
both developmental and corrective;
- Failure to hold back a step increase in the case of serious performance management issues could impact the College’s ability to prove
discipline was warranted in an arbitration case;
- Withholding a step increase as a result of a significant performance issue, is a matter that can be grieved and adjudicated in an arbitration
hearing.
- Union’s issue: Faculty are not permitted to “review” or “evaluate” other faculty. Performance review
is a management responsibility.
College’s response: The College’s performance review model is primarily a self-reflection model, as demonstrated by the items
required for the portfolio. Learning Squares is also a self-reflective practice. If faculty choose to be observed by their colleagues
to receive feedback, they determine in advance on which aspects of their teaching they would like feedback. This is not an evaluative process. The
evaluative feedback will be delivered by management, either from examination of the portfolio or from the classroom observation, and from students.
- Union’s issue. Faculty and chairs don’t know how to give constructive feedback. They can be cruel and indiscrete in
their feedback. Many do not even know what good teaching looks like.
College’s response: The College will address this issue directly by providing the Chairs and faculty with training in classroom observation
and feedback. Both Chairs and faculty will receive training in giving and receiving feedback to ensure boundaries and expectations are clear. Feedback
will be provided in the context of the teacher’s objectives for a particular class. It will focus on building on strengths, and discussing
possibilities. Appropriate professional behaviour regarding what is observed and said is expected.
4. Union’s issue: Chairs are not allowed to go uninvited into post-probationary faculty classrooms.
College’s response: The College does not agree with this statement, however, the College expects that Chairs will respectfully arrange
with their faculty as to an appropriate time and class to attend. The College also believes that when Chairs have more opportunities
to attend classes, they will have an even better understanding and appreciation of the work of the faculty, resulting in a stronger focus on
and recognition of our learning community.
5. Union’s issue: The College will use the faculty performance review to “get rid of faculty”.
College’s response: The faculty performance review model and process is designed to promote excellence in teaching and learning, to
foster a learning community, and to benefit our students’ learning. The College has a very separate process for performance management
to address faculty performance issues. Should it be necessary to commence performance management with a faculty member, that faculty member
will not be engaged in the faculty performance review process. The College’s goal is never “to get rid of faculty” but
rather to assist them to deliver our promise to our students and the community, to “make excellence in teaching and learning a distinguishing
hallmark of a George Brown College education”.
All the literature and research show that a good performance review model is the single most effective way of improving excellence in teaching
and learning. We need to keep our overarching priority as our vision and strive to achieve it.
11. Will the results go into the HR files and for what purpose?
The faculty and their Chair will develop a summary memorandum itemizing the process and activities undertaken during the review. This memorandum
will also identify the faculty’s professional development goals and objectives and will be part of the employee’s human resources file. It
will be used for the purposes of developing the corporate organizational and staff development plan and programme. It will provide evidence
that faculty are engaged in performance review as well as other information, such as the attainment of new credentials for the College.
12. Will the memorandum for the file include the professional development action plan for each faculty?
Yes. The College will want to see the identified professional development requirements in order to plan appropriate Staff Development activities. It
is recognized that many aspects of a faculty member’s professional development plan however will either be enacted by the faculty member
directly (such as attending teaching and learning workshops) or by discussion with their Chair (such as participating in a specific sector related
conference or industry placement opportunity).
13. How will managers use the information?
The information is to be used for development purposes. It will form a basis for discussion regarding the individual faculty member’s
development and the need for supports or resources to assist faculty. The Chair can also use the information to point to characteristics
that should be acknowledged as strengths and areas that the individual faculty might want to consider improving, addressing or managing differently. It
will also provide an opportunity for faculty and their Chair to discuss other matters such as recognition of excellent work, resources available
to faculty etc.
We hope the College as a whole might elevate the performance review process to a point where excellence in teaching and learning can be universally
celebrated across the College. How this will happen needs further discussion and exploration.
14. Will there be time allocated on the SWF for the work that this will entail?
Yes. Faculty will be provided with the equivalent of one three hour teaching contact time course for the equivalent of one full term, (fourteen
teaching contact weeks) during the time they are developing their portfolio for the first time through the cycle. SWF time allocations for
subsequent engagement in the performance review process still need to be determined. The faculty who completed the pilot project indicated
that the development of the portfolio required the most time.
15. Is participation in the faculty performance review mandatory?
Yes. The College hopes that all faculty will want to engage in this process; however, we will require that all faculty participate at some
point.
16. Is there information on the literature review conducted related to this project?
Yes. A copy of the literature review is posted on the Academic Strategy Insite page.
17. I am a Chair. Who pays for the faculty time to participate in the performance review project? How
do I arrange reimbursement?
The performance review process is so fundamentally important to the College that the College has established a central fund to pay the “backfill
dollars” for faculty engaged in the process. When a faculty commences the 3 hour/14 week period to work on the portfolio, the Chair
will notify Staff Development. The Chair then will request the specific costs for the “replacement” faculty to be transferred
from the Human Resources budget to the program budget. The Chair will also ensure the non-full time contract for the replacement faculty
member indicates that this person is replacing a full-time faculty engaged in the performance review process. For further information
regarding this process, please contact Nancy Hood.
18. I have another question. Who do I ask?
Please direct any other questions you may have to Nancy Hood at nhood@georgebrown.ca.
Return to: George Brown College Faculty Performance Review
Return to: Staff Development at George Brown College
Revised:
January 30, 2009
|
