Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Partnering for performance
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Partnering for performance

  • 144 views
Published

WCET Annual Meeting Presentation

WCET Annual Meeting Presentation

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
144
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Rationale: Strategic Plan – Written for 2009 – 2012One of the three overarching goals included in the plan: Enhanced Learning OutcomesSpecific sub-goals included:Cultivating quality instructional staffPromoting adaptive delivery methodsAugust 2011-August 2012Developed new toolsDually designed to be robust and to clearly define behaviors Reducing subjectivityLevel setting and consistency from observersSimultaneously shift to new automated performance management systemSimultaneous shift to competency-based modelSimultaneously modified student end of course surveys twice during this timeframeNew Expectations:For facultyFor supervisorsNew definitions: what success and quality look like
  • Rollout- personal introductions at each campus (prior to January 2012)See faculty rollout scriptCritical Friend-”the person you ask to read the email before you hit send”Teachers L.E.A.D.Partnership term Worked with “observers” at each campus to conduct joint observations and work on feedback collaboratively – During this term, I conducted 50 observationsContinue to do this on an ad hoc basisFirst set of dataImplementationRoadblocks:Deans not trained educators so slow to adapt and seek help, lack of confidence and competence in new roles as instructional coachesContinue to coach via monthly communications in our Dean’s DigestContinue to coach via creation of tools like the 14 page Brain Seeds packetParadigm shift for faculty- this is not about catching someone doing something wrong but about coaching someone toward continuous improvementMost faculty not trained educator so need help with how to coach around pedagogy Some technological issues – especially with ANGEL our online platform- created opportunities for faculty to view one another (permissions issue)Training layered on this summer – how do I give effective feedback to my peers and how do I receive feedbackData- not apples to apples
  • Where we expected to be (between meeting and partially meeting expectations) given so many changes in expectations.

Transcript

  • 1. Session 9:30-10:45 Nancy Lindfors, Harrison College (In) Andrew Shean, Ashford University (Ca)Moderator: Kathi Baldwin, University of Alaska, SE Sitka
  • 2. Leveraging a Critical Friend Model
  • 3. History:••••••
  • 4. Where are we? Evaluation and Rollout Implementation Revisions
  • 5. Baseline Data Professional/ Communicati Service Overall Leadership Adaptability Technical on Orientation Rating Expertise 2.73 2.66 2.58 2.91 2.82 2.74 Overall Rating 7.12 Service OrientationProfessional / Technical Expertise Communication Adaptbiltiy Leadership 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3
  • 6. Next Steps•••••
  • 7. 3.5 3.1 3 2.92.5 2.4 2 1.91.5 10.5 0 Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback) Round 1 Round 2
  • 8. 0.45 0.4 0.40.35 0.3 0.30.25 0.20.15 0.10.05 0 Change Comparison Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback)
  • 9. 3.5 3.2 3 2.7 2.52.5 2.1 21.5 10.5 0 Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback) Round 1 Round 2
  • 10. 0.45 0.4 0.4 0.40.35 0.30.25 0.20.15 0.10.05 0 Change Comparison Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback)
  • 11. 3.5 3.2 3 2.72.5 2.4 2 1.91.5 10.5 0 Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback) Round 1 Round 2
  • 12. 0.6 0.50.5 0.40.40.30.20.1 0 Change Comparison Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback)
  • 13. 43.5 3.4 3.1 3 2.52.5 2.3 21.5 10.5 0 Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback) Round 1 Round 2
  • 14. 0.35 0.3 0.30.25 0.2 0.20.15 0.10.05 0 Change Comparison Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback)
  • 15. 3.5 3.3 3.1 3 2.62.5 2.2 21.5 10.5 0 Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback) Round 1 Round 2
  • 16. 0.45 0.4 0.40.35 0.30.25 0.20.15 0.1 0.10.05 0 Change Comparison Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback)
  • 17. 3.5 3.2 3 2.9 2.52.5 2.1 21.5 10.5 0 Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback) Round 1 Round 2
  • 18. 0.45 0.4 0.40.35 0.3 0.30.25 0.20.15 0.10.05 0 Change Comparison Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback)
  • 19. 3.5 3.1 32.5 2.3 21.5 10.5 0 Mean Score Group 1 (Feedback) Group 2 (No Feedback)
  • 20. All Instructors In All Areas 3 2.72.5 21.5 10.5 0 Mean Score All Instructors In All Areas
  • 21. Targeted Professional Development
  • 22. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS