A to Z Campus Map Directory
Athens State Logo
Current Students Faculty & Staff Tuition & Payments News Events Giving Human Resources Bookstore
Untitled Document
College of Education > NCATE

Welcome | Overview & Conceptual Framework | Master Exhibit List
Standard 1 | Standard 2 | Standard 3 | Standard 4 | Standard 5 | Standard 6

Standard 5. Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance; they also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.

 5.1 Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

How does the unit ensure that its professional education faculty contributes to the preparation of effective educators through scholarship, service, teaching, collaboration and assessment of their performance?


Unit faculty actively participate in scholarship, service, teaching, and collaboration activities with the common goal of positively impacting candidate learning and success. In addition, all university faculty engage in an ongoing internal evaluation system with the goal of continuous improvement. The university's mission statement emphasizes the goal to "advance the best interests of its students and the state of Alabama through teaching, service, research and other creative activities to empower students to make valuable contributions in their professional, civic, educational, and economic endeavors" (Mission Statement, 2013). This serves as the foundation for course, program, and unit learning outcomes.


As noted in the first university goal, all unit faculty are committed to a student-centered approach to teaching and learning. This approach is supported through both the faculty hiring and the faculty promotion processes of the university. The university developed guidelines for recruitment and hiring of faculty with the goal to yield the best possible candidate for each vacancy (Exhibit 5.4.a.1). All search efforts are directed toward choosing the best suited individual based on professional qualifications, personal integrity, and equal opportunity/equal access considerations. The minimum credential for unit faculty appointment is a master's degree in the assigned discipline with a strong preference for an earned doctorate. In addition, faculty must maintain current knowledge of advances and innovations in their academic discipline and serve as student advisors. Faculty are also expected to actively engage in the program and unit assessment process, in scholarly activity related to the discipline, and in service activities within the university and surrounding community.


Prior to the university's transition to autonomy, faculty tenure was governed by the Alabama State Board of Education and the Department of Postsecondary Education and involved a somewhat limited local (university) role. The university's current policy establishes the standards used for the award of tenure and states that the basis for the award of tenure is on the performance of the faculty member's professional duties during a probationary period and requires a peer and administrative review. Further, the policy emphasizes that tenure is a long-term commitment by the university, aimed at assuring academic freedom: the freedom to teach, inquire, create, debate, and dissent. Tenure-track faculty complete a formal pre-tenure review in their third year to evaluate their progress and a complete review after six years. A complete timeline for the tenure process is outlined in Exhibit 5.4.f.1.


In 2009, a formal faculty promotion policy was formalized and a promotion committee consisting of peer faculty was established. In 2012, guidelines continued to be strengthened in an effort to provide more transparency and to assist faculty as they developed their promotion portfolios (Exhibit 5.4.f.2). In May 2013, a university policy was reaffirmed (Exhibit 5.4.f.3). The Tenure and Promotion Committee is established on an annual basis and consists of nine faculty members representing all three colleges. Initial eligibility for promotion is determined based on academic preparation and teaching experience criteria. For promotion to associate professor, applicants should possess a terminal degree in their field of appointment or provide evidence of extraordinary achievement and six years of full-time teaching at the university. Promotion to full professor requires a terminal degree in the field of appointment and ten years of full-time teaching at the university. The committee reviews faculty portfolios using an established rubric that focuses on teaching, scholarly activity, and service. These areas are weighted and reflect the university's long-standing tradition as a teaching institution and include teaching effectiveness (up to 40 points), student advising and involvement (up to 20 points), research and scholarly activity (up to 20 points), university service (up to 10 points), and professional and community service (up to 10 points) (Exhibit 5.4.f.4).

The unit and the university value continuous improvement and evaluation. One vehicle for this focus on continuous improvement is the annual performance review of all faculty. As noted in Standard 2, teacher education candidates are evaluated at five benchmarks throughout their program of study. Likewise, unit faculty engage in a similar benchmark process of evaluation. These benchmarks include a self-evaluation, student feedback, a department chair/college dean evaluation, and program evaluation and student performance data through the university's annual assessment process. Adjunct faculty are also evaluated using a systematic process that involves student feedback.


