FULLTIME FACULTY ANNUAL REPORT

2018-2019 ACADEMIC YEAR

Due: September 27, 2019

Name: Jennifer Good

School: SAS

Assigned Campus(es): Online Campus Campus Campus

**Before completing your Fulltime Faculty Annual Report for the 2018-2019 Academic Year, please review
your approved 2018-19 Workload Report and the Criteria for the Annual Performance Review for Fulltime
Faculty. This document is located on the faculty page of My Brandman under “Policies and Procedures”.**
Criteria for the Annual Performance Review.

The annual review of faculty performance is designed to:

1. provide a planning mechanism for faculty development;

2. recognize excellence in performance;
3. improve teaching and learning effectiveness;
4. enhance professional competencies; and
5. delineate areas for improvement.

For faculty development purposes, the process should be a combination of directed reflection/focused narrative
supported by evidence. Reflection is indicative of deep learning and generally leads to professional growth,
which is the primary focus of the annual evaluation process. Link to the Fulltime Faculty Manual.

Article V of the Faculty Manual, titled “Annual Evaluation of Faculty,” covers the following topics:

1. Categories of Performance (Section A)

2. Weighting of Categories (Section B)
3. Criteria for Evaluation (Section C)
4. Annual Evaluation Procedures (Section D)
5. Merit Raises (Section E)
6. Mid-Year Review of New Faculty (Section F)
7. Appeals Procedures (Section G)

1
The annual evaluation procedures begin with the development of the faculty member’s workload proposal for
the forthcoming academic year. Article IV, titled Faculty Responsibilities, addresses the University’s expectations
for faculty with respect to:

1. Innovation (Section A)
2. Teaching (Section B)
3. Mentoring (Section C)
4. University Governance and Service (Section D)

Three other areas are also included therein, but are only considered as part of the Dean’s review and discretion
points. They are:

1. Personal Responsibility and Ethics (Section E) which also addresses collegiality

2. Alternative Duties (Section F)
3. Outside Employment (Section G)

Categories of Performance

The annual performance review should result in a written rationale by the Dean to accompany a numerical
rating for each category of evaluation. There should also be a numerical rating of the faculty member’s overall
performance. The rating scale has five levels and ranges from a low score of 1 to a high score of 5, as follows:

5 = Well above expectations

4 = Above expectations
3 = Meets expectations
2 = Below expectations
1 = Well below expectations

The three categories of performance are:

• Teaching
• Mentoring
• Service

Each area derives an average score ranging from 1 to 5. The areas are weighted resulting in an overall rating
that ranges between 1 and 5.

1. Please be sure to include your percentages in each of the categories of performance as well
as the Dean’s Summary, Evaluation and Recommendations for 2017‐2018. Incomplete
annual reports will be returned to the faculty member. A deduction in Dean’s discretional
points may occur if the annual report is not completed and returned in 48 hours.

2
ACTUAL TEACHING (Weight 60%) Note: If your percentage in this area is different from the customary range
(Teaching: 60%) as indicated in the Fulltime Faculty Manual, please note this in your reflective statement.

Average Lecture Class size plus non-lecture class student count and Student Opinion Survey Results
(weighted average of questions 1‐9) will be provided by the Office of Academic Affairs.

COURSES TAUGHT:

Session Course Taught Type of Class (LEC, FW, Credits

Overload, EE, etc.)

Fall I 2018 PSYU 508 LEC 3.0

PSYU 565 LEC 3.0
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Fall II 2018 PSYU 582 LEC 3.0
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Spring I 2019 PSYU 617 LEC 3.0
PSYU 421 LEC 3.0
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Spring II 2019 PSYU 578 LEC 3.0
PSYU 323 LEC 3.0
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Summer I 2019 PSYU 508 LEC 3.0
PSYU 617 LEC 3.0
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Summer II 2019 Course 1 Choose Credits
(SNHP & EDD only)
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits
Course Choose Credits

3
COURSES DEVELOPMENT AND/OR REVISION COMPLETED:

Course Title Description of work (new/revise) Blended/Online

PSYU 508 Significant Revision Blended/Online
PSYU 601 New Course Online

Course Title Desc. B/O

Course Title Desc. B/O

SPECIAL PROJECTS

Describe Special Projects Completed:

Participated on several CT subcommittees: Online MA Psych subcommittee, Student Engagement

subcommittee, Faculty Training subcommittee, MA Psychology subcommittee

Assisted with creating new Student Progress Note and procedure in the Online MA Psych subcommittee.

