Transcript Evaluation mechanisms of HK tertiary institutions FOK, Ping Kwan (霍秉坤)

Evaluation mechanisms of HK tertiary institutions
FOK, Ping Kwan (霍秉坤)
Department of Curriculum of Instruction, Faculty of Education,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
E-mail: [email protected]
Tertiary Institution evaluation
1
Outline
Cases
 University Grant Council (UGC)
 Comments

Tertiary Institution evaluation
2
Cases
Hong Kong Institute of Education
 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
 The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Tertiary Institution evaluation
3
Hong Kong Institute of Education




Scoring Worksheet for Academic Staff Performance Appraisal
(Annex VII)
Summary of Submission by Appraisee for Academic Staff
Performance Appraisal (Annex V)
Performance Criteria and Scoring Models (Annex III)
Minimum Weighting for Each Performance Domain for
Academic Staff (Annex IV)
Tertiary Institution evaluation
4
HKIEd items
Teaching
 Research and scholarly activities

Tertiary Institution evaluation
5
Teaching portfolio (1)


1) Teaching Performance – Student Evaluation
2) Teaching Performance – Innovations in Teaching
 (e.g ability to demonstrate a reflective self-critical attitude
to teaching, willingness to innovate and improve his/her
teaching, preparation [including originality of approach and
planning] of lectures and tutorials, etc,
 innovative use of teaching resources and choice of teaching
methods and strategies, willingness to employ new
teaching materials / resources, appropriate introduction and
use of multimedia and other educational technologies etc.)
Tertiary Institution evaluation
6
Teaching portfolio (2)


3) Teaching Performance – Observation of Teaching
 Possible sources of evidence may include:
 Comments / Feedback from HoD, peer nominated by
HoD and/or peer nominated by the staff member
 Any relevant data available to the reviewer / DRC
4) Supervision of Practicum
 (e.g. quality of supervision on practicum, projects and/or
fieldwork , initiative in practical work, field trips and
placement of students in work experience, etc.
Tertiary Institution evaluation
7
Teaching portfolio (3)

5) Scholarship of Teaching and Learning



a) Contributions to teaching / learning related projects e.g. TDG
projects, and the quality of the involvement / projects completed
b) Teaching materials for use by the Institute or schools, such as CDRom, video, teachers’ manuals, teaching packages, children’s texts, etc.
6) Professional and Pastoral Care to Students

(e.g. relations with students, genuine care and support for students,
sensitivity to needs of students, a demonstrated willingness to make
oneself available for consultation to students and to assist individual
students in times of need, ability to interact with and inspire students,
encourage students to enquire and search for ideas / information in
other venues e.g. library, etc.)
Tertiary Institution evaluation
8
Research and Scholarly Activities (1)

1) Contributions to Research


Projects (External funded projects can include QEF, EMB,
RGC funded projects from which research output arises.)
2) Research Output


(e.g. articles in refereed journals, book chapters / books
published, commissioned reports such as Education and
Manpower Bureau Commissioned Reports, original music
score, artwork, design etc.)
NOTES: For each multiple-authored work, the applicant
should indicate his/her percentage contribution to each
work.
Tertiary Institution evaluation
9
Research and Scholarly Activities (2)
 3)

Providing Support to Staff in Research
Service to HKIEd
 1)
Contributions to Committee Work at Institute /
Departmental Level or Faculty Responsibilities /
Representing the Institute on external committees
 2) Contributions to Programme/Curriculum
Development, Programme Management, and/or
Review Exercises
 3) Participation in New Initiatives / Special Projects /
Self-funding activities
Tertiary Institution evaluation
10
Service to HKIEd – Scoring Model
 Contributions
to Committee Work at Institute
/ Departmental Level or Faculty
Responsibilities
 Contributions
to Programme Development,
Programme Management, Review Exercises
 Participation
in New Initiatives / Special
Projects
Tertiary Institution evaluation
11
Professional and Community Contribution

1) Recognition by and Contributions to the
Community and / or the Profession

Possible examples of evidence may include:






Contributions to public committees
Consultancies to government and non-government bodies
Appointment as External Examiner / Assessor / Advisor / Teaching
Consultant
Positions of responsibility in professional bodies
Engagement in public debate (e.g. in media)
2) Participation in the Establishment of School
Networks / Services to Schools, Involvement in
School Development / Consultancy Activities
Tertiary Institution evaluation
12
HKIED Professorial salary
Academic Chair Professor
Professor
Min
Max
107,800
133,600
(average)
72,100
108,200
Associate Professor 58,200
87,300
Assistant Professor
69,300
46,200
Tertiary Institution evaluation
13
HKIEd teaching staff salary
Teaching Senior Teaching
Fellow / Senior
Instructor
Teaching Fellow I /
Instructor I
Teaching Fellow II /
Instructor II
Tertiary Institution evaluation
Min
Max
39,300
60,900
28,700
44,500
21,100
30,600
14
Evaluation of CUHK staffs
 Annual
Departmental Records 2007-08
(See Appendix A)
 Activities
Undertaken by Individual
Teaching Staff (Instructor and above)
Tertiary Institution evaluation
15
Items in CUHK record (1)
 1.
Teaching (from August 1 to July 31)
 Classroom
Teaching (corresponding course
evaluation results)
 Postgraduate
Supervision and Examination
 Teaching-Other
Contributions
Tertiary Institution evaluation
16
Items in CUHK record (2)
 Research
and Scholarship (from July 1 to
June 30)
In filling out items 2(a) to 2(c), the teacher should
cut and paste below the information provided by
the RAO for Appendices C and D of the Annual
Departmental Records.
 Publications
 Research Grants
 Research and Scholarship-Other Contributions

Tertiary Institution evaluation
17
CUHK evaluation report
 Annual
Departmental Records 2007-08
(See Appendix A)
 Summary
of Research (See Appendix B)
Tertiary Institution evaluation
18
Items in CUHK record (3)
 Service
(from August 1 to July 31)
 Service
to Department/Faculty
 Service
to College/University
 External
Service
Tertiary Institution evaluation
19
CUHK salary ($)
Teaching Posts
Point
Research Assistant Professor
RAP 1-4, ($34,950-47,175)
B 1-2 ($47,990-54,320)
Research Associate Professor
B 3-6 ($55,145-67,390)
Assistant Professor
B 1-5 ($47,990-64,125)
Associate Professor
B 6-9 ($67,390-77,145)
Professor 2
B 10-12 ($81,205-82,030)
Professor 1
A 1-7 ($85,280-104,670)
Professor of a subject or specialty
Commencing A 8 ($107,795)
Tertiary Institution evaluation
20
Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Manpower Quality Review



Frequency


For academic staff
For non-academic staff
To be carried out annually
Operation

Conducted by a committee




Head of department
Two senior staff members in the department
Staff members are not required to fill in any forms, submit any
document or attend any interviews
Based on readily available information
Tertiary Institution evaluation
21
Information based on (academic staff)
Results of SFQ
 Peer review
 Submissions of iRAE and RAE
 Results of applications for external funding
 Any critical incidents which have occurred in the year
--- significant incidents that may have affected or
influenced the actual performance of the staff
member and significant contributions, achievements
or innovative practices of the staff made to the
Department / University

Tertiary Institution evaluation
22
Outcomes of Review




Staff normally will not be informed of the results (unless need
follow up actions)
Head of department needs to record the results of Review
Only confirm if the staff is performing satisfactorily. No
specific grading will be given
Enable head of departments to






Review the roles and / or responsibilities of staff members in general
Consider the workload of staff members in general
Recognise development needs of staff in general
Plan manpower
Identify which staff should be appraised by the Staff Appraisal System
in the coming year
Identify candidates for various HR functions (e.g. salary review,
performance reward, contract renewal, promotion and sanction)
Tertiary Institution evaluation
23
Manpower Quality Review Report
Tertiary Institution evaluation
24
The dominance of UGC

UGC

Excellent Results from the Research Assessment
Exercise (RAE) 2006



RAE guideline (see appendix C)
Teaching quality assessment
RGC report

CERG / GRF

(RGC report)
Tertiary Institution evaluation
25
RAE
2
March 2007 announced the results of the
Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2006
 Dr Alice Lam (林李翹如), Chairman of UGC,
"The UGC is pleased to learn that all UGC-funded
institutions have made great strides in their research
performance since the last RAE in 1999. Many of
our colleagues are internationally known top notch
researchers and this reflects the effort of our
institutions in excelling in research over the years.“
 RAE 2006 results will be factored into the
'Research' portion of the institutions' recurrent
grants.

Tertiary Institution evaluation
26
History of RAEs
 The
previous three RAEs were carried out in
1993, 1996 and 1999. For RAE 2006, the UGC
has raised the standard of assessment.
 Roland

Chin :
Many of the external assessment panel members are
impressed with the performance of our institutions.
They think that we compared well with top higher
education institutions in Europe and North America.
Some members think that Hong Kong has
demonstrated an emergence of intellectual
prominence in many research disciplines
Tertiary Institution evaluation
27
The RAE result

