Teacher and Researcher Performance Quality Assessment in Higher Education

Teacher and Researcher Performance Quality Assessment in Higher Education

• 1.
  27-28 February 2018 Teacherand Researcher Performance Quality Assessment in Higher Education János Ollé Speed-dating HEI practice - Peer-learning to Innovate Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Regional Committee in Miskolc Committee on Pedagogy
• 2.
  Key points ✤ assessingthe core activity of teachers and resarchers ✤ dimensions of teachers’ and researchers’ activities ✤ performance assessment justification ✤ the development process of the system ✤ risks ✤ challenges ✤ conclusions
• 3.
  Assessing the coreactivity of teachers and researchers ✤ scientific output & publication activity ✤ teaching ✤ activities in scientific organisations ✤ non-assessed other activities ✤ project planning & proposals ✤ teaching administration ✤ self-training, preparation of activities
• 4.
  Assessment of scientific& publication output ✤ the assessment system is developed and approved independently from higher education management ✤ domain-specific assessment system for each scientific field ✤ innovative features: ✤ assessment of the individual development of each teacher ✤ comparison of the performance of different fields ✤ use of results in HR ✤ knowledge map and institutional knowledge stock ✤ connections: ✤ indirect links with academic public activities
• 5.
  Assessment of teachingperformance ✤ traditional performance assessment usually focuses on the quantity of teaching and ignore the quality-related aspects ✤ innovative features: ✤ equal focus on: ✤ feedback from students, ✤ feedback from course administrators, ✤ feedback from independent pedagogical experts ✤ connections: ✤ teaching performance is closely related both to scientific performance and pedagogical competences; however, we tend to consider the latter as ‘taboo’ ✤ the quality of teaching is directly linked to the teacher’s academic public activity
• 6.
  Academic public activity ✤the most complex and diversified field of assessment ✤ ’natural’, non-conscious PR activity of the organisation ✤ innovative features: ✤ reflective environment, measurement of connections ✤ basis for professional and targeted institutional communication ✤ external network of the institution ✤ connections: ✤ the significance of academic public activity is often underestimated, despite of its direct impact on teaching quality and publication performance
• 7.
  Assessment of scientificand publication output ✤ publication activity, ✤ thesis consultancy, dissertation supervising ✤ participation in academic qualification and referee board(s)
• 8.
  Teaching quality assessment ✤students' evaluation of teaching quality ✤ course administrators’ evaluation ✤ involvement in internationalisation ✤ development of digital and printed teaching material ✤ course and curriculum development ✤ quantity of teaching ✤ higher education pedagogical competences
• 9.
  Assessment of academicpublic life ✤ committee membership/participation ✤ involvement in professional associations ✤ publication reviewing and journal editorial activities ✤ conference and event organisation ✤ scientific and professional awards and acknowledgements ✤ dissemination, media activity related to science promotion
• 10.
  Why do weneed performance assessment? ✤ visibility of institutional values ✤ clear expectations towards employees ✤ the up-to-date database provides a ‘snapshot’ of the institution and can be used for the analysis of trends and processes ✤ comparative analysis of organisational units ✤ support of HR and payroll decision making ✤ various interpretation possibilities
• 11.
  Milestones of systemdevelopment ✤ theoretical planning and design ✤ inter-institutional communication and dialogue ✤ inclusion in institutional regulations ✤ IT system development ✤ information and dissemination ✤ data collection and database management ✤ assessment and communication of results ✤ supporting the interpretation of results ✤ sustainability risk assessment
• 12.
  Possible risks ✤ developmentor evaluation s ✤ the novel system might interfere with the institutional status quo ✤ fear of transparency and objectivity, existential concern ✤ extra administrative workload (recording)
• 13.
  Challenges ✤ relationship betweenperformance assessment and institutional values ✤ taking into account domain-specific attributes and differences ✤ use of results as reflective self-assessment tool for individuals and organiational units ✤ gaining acceptance for the significance of teaching quality ✤ differentiated development based on differentiated assessment ✤ publicity and accessibility of data
• 14.
  Experiences and conclusions ✤slow, interactive and gradual introduction will enhance acceptance ✤ strong emphasis on self-reflective features (individuals&organisational units) ✤ simple, user-friendly system
• 15.
  27-28 February 2018 JánosOllé linkedin.com/in/ollejanos Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Regional Committee in Miskolc Committee on Pedagogy twitter.com/ollejanos