Wrote a script and recorded a section (with the Cii) for a Mixed Media project Student Orientation in the
Student Engagement Committee.

Lead the Faculty Training subcommittee in creating a Mixed Media project for additional synchronous training.
This training was created in partnership with the Cii.

Special Project: Reviewed/revised excel sheet that was created last year of the 50 states to review requirements
for the PCC program.

Assigned 17 states to make specific Word documents that helped to align the Brandman program with each
state specific requirements.

MFT Online Execution

Lead in the MA Psychology Program Assessment.

REFLECTIVE STATEMENT ON TEACHING

Your reflective statement should be a combination of direct reflection and focused narrative supported by
evidence. The purpose of the reflective statement is to demonstrate deep learning which leads to
professional growth, which is the primary focus of the annual evaluation process. Reflective statements
which do not align with this purpose and/or significantly depart from the required word count may result in a
reduced points in this performance area.

The Teaching Reflective Statement should be up to 500 to 1,500 words and address the following:

1. Your average class size, the number of campuses served, and the number of new course preparations.
2. Issues (both positive and challenging) relating to your classroom instruction that may have affected

4
 these evaluations (e.g., a course in which you incorporated new knowledge into the teaching
experience; teaching a course for the first time or teaching a course that needs revision or
opportunities for innovation);
3. Areas of planned improvement and enhancements based upon the faculty member’s review of the
Student Opinion Survey (SOS) results (including comments);
4. How the faculty member’s activities to remain current in his/her discipline have been incorporated in
curricula and pedagogical/andragogical activity or how improvements in the faculty member’s
practice have been shared with the academic community;
5. The number of courses over which the faculty member has oversight and the updates and continuous
improvements made to these courses in the academic year. Your teaching reflective statement may
also include classes which were taught as overload.

At the start of this 2018-2019 school year, I was excited to continue to build upon my success from the
previous year and was open to additional learning opportunities. I entered the school year ready to take
on new responsibilities and roles as well as expand my skills with course management and development.

I taught 7 classes and 2 overloads as part of my teaching responsibilities. Of these 9 total courses, only
one was taught twice in the academic year. Therefore, I was able to work to increase my exposure to
various courses within the undergraduate and graduate psychology programs. I had an average of 23
students and my class sizes ranged from 17 to 31 students. All of my courses were taught in the online
format. Two of the courses were new to my load and as a result required significant prep work. This
effort included learning the course shell, the assignments, specifics related to each course and working
to make the course more user friendly. I continued to home in on my ability to run a smooth
synchronous session, working to reach the varying needs of the students within my classes. I solely
served the Online campus.

The various challenges that I faced over my second year at Brandman University surrounded balancing
coursework and other given responsibilities within the academic year. This new challenge provided me
with an opportunity to grow and learn about time management and self-care when I was not “on the
clock.” I have found that it has been necessary to continue to build supports within my curriculum team
in order to work through these demands as a team manner when feasible.

I continue to embrace the Student Opinion Survey experience. While I recognized the limitations of
these results due to low response rate and several of the items not applying to all courses, I appreciated
the opportunity to review each critique and positive remark. I completed an analysis of the Student
Opinion Survey (See Artifact 1). Overall, the students felt that I was knowledgeable, supportive,
professional, prompt, caring, genuine, engaging, flexible, positive, unfailingly encouraging and fair.
This can be seen in a remark made by one student: “Dr. Good is just plain good! Great, actually. She
gives the most comprehensive and meaningful feedback of any professor I've had in 6 years of college,
to include undergrad and graduate work. She's amazing in the classroom (virtual classroom) and always
shows up with a real (not fake like some) smile and has a genuine interest in teaching graduate students
to become professionals in the field. She's a rare gem and I wish I could have her for every class that I
have until I graduate, but I know that's not possible, so I'll take the "almost a good as Good" ones and
just deal. ;-) There are other great professors who work face-to-face, but so far, this fine Dr. has been, by
far, the best online professor. Thanks.” Another comment that reflected my ability to work with all
students is as follows: “Dr. Good has been one of the most engaged teachers I have had during my
course of time as a Brandman student, both online and in person (next session is my last session). She
has consistently provided timely and fair feedback, has been accessible to answer questions, has
provided more than adequate instruction for the course assignments, and despite this being an
asynchronous class, she has provided us the opportunity to know her as a person. The knowledge, care,
5
and heart with which she teachers is a fit to all who have the opportunity to learn from her!” These
comments and others like these were apparent on all of my Student Opinion Surveys this academic year.
In addition, I received numerous emails expressing the gratitude of my students for this past year. These
emails can be found in Artifact 2.

The critical comments that were included in the evaluation surrounded the difficulties related to the
course shell, technological difficulties or specific assignments. As with last year, I addressed these
concerns by informing the course manager about the comments. I am now the course manager for
several of the courses that I taught this year. Thus, whenever any concerns were noted about these
courses in particular, I recorded them on a sheet to review between terms for potential course revisions.
There was one critical comment from my PSYU 508 Summer 1 session. The comment noted, “The
instructor was professional, skilled, smart and thorough very black and white leaving no room for error.
Unfortunately, the instructor manager her class and very textbook. Not personable very controlling,
micromanaging and harsh on grading. It seems like she has a lot to prove to herself or others.” With this
particular comment, I was intrigued, as many students had noted for this same course that I was
“responsive, caring, willing to help, etc.”. It appears that this student did not connect on a personal
level. In addition, I feel that the student’s comment about being “black and white” illustrates the
consistency with grading and expectations. I will use this comment to be mindful of the different
learning strategies, personalities and styles within the classroom.

I taught several courses this year that I instructed the previous year. I employed strategies for success
that I noted from the previous year. For all of my courses, I added in weekly video announcements,
videos for each of the assignments and additional materials for course shells that did not contain many
supplemental supports. With these additional supports, I noticed that students asked less questions and I
was able to continue to refer students back to my recordings to assist with comprehension and
understanding of the given expectations.

I continued to work on finding ways to grow and make improvements in each course. Part of my
continued growth over this past year involved taking and successfully completing BCDC. In completing
this training, I worked hard to dive into the theory and then focused on ways to apply the information to
one course requiring a major revision and the development of a new course. I really enjoyed the BCDC
training, as the training allowed for me to view course development through many lenses and provided
the opportunity for continued growth in many areas. In fact, at the kick-off for the 2019-2020 BCDC
class, I was given a “Bridge Builder” certificate. This is a new way that the Cii is identifying certain
faculty with their collaborative efforts over the year. Artifact 3 contains information related to BCDC as
well as a link to my BCDC portfolio.

Over this year, I completed 6 offered trainings from the Cii to explore additional tools. I am still
working to consider how and when to appropriately use some of these tools within the classroom or
course shell. In addition, I attended several CEU opportunities. One such training was titled, “100 Brain
Changing Mindfulness Techniques to Integrate into Your Clinical Practice.” The materials in the course
are useful in employing these interventions in my own life, as well as within my clinical practice and
teaching toolbox. In addition, I was able to take a 2-day training titled, “2-Day: Trauma and Attachment
Certificate Course.” This training was directly applicable to PSYU 565. PSYU 565 discusses the nature
of trauma in relation to child abuse and trauma. The course helped to provide a bit of a refresher
regarding the impact and a review of those treatment techniques. I plan to continue attending these CEU
opportunities to widen my knowledge and research base and implement these tools in my courses.
Artifact 4 reviews those Cii trainings and CEU certificates that were earned over the past year.

I am the Course Manager for 7 psychology classes (PSYU 310, PSYU 322, PSYU 333, PSYU 508,

6
PSYU 565, PSYU 601 and PSYU 617). This past year I significantly revised PSYU 508 and worked to
create a new course development, PSYU 601. I worked to incorporate everything learned from my
BCDC training while creating and revising these two courses. While PSYU 508 was my main course of
focus during BCDC, I still made sure to apply the same principles when working on PSYU 601. In both
of these courses, multiple supports were included for the students and the instructors. For each week, I
created an instructor resource page that contained weekly announcements for use, a weekly checklist
and links for all of the supplement materials. In addition, I developed application-based mixed media
assignments for both courses. Within these assignments, the students were asked to use their own
budding clinical skills and conceptualization abilities in order to complete the assignment. Also, within
each course I included a weekly spotlight summary podcast, reviewing the topic of the week and asking
insightful questions. See Artifact 5 for examples of these areas and more within my new course
development.

Please open the below document for directions on how to embed the evidence artifacts.

PC directions to
embed a document.docx MAC directions to
embed a document.docx

EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT REFLECTIVE STATEMENT EMBED 1 TO 5 DOCUMENTS/ARTIFACTS BELOW

(NOTE: If you add links to Googledocs, make sure that the
The Dean, Associate Dean and FPC members may consider document is viewable by anyone who has the link).
knowledge of faculty activities not mentioned in annual
report if specifically noted in writing by the evaluator.
Furthermore, the Dean may deduct discretionary points Artifact 1-SOS Item Artifact 2-Student
for failure to include appropriate artifacts. Analysis Graph.docx Emails.docx

Please list 1 to 5 documents/artifacts which support your

performance in this area.
Artifact Artifact
3-BCDC.docx 4-Trainings.docx
1. Artifact 1-SOS Item Analysis Graph
2. Artifact 2-Student Emails
3. Artifact 3-BCDC
4. Artifact 4-Trainings Artifact 5-Course
5. Artifact 5-Course Work Work.docx

**Insert 1 to 5 artifacts in the area to the right**

ASSOCIATE DEAN EVALUATION (Comments to support score are required)

Dr. Good is an engaging, supportive, innovative, and passionate instructor. Given the information found in her
report and artifacts, it is clear that Dr. Good cares about the academic advancement of her students. She seeks
out and completes additional trainings that allows for her to enhance the courses she teaches or manages.
Students praise her efforts and based on the evidence (SOS rating of 4.62), it seems to me that they are
accurate.

7
 RECOMMENDED
SCORE
5

FPC EVALUATION (Comments to support score are required)

PC commends Dr. Good for taking on the challenge of all new courses which required all
new prep. FPC also appreciates Dr. Good’s proactive approach to students with disabilities
and issues of diversity. Her role modeling for students on handling challenging
communications is commendable. Dr. Good embraces innovation by creating a ten-minute
video announcement for her students, participating in CII training and making an effort to
familiarize herself with the course material. She expanded course assignments to include
new classes as well as increased course workload. She participated in BCDC.
RECOMMENDED
SCORE
5
DEAN EVALUATION (Comments to support score are required)
Once again, Dr. Good has excelled in the area of Teaching. Some phrases used in student comments include
“useful,” “engaging,” “individualized attention,” “passionate about teaching” (which can be particularly hard to
convey in an online format), and perhaps most notable, “inspirational.” She taught eight different courses, had
oversight for seven, successfully completed BCDC, and developed or revised two courses. She worked on four
CT subcommittees, actively contributing to multiple mixed media projects. She was lead in the MA program
assessment and helped to launch the MFT Online program. She also found time to take additional CII trainings
and CEU courses in order to maintain currency in her field(s). It’s no wonder that areas of focus this past year
were time management and self-care. Dr. Good is commended for her commitment to teaching excellence.
FINAL SCORE
5

MENTORING

MENTORING ACTIVITIES MAY INVOLVE STUDENTS, FACULTY and/or STAFF BUT DO NOT NEED TO INCLUDE ALL
THREE CATEGORIES (Weight: 20 %) Note: If your percentage in this area is different from the customary
range (Mentoring: 20 to 30%) as indicated in the Fulltime Faculty Manual, please note this in your reflective
statement.

REFLECTIVE STATEMENT ON MENTORING

Your reflective statement should be a combination of direct reflection and focused narrative supported by
evidence. The purpose of the reflective statement is to demonstrate deep learning which leads to
professional growth, which is the primary focus of the annual evaluation process. Reflective statements
which do not align with this purpose and/or significantly depart from the required word count may result in a
reduced points in this performance area.

The Mentoring Reflective Statement should be 200 to 1,500 words in length and focus on the faculty member’s
mentoring skills, characterized by such skills as (a) active listening; (b) valuing open mindedness; (c) effective
communication; and (d) creative problem solving. The reflective statement should address:

1. The faculty member’s application of strategies for effective mentoring for each of the following
mentoring categories: students, faculty (including adjunct/clinical faculty) and staff.

8
 2. The faculty member’s activities to improve mentoring skills.

Throughout my second year at Brandman University, I continue to appreciate and enjoy the various
opportunities in relation to mentoring. I have worked in the field of education since 2010, providing both
face-to-face instruction and online instruction. In addition, I have served in the field of mental health
since 2006. As a result of my experience in the classroom and within the clinical field, I have acquired
many skills to utilize within the mentoring relationship. I aspire to incorporate knowledge learned from
my experiences and growth opportunities with those in the mentoring relationship. By recognizing our
own internal growing pains, we are then able to connect with others throughout their growth process. I
feel that I have expanded my knowledge base not only from my personal experiences, but also through
the mentoring relationship. Mentoring has enabled a learning experience for both me and the mentee.

As with my first year, I was offered the opportunity to mentor students, adjunct faculty, full-time faculty
and advisors over this past year. I continue to work to connect with others by using my skills of active
listening, open mindedness, effective communication via email, phone and synchronous session, as well
as establishing an effective individualized plan for each mentee. I also take heed to extend my
availability for support to my mentees as needed. My goal throughout the mentoring process was to
provide an atmosphere of support in which each individual is able to look at his or her strengths and
areas of growth, while also to assist each individual to work towards easing into any areas of growth.

Students

In 2019, the online camp was “officially” open to the MFT psychology students. As a result, I was given
an increased load of students to mentor throughout their first year in the online program. At the
beginning of each term, I reached out to all new students (See Artifact 1). This initial contact included
an introduction and several resources for the students to keep and review (the Student Handbook,
Student Advisement Guide and Student Practicum Guide). Several students took the opportunity to meet
with me after this initial email to discuss various aspects of the program. Towards the end of the year,
several students also were preparing for practicum in the 2019-2020 school year. For these students, I
scheduled several meetings, phone calls and sessions to assist in securing practicum placements. Two of
my students have effectively secured placements for the upcoming school year and others are working
on securing placements.

One unique challenge over the course of this academic year involved the continued review of the various
state requirements for our students. As some of the students are entering into their second year in the
program, many are getting ready for practicum. The practicum requirements can differ quite
significantly with each state, making it necessary to thoroughly understand the requirements prior to the
start of this experience. I continue to check and recheck the requirements to make certain that we are
meeting the needs of our students and their states.

The PCC online program will launch in the 2019-2020 Academic year. As a result, I expect my load of
students will continue to dramatically increase. In addition, I will have the opportunity to participate and
learn the advancement process. This past academic year, I was granted the opportunity to speak with
several students about this process in preparation for the upcoming academic year. I look forward to
mentoring the incoming students in my third year here at Brandman as they start the program and
witness the graduation of the first class of 100% online students in the MFT program in the upcoming
Spring and Summer. I am certain that I will continue to face multiple challenges to navigate as our
program continues to expand to states outside of California and Washington.