Faculty workload policies and practices support involvement in teaching, scholarship, service and collaboration with P-12 schools. Online and blended course content is equivalent to traditional courses with the unit following the university's Distance Learning Policy (Exhibit 5.4.a.2). Generally, unit faculty teach 12 semester hours per term including internship supervision. Faculty are on campus for weekly posted office hours to provide student advising and support. In addition, faculty participate in unit and university meetings, intern and field experience supervision, and service to P-12 schools.


Faculty expertise and currency is supported through professional development planning. Faculty use the self-evaluation form to establish their professional development plans for the upcoming year. This information is shared with the department chair/college dean as part of the evaluation conference. Faculty development activities are encouraged and supported through the unit's budget as well as through ongoing university-wide activities.


Teaching effectiveness and the impact on student learning is also assessed through the university's annual outcomes assessment process. This process represents an internal evaluation system where ongoing assessment of student learning and support services provides information for continuous improvement. It is guided by the belief that assessment should be appropriately aligned with outcomes and should encourage learning and teaching, not simply measure them.


5.2 Moving Toward Target or Continuous Improvement


Please respond to 5.2.a if this is the standard on which the unit is moving to the target level. If it is not the

standard on which you are moving to the target level, respond to 5.2.b.


 5.2.a Standard on which the unit is moving to the target level

  • Describe areas of the standard at which the unit is currently performing at the target level for each element of the standard.
  • Summarize activities and their impact on candidate performance and program quality that have led to target level performance.
  • Discuss plans and timelines for attaining and/or sustaining target level performance as articulated in this standard.

The unit is performing at target level for qualified faculty and includes professional education faculty who are academically qualified and possess appropriate content knowledge. University criteria for fulltime faculty include a preference for a doctorate from an accredited institution and require 18 graduate hours in the teaching discipline. Exhibit 5.4.a.3 provides complete information on unit faculty. Criteria for adjunct faculty include a minimum of a master's degree with 18 graduate hours in the teaching field. In 2012-13, the unit included 28 full-time faculty including the dean. Three of these were clinical faculty with appropriate graduate degrees and certificates and significant P-12 experience. Twenty-two of the remaining faculty (88%) held earned doctorates (Exhibit 5.4.a.3). In addition, four content methods faculty from the College of Arts & Sciences served as liaisons teaching secondary education methods courses. Three (75%) held earned doctorates.


Adjunct faculty are selected based on levels of expertise and classroom experience that meet both state and university standards. During 2012-13, the unit employed an average of 58 adjunct faculty for the fall and spring semesters. Exhibit 5.4.b.1 provides the qualifications for all adjunct faculty. Full-time faculty who serve as course anchors work closely with adjunct faculty to ensure quality and rigor in course delivery. Both full-time and adjunct faculty, including clinical faculty, are held to the same high standard of teaching effectiveness. This includes content development and course delivery using Blackboard, LiveText, and other institutional tools.


Unit faculty are performing at target level in modeling best professional practices in teaching. They share a collective goal to be exemplary teachers and demonstrate a proactive commitment to upholding the university's rich tradition as a "teacher's college." The university's promotion rubric (Exhibit 5.4.f.4) recognizes teaching effectiveness as the leading component in the promotion process.


Faculty continually seek to meet the ever-changing face of today's teaching and learning environments. Not only has the audience changed but the delivery format is evolving. As a result, faculty recognize the need to participate in professional development, scholarly work and reflective actions. Examples include:

  • Revision of the conceptual framework to include a more theoretical grounding in disciplinary and
  • professional knowledge, social justice, and student-centered learning.

  • Best practices in educational and instructional technology in the development of 21st century
  • instructionally sound courses. Since the 2007 NCATE visit, ED 305 Technology and Media for

    Educators has undergone extensive changes in which candidates design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences. Consequently, this course received the national "Blackboard Exemplary Course Award".

  • An instructional design specialist who collaborates with faculty to integrate exemplary course design rubric criteria, hired in 2010.


  • A Distance Learning Policy (Exhibit 5.4.a.2) adopted in 2012 that reflects best practices recommended by EDUCAUSE and the Sloan Consortium.


  • An ongoing focused review by content faculty to ensure quality and rigor in all courses for vital areas such as literacy, children's literature, diversity, English language learners, and technology.


  • Professional development activities on instructional technology innovations
  • Researching, writing and modeling classroom practices and strategies in a variety of modalities.

Unit faculty were recognized in 2012-13 for their excellence in teaching through a variety of institutional, regional and national awards. A few examples include:

  • Dr. Loraine B. Papst Commitment to Teaching award
  • University of Alabama Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate award
  • Blackboard Catalyst Award for Exemplary Course Design


Faculty are expected to engage in ongoing professional and scholarly activities to enhance their content knowledge and teaching effectiveness. This expectation is supported by the university's evaluation and tenure/promotion processes. Promotion criteria include a focus on research and scholarly activities (Exhibit 5.4.f.4). Faculty are encouraged to show evidence of scholarly activities through book publications and publications in professional journals, national and regional conference presentations, workshops, and secured grants. Exhibits 5.4.d.1 and 5.4.d 2 provide a comprehensive listing of faculty research and publications for the two years noted. Faculty accomplishments in research and other scholarly activities are celebrated through a monthly university publication (Exhibit 5.4.d.3).

The university's Building Success through Writing initiative focuses on improving students' college-level writing skills and has stimulated an evolving shift in the university's culture and created a more writing-friendly environment for both faculty and students. Since implementation in 2010, the university has hosted three nationally-recognized leaders in the area of teaching and assessing college-level writing. In addition, faculty hosted intra-college workshops to share best practices related to incorporating effective writing strategies into curriculum, writing in the disciplines, and writing for publication. Unit leadership with these workshops is described in Exhibit 5.4.d.4.

Unit faculty exemplify best professional practices in service through a variety of local, regional, state and national venues. They serve on departmental, college, and university committees. In addition, many are involved in state and national organizations as officers, editors, and reviewers. Exhibits 5.4.e.1 and

5.4.e.2 provide a list of faculty service and collaboration activities. Faculty were involved in a variety of committees created in 2012-13 to review policies as a result of the university's shift in governance. A complete list of unit leadership and involvement is described in Exhibit 5.4.e.3 and Exhibit 5.4.e.4. Significant roles of unit faculty providing university leadership include:

  • Presiding Officer, Faculty Senate during the year of transition to autonomy
  • Chair and members, Vision, Mission, and Goals Committee to establish direction for the newly autonomous university
  • Key committees that led the review, recommendation, and establishment of policies and procedures for the new governance
  • Chair, Minority Recruitment and Retention Committee
  • Leadership roles, Building Success through Writing initiative


Unit faculty also serve on the statewide Alabama College and Career Readiness Standards (Common Core) Implementation Team thus providing the unit with current information on state standards. These are then passed along to candidates through course and program activities.

A major theme for the unit is collaboration. Through a variety of partnerships, faculty model best practices in teaching in P-12 settings. One example is the active partnerships with Professional Development Schools (PDS). These provide an opportunity for unit and school collaboration and support candidates in developing pedagogical knowledge and skills in a school setting. The unit continues to develop PDS sites. A complete description of partnership activities is provided in Exhibit 5.4.e.5 (also in 3.4.a.13 in Standard 3).


In 2012-13, the unit developed a partnership with Chapman Middle School and worked collaboratively with school administrators and classroom teachers to meet the needs of highly diverse students through the implementation of inquiry-based learning. Inquiry-based teaching and learning focuses on the research of essential questions and the individual needs of students to produce more profound understanding. Throughout the year, faculty were located on the Chapman campus and mentored classroom teachers and students. They were involved in the teaching schedule for enrichment classes for 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students and volunteered at parent/community events. Candidates worked with classroom teachers and unit faculty to assist, teach and reflect on teaching activities. Exhibit 5.4.e.6 and Exhibit 5.4.e.7 provide details of this research-in-action project.


Collaboration with P-12 entities across the region is also a critical component for the unit's Field Experience and Internship (FEI) Office. During the 2012-13 year, more than 280 intern candidates were placed in approximately 66 school systems across the state. Many more candidates participated in field experiences. As a result of these relationships, faculty hosted summer reading programs and math/technology enrichment programs at area elementary schools where they served as models for candidates who team taught with them.


Another example of collaboration with P-12 and community partners is the "Leader in Me" training. The university is one of a few teacher preparation programs nationally identified as a "Leader in Me" process school based on Stephen Covey's "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" for preschool through fifth grade. Covey's habits teach universal principles such as responsibility, integrity and respect. The program is designed to produce higher academic achievement and reduce discipline problems as well as to equip children with self-confidence, lifelong leadership, and social skills. For the past two years, the unit has partnered with the Regional In-service Center to host a leadership symposium with 300-600 in attendance from eight different states and Canada including school administrators, K-8 principals and teachers.

As noted in Standard 1, Athens State University is unique in that it only offers coursework at the junior and senior level and serves as the transfer destination for many of the state's community college students. The university and the unit actively cultivate positive relationships with these community college partners across the state with the goal of providing students a seamless pathway to a baccalaureate degree. The university has agreements with several of these partners to deliver on-site coursework. A complete description of these locations is provided in Standard 6.

Another collaboration example is the recent partnership with the University of North Alabama. This partnership, piloted during fall 2013, provides unit graduates access to a graduate (M.A.Ed) program on the Athens State University campus. Graduates of the unit's elementary and collaborative education programs are automatically admitted into this program.

Unit and university faculty work together on research projects, presentations, and publications. This collaboration ensures curricular alignment to the university and unit vision, mission and goals. Examples of this collaboration include the development of new minors (e.g. English Language Learners) and program redesign (e.g., Instructional Design) that correlate with changing workforce demands.

Evaluation of faculty performance is at target level. The process supports and encourages a high standard of excellence in teaching, scholarly activity, and service and involves a triangulated process. It includes a self-review, annual summary data of student/course evaluations, and an annual review by the department chair and/or college dean (Exhibit 5.4.f.13).

The self-evaluation (Exhibit 5.4.f. 5) is a reflective process and focuses on teaching and student engagement, research/scholarship/professional development, and service. Faculty provide a concise narrative identifying key accomplishments for the year as well as areas for improvement. They also include a summary of their goals and objectives for the coming year. The department chair and the faculty member meet and discuss this self-evaluation.

Student feedback is an integral part of the faculty evaluation process and is gathered each semester using the Faculty Course Evaluation Form (Exhibit 5.4.f.6). The results of student evaluations are provided to each faculty member, their department chair, and dean. Summative evaluation data for the academic year is used in conjunction with both the self-evaluation and the annual review by the department chair and/or college dean. Exhibits 5.4.f.8 and 14 provide a summary of all unit full and part-time faculty course evaluations for 2011-12 and 2012-13.

The final component of the process is the department chair/dean evaluation (Exhibit 5.4.f.7) completed after both parties review the faculty member's self-evaluation and student evaluations. The chair/dean provides summative comments based on the self-evaluation and indicates specific strengths as well as suggestions for improvement and possible opportunities for future growth.

Adjunct faculty are evaluated every semester using a similar process that includes the Faculty-Course Evaluation Form (Exhibit 5.4.f.6). The unit's Philosophical Foundations & Technology Department piloted a modified evaluation process for adjunct faculty during 2012-13. The full-time faculty member serving as the course anchor evaluated each adjunct faculty member who taught that course using the Adjunct Instructor Evaluation and Work Plan form (Exhibit 5.4.f.9). To gather data for this form, students were asked to complete a separate evaluation form specific to the course (Exhibit 5.4.f.10). The questions on this survey coincided with the Work Plan form. Responses were gathered and an average was generated for each item. Student comments were also included. Results from spring 2013 are provided in Exhibit 5.4.f.12. The faculty course anchor completed the form including information about the evaluation outcomes and provided it to the adjunct faculty member with a cover letter explaining the process and the scores (Exhibit 5.4.f.11). If the scores were below average, a plan for improvement was discussed with the adjunct and a follow-up evaluation was conducted the next semester with the expectation that scores would improve. The success of this pilot evaluation program was evidenced in increased positive communication between unit full-time and adjunct faculty members, and, as a result will be implemented by other areas of the unit.

The unit is moving towards target in the facilitation of professional development. One of the learning outcomes of the university is to inspire graduates to be lifelong learners. This philosophy is embraced by unit faculty who seek to model personal and professional growth through a variety of activities. With input from faculty, the unit focuses year-long professional development on critical issues and trends in teacher education. Similarly, the university provides and supports faculty in professional development activities beginning with the individualized goals outlined in the annual faculty evaluation process. Faculty research and conference presentations are encouraged and supported by the unit budget. Since the 2007 NCATE visit, the university has implemented an incentive program that encourages and rewards research and teaching excellence.


5.2.b Continuous Improvement

  • Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of candidate performance and program quality.
  • Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as articulated in this standard.




5.3 Areas for Improvement Cited in the Action Report from the Previous Accreditation Review

Summarize activities, processes, and outcomes in addressing each of the AFIs cited for the initial and/or advanced program levels under this standard.

For over 100 years the unit has prepared quality teachers and served north Alabama's education community. Unit faculty believe that in order to carry out the university's mission they must engage in a range of scholarly activities that integrate teaching and learning with scholarship, inquiry, modeling and service. Scholarship at Athens State University follows the Boyer model with an emphasis on activities that help the faculty member improve teaching. Faculty scholarship must include the ongoing study of their discipline as well as the best ways to impart the knowledge they gain to their students for the public good. This includes traditional research, presentations, and publications but with a focus on serving the students and enhancing learning.


When the 2007 NCATE Team visited, it identified the need for faculty to increase scholarly activities. The 2007 NCATE team report stated: "The unit has 27 full-time faculty. A review of Live Text faculty portfolios showed limited faculty involvement with scholarly activity... Since the last visit the faculty have produced 34 publications and made 47 presentations." As a result, faculty members addressed the team's concern by focusing on discovering, studying, implementing and sharing what they learned. Several of the faculty chose to continue to define and implement scholarship in the traditional fashion of publishing and presenting. In 2011-2012, seventeen articles produced by 13 different faculty members were published in peer-reviewed journals and one published a book chapter. Seven different faculty members delivered seventeen regional or national presentations and ten different faculty were members of state, regional, and national boards with seven holding office. In 2012-13, ten different faculty members published articles in peer-reviewed journals and a different faculty member published a book chapter. Fourteen different faculty made presentations and twelve participated in professional organizations with six holding state offices and four holding office in national organizations. A comparison of the two reporting years (2011-2013) and those of the previous visit's data encompassing five years demonstrates an increase in scholarly activity. This increase has strengthened faculty teaching performance as evidenced through recent awards including the Athens State Scholarly/Research Award, the Blackboard Catalyst Award for Exemplary Courses, Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching Award and the Outstanding Paper Award for Research in Social Studies Education. Additionally, the unit was recently notified of another national award for teaching from the Sloan Consortium. A unit faculty member was selected to receive an Effective Practice Award in the Community of Teaching and Learning category in April of this year.


The unit's leadership also encouraged research, publication and presentation activities by sponsoring an external consultant who conducted workshops and formed writing teams. Over a three-year period, the faculty teams presented as well as wrote and published articles. During this same time frame, university leadership made an intentional choice to pursue the concept of offering courses in an online delivery format. Unit faculty shifted their focus on scholarship to what Boyer defines as discovery and engagement. They immersed themselves in their own study of ways to teach their discipline online so they could continue to prepare outstanding teachers. They read. They attended workshops. They talked. They questioned. They designed and redesigned course materials. Some became such experts that they were invited to present at other universities and at national conferences. The information listed here provides a sample of unit activities designed to increase faculty scholarly activities.