RAE 2006: Research Indices (See Appendix D)


http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/publication/prog/rae/rae.ht
m
RAE example (See Appendix E)
Tertiary Institution evaluation
28
RAE result
Panel
CityU
HKBU
LU
CUHK
HKIEd
PolyU
HKUST
HKU
Total
1. Biology
95.00%
92.50%
--
78.79%
25.00%
72.73%
95.16%
85.61%
85.29%
2. Health
Sciences
--
100.00
%
--
90.23%
--
58.42%
--
94.44%
86.84%
3. Physical
Sciences
98.96%
93.75%
--
95.16%
29.17%
87.25%
92.61%
94.62%
91.57%
4. Electrical &
Electronic
Engineering
75.16%
--
--
88.46%
--
85.19%
98.44%
92.97%
86.34%
5. Computer
Science /IT
74.19%
69.64%
--
88.75%
29.17%
68.75%
82.64%
68.75%
74.06%
6. Engineering
83.93%
--
--
97.50%
--
67.59%
89.58%
82.05%
80.69%
7. Built
Environment
71.74%
--
--
50.00%
--
53.37%
75.00%
65.99%
60.91%
8. Law
74.81%
50.00%
--
100.00%
--
--
--
86.48%
81.03%
9. Business
Studies &
Economics
73.08%
80.96%
84.14%
88.41%
3.67%
65.09%
80.90%
81.04%
76.72%
10. Social
Sciences
75.83%
63.52%
80.36%
88.18%
25.00%
44.83%
89.29%
81.47%
75.16%
11. Humanities
65.34%
79.00%
68.37%
82.85%
44.92%
40.25%
80.21%
80.95%
67.63%
12. Creative Arts,
Performing
Arts & Design
48.08%
66.67%
--
82.81%
27.94%
52.34%
--
86.11%
57.18%
13. Education
12.50%
Tertiary Institution evaluation
54.31%
--
71.44%
23.83%
29
--
--
75.83%
49.34%
CERG / GRF
Grant Project Funding (see Appendix E)
 All year CERG / GRF results (see Appendix C by
UGC)
 2008-09 CERG results (2008-09 funding result PDF)

Tertiary Institution evaluation
30
What is GRF

The majority of the Earmarked Research Grant (ERG)
of the Research Grants Council (RGC) is allocated in
response to competitive bids for grants for academic
research projects. GRF stands for "General Research
Fund" and is the major annual funding exercise of the
RGC to support academic research in the UGCfunded institutions. All GRF proposals are subject to
a rigorous peer review process via the RGC's four
subject panels supported by an international network
of expert referees. The closing date for applications is
usually the end of October.
Tertiary Institution evaluation
31
Criteria for Consideration of Competitive Bids
 The
following criteria are used in considering
competitive bids :
academic quality
 institutional commitment
 contribution to academic/professional development
 potential for social, cultural or economic
application
 availability of, and potential for, non-RGC funding

Tertiary Institution evaluation
32
Academic quality

As regards item (a), members have agreed that
"academic quality" should cover :
- scientific and scholarly merit of the proposal;
- qualifications and track record of the investigator(s)
- originality;
- feasibility within the time-scale of the proposal.
Tertiary Institution evaluation
33
My comments (1)

"The international expert panels had conducted the
research assessments in a fair and rigorous manner,"
Dr Lam added.



(Fok: Is it really fair and rigorous?
Not able to conclude)
Prof Chin cautioned readers of the RAE results that,
"We should not read the data out of context. It is
neither fair nor appropriate to compare directly the
institutions' performance in research. We need to give
due regard to the different roles, missions, discipline
focus, and history of the institutions.“

(FOK: Really no comparison?)
Tertiary Institution evaluation
34
My comments (2)
 The
UGC will allocate a total of about
$11 billion to institutions for research
during the 2005-08 triennium. This figure
includes research grants administered by
the Research Grants Council and part of
the recurrent grants provided by the UGC
to the institutions supporting research
activities.
 (Fok:
Important implications)
Tertiary Institution evaluation
35
Importance of publication
Journal articles
 Books
 International handbook chapters
 Conference paper not counted
 Local journals not counted
 Chinese Journals is not the first priority

Tertiary Institution evaluation
36
Importance of RAE
Image of the university
 Funding

Tertiary Institution evaluation
37
Importance of CERG / GRF

Every year: a very keen competition (RGC website)


Financial implication
Media
The first priority (Chair Professor)
 The first priority (allocation of rooms)
 Financial support for staffs (CUHK & HKIEd)

Tertiary Institution evaluation
38
Teaching is important
Only the baseline
 Not below this
 Distinguished Teaching Award


Not renewing contract in HKIEd
Tertiary Institution evaluation
39
Important notes
UGC domination
 Research is very important --- CERG and GRF
 RAE is the most important
 Extremely focus by UST, CUHK, HKU

Tertiary Institution evaluation
40
Differences between institutions

Not the formalities that counted



HKIEd has the most detailed procedures and wellstructured
CUHK and Poly U are not having very clear instruction
Not working according to the said items



HKIEd fired someone who had over 70 marks
HKIEd fired someone who had good comments from
students
Indeed, most institutions assessed according to RAE and
(external) research grants
Tertiary Institution evaluation
41
Thank you!!
Tertiary Institution evaluation
42