Adjunct Faculty

9
Since my start at Brandman, I have worked to create security in my relationship with the adjunct faculty.
One of my main roles in the Online campus entails the review of the Student Opinion Surveys of all the
Adjunct faculty. This review can be quite a time-consuming process, as we have a large group of adjunct
faculty members. After the Summer of 2018, I reviewed a total of 45 Student Opinion Surveys for 34
faculty members. Following the Fall of 2018, I reviewed a total of 37 evaluations for 36 faculty
members. Finally, after the Spring of 2019, I reviewed a total of 53 evaluations for 46 faculty members.
As in the last academic term, I use my “color” system to group faculty members. This system continues
to provide me with a monitoring system as the online faculty mentor. Once I finish determining the
“level” of the faculty member, I reach out accordingly. For those that are “green,” I send a
congratulatory email; those that are”orange” are sent a balanced email that also includes an inquiry
about noted concerns; and finally those within the “red” category, I schedule a time to speak with the
faculty about the noted concerns. This provides an opportunity for an open dialogue within each of these
conversations and one that also will allow for growth to occur. Dr. Isa Ribadu and I have spoken about
developing this plan into a more formalized plan for the Psychology curriculum team to follow in the
upcoming years. See Artifact 2 for some of my communications with adjuncts over the past year.

My responsibility and role as a Course Manager serve as another avenue to mentor adjunct faculty. At
the start of the 2018 Fall term, I made sure to reach out to all adjunct faculty members that had taught
PSYU 508 within the past few years. As I was planning to significantly revise this course, I did not want
any surprises to those adjuncts that regularly teach this course. In addition, at the start of each term, I
notified those adjunct and fulltime faculty members who were teaching those courses in which I was the
Course Manager. Within these contacts, I encouraged faculty to reach out to me with any concerns and
also noted that I would love to hear their thoughts on the class as well. On several occasions, faculty did
indeed respond to these requests. Artifact 3 comprises some of these communications via email.

Beyond the Student Opinion Surveys, I also had the opportunity to mentor several adjunct faculty
members on a more intensive basis. I met with one faculty on several occasions via teleconferences and
in the Zoom session. This faculty in particular was struggling with adapting to the online environment. I
shared several of my own synchronous sessions, pointers and ideas with the faculty member. In addition,
the faculty member provided permission to view her courses, shell and synchronous sessions. I believe
this 1:1 time helped the faculty member to feel more at ease with the synchronous class time.

Finally, I worked with Dr. Isa Ribadu to create regular adjunct trainings to occur throughout the
academic year. Dr. Ribadu and I led a session in the Spring and then invited the Cii to lead a session in
the Summer. We are planning to continue this training series, offering adjunct faculty the opportunity to
participate, connect and receive training during each term.

Fulltime Faculty

This past year I had the opportunity to continue to mentor my fellow faculty member for the Fall and
was assigned a new faculty to mentor throughout the duration of the academic term. The faculty
member that I mentored throughout half of the 2017-2018 appeared to make significant progress within
her approach and gained consistently positive feedback on her Student Opinion Surveys. We continue to
have a friendly supportive relationship as we work together on the same curriculum team. I am grateful
for the time that we spent together in our mentoring relationship.

As noted, I was also assigned a new faculty to mentor. We met for monthly phone calls and I provided
support via email as well. During our conversations, we discussed the culture at Brandman, work/life
balance, dynamics of the individual’s curriculum team and ways to continue to be successful in the

10
future.

I was also assigned a new faculty to mentor in the 2019-2020 academic year. I have reached out to this
individual once at the end of the year. In addition, I have also met with the other faculty that will mentor
this individual to discuss our approach.

Advisors/Enrollment Coaches

As the Online MFT program rolled out in the Fall of 2019, I have had the opportunity to work more
directly with the academic advisors and the enrollment coaches. Specifically, the Enrollment Coaches
contacted me on several occasions to speak with prospective students. In addition, I have discussed
practicum placements, campus relocations and the advancement scheduling process with various
academic advisors at the end of the 2018-2019 academic year. See Appendix 5 for communications
regarding these areas of functioning.

EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT REFLECTIVE STATEMENT EMBED 1 TO 5 DOCUMENTS/ARTIFACTS BELOW

The Dean, Associate Dean and FPC members may consider

knowledge of faculty activities not mentioned in annual