  • In 2008, Dr. Kenneth Henson, Professor of the College of Education at The Citadel in South Carolina and author of Writing for Professional Publication, delivered a workshop on professional writing. Unit faculty submitted potential articles to Dr. Henson prior to his arrival. He critiqued the documents and used them as tools for his workshop presentation. Dr. Henson created Writing Groups within the unit and these groups continued their work through the 2008-09 academic year. As a result, several faculty had articles accepted for publication.
  • In 2009, the unit hosted Dr. Jonathon Kozol, a well-known advocate author for children and equality. Faculty and students participated in his presentation on social and educational equality. The unit adopted Dr. Kozol's Letters to a New Teacher as a study book for all unit students, and unit faculty led a book review session. Dr. Prentice Chandler, unit faculty member, took the lead in developing writing groups for the faculty during 2009-10. Through these groups, unit faculty continued to research and submit articles for publication. A number of them were invited to present at national and regional conferences.
  • In 2010, the university implemented the Building Success through Writing initiative as a five-year plan to improve students' college-level writing skills. One of the goals of the initiative was to create a campus climate that encouraged and valued writing as a core competency for all students. Unit faculty were involved in a variety of writing-intensive activities including developing a university-wide college-level writing rubric that established a standard of excellence across the institution (Exhibit 5.4.e.8). This unified focus reinvigorated faculty writing activities and provided a heightened awareness on the value of scholarly research and publication. During the development of this plan, faculty from across the university were engaged in focus group discussions related to improving students' college-level writing skills. Each of the focus group events was sparked by a different piece of scholarly reading and, in the end, a total of thirteen focus group meetings were hosted for all full and part-time faculty. Faculty discussed strengths and weaknesses in curriculum and pedagogy at the university as well as concern over the gradual decline in both the perceived importance of writing skills by students and the lack of a clear standard of evaluating writing among faculty. Exhibit 5.4.g.1 provides a comprehensive list of focus group feedback and comments. One of the objectives of the implementation plan for the Building Success through Writing initiative was to "highlight and reward faculty writing".


In 2011, the university's faculty revised the promotion and tenure guidelines. The revised promotion guidelines continue to focus on teaching as the primary responsibility, evidenced by the weighted categories, but also places value on scholarly work and service (teaching effectiveness – 40 points; Student Advising & Involvement – 20 points; Research & Scholarly Activities – 20 points; and University Service – 10 points). See Exhibit 5.4.f.4.

Also in 2011, the university launched a Faculty Mentoring Program designed to support new faculty in an effort to provide a positive first-year experience for new faculty. This year-long initiative paired new faculty with seasoned faculty mentors. Exhibit 5.4.e.9 provides the initial invitation to faculty mentors outlining the goals of the program. Regular meetings were hosted throughout the year where new faculty were introduced to key leaders and university practices. Exhibit 5.4.e.10 includes meeting agendas with an outline of topics discussed. Faculty mentors were provided with an informal checklist to prepare for the new faculty member (Exhibit 5.4.e.11). Mentors were also given a list of significant issues to cover throughout the year (Exhibit 5.4.e.12). A complete list of new faculty members who participated in this mentoring program for 2011-12 and 2012-13 is provided in Exhibit 5.4.e.13.

In 2012 and 2013, the Philosophical Foundations and Technology Department hosted a mini-conference specifically for adjunct faculty members. This all-day event was held prior to the beginning of the fall semester and featured sessions by unit full-time faculty members as well as the university's instructional designer. In addition to meeting unit faculty, adjuncts participated in a discussion panel with student members of the university's Teacher Ambassador Club. An agenda from the 2013 event is provided in Exhibit 5.4.c.1. A complete set of materials from the 2012 training event is available in Exhibit 5.4.c.2. Adjunct faculty responded enthusiastically to these training events and as a result this has become an annual event.


As evidenced by Exhibit 5.4.d.2, faculty members integrated service with scholarship through team membership that produced manuals in special education, physical education and early childhood education at the state level. They conducted summer programs that afforded them the opportunity to present and publish articles (e.g., Summer Science Camp). They created curriculum manuals for special programs in the summer camps. They also developed programs with Professional Development Schools that allowed them to produce and present at state and national conferences as well as have other teacher education programs invite them to teach their faculty how to develop similar programs. They also wrote small grants to help with the Chapman 21st Century Research Model School and with its parent involvement program.


Traditionally, scholarship is defined as research and publication, but the focus at Athens State University has always been teaching. Faculty scholarship includes a greater focus on the teacher/scholar. Current university leadership recently increased the emphasis on professional development and scholarly activity, including action research and publication, because it enhances the learning environment. Unit faculty traditionally functioned as expert practitioners who integrate sound pedagogical practices into their teaching. As the unit moves toward target in scholarly activity, faculty stay abreast of current issues in their teaching fields through ongoing research activities, publishing, attending and presenting at state, regional, and national conferences. Faculty are actively engaged in inquiry ranging from knowledge generation that supports courses and teaching methodology to research that focuses on exploration of

professional areas.


Exhibit 5.4.a - Data table on qualifications of professional education faculty. This table can be compiled below from data submitted in the Manage Faculity section of AIMS or compiled in Excel, Word, or another format and uploaded as an exhibit.

 5.4 Exhibits for Standard 5

5.4.a Data table on qualifications of professional education faculty (This table can be compiled in the online template from data submitted for national program reviews or compiled in Excel, Word, or another format and uploaded as an exhibit. See Appendix D for an example.)

5.4.b Data table on qualifications of clinical faculty (i.e., P-12 school professionals and professional education faculty responsible for instruction, supervision, and/or assessment of candidates during field experiences and clinical practice)

5.4.c Policies and practices to assure clinical faculty meet unit expectations

5.4.d Policies, expectations, and samples of faculty scholarly activities

5.4.e Summary of faculty service and collaborative activities in schools (e.g., collaborative project with school faculty, teacher professional development, and addressing the needs of low performing schools) and with the

professional community (e.g., grants, evaluations, task force participation, provision of professional development, offering courses, etc.)

5.4.f Policies, procedures, and practices for faculty evaluation (including promotion and tenure) and summaries of the results in areas of teaching, scholarship and service

5.4.g Policies, procedures, and practices for professional development and summaries of the results

5.4.a.1 Athens State University Guidelines for Recruitment and Hiring (4.4.g.1)

5.4.a.2 Athens State Distance Learning Policy (4.4.i.11 and 6.4.j.1)

5.4.a.3 Faculty Qualifications 2012-2013

5.4.b.1 Faculty Adjunct Qualifications 2012-2013

5.4.c.1 Adjunct Faculty Training Agendas

5.4.c.2 Adjunct Faculty Orientation Materials – Fall 2012

5.4.d.1 Faculty Scholarly Activity 2011-2012

5.4.d.2 Faculty Scholarly Activity 2012-2013

5.4.d.3 Campus Ledgers

5.4.d.4 University Presentation Activities by Unit Faculty

5.4.e.1 Faculty Service and Collaborative Activities 2011-2012

5.4.e.2 Faculty Service and Collaborative Activities 2012-2013

5.4.e.3 University Policy Review Committees 2012-13

5.4.e.4 Standing Faculty Committees 2012-13

5.4.e.5 Summary of PDS Partnerships

5.4.e.6 Chapman 21st Century Research School Concept Paper

5.4.e.7 Chapman 21st Century Research School Model Plan (3.4.a.5)

5.4.e.8 College-Level Writing Rubric (1.4.c.9, 2.4.a.8, 2.4.a.16)

5.4.e.9 Invitation to Faculty Mentors

5.4.e.10 Faculty Mentoring Meeting Agendas

5.4.e.11 Informal Checklist for Faculty Mentors

5.4.e.12 Issues to Cover with New Faculty

5.4.e.13 New Faculty Cohorts for 2011-12 and 2012-2013

5.4.f.1 Tenure Policy

5.4.f.2 Faculty Promotion Guidelines

5.4.f.3 Faculty Promotion Policy

5.4.f.4 Faculty Promotion Rubric

5.4.f.5 Faculty Self-Evaluation Form

5.4.f.6 Faculty Course Evaluation Form

5.4.f.7 Faculty Evaluation Form by Dean/Dept. Chair

5.4.f.8 Summary of All Faculty Course Evaluations 2012-13

5.4.f.9 Adjunct Instructor Evaluation and Work Plan Form

5.4.f.10 Student Survey of ED 305 Course and Adjunct

5.4.f.11 Adjunct Faculty Evaluation Notification Letter

5.4.f.12 Summary of Adjunct Faculty Evaluations-Spring 2013

5.4.f.13 University Procedures for Faculty Evaluation

5.4.f.14 Summary of All Faculty Course Evaluations 2011-12

5.4.g.1 Faculty Focus Group Feedback on College Level Writing Skills



Untitled Document

300 N. Beaty Street, Athens, AL 35611
Phone: (256) 233-8100

Stay Connected My.Athens.edu Athens State Online facebook Linked In
Google + you tube
Non-Discrimination Policy | Right to Know | Map/Directions | Contact Us
Web Privacy Statement | Copyright © 2014 Athens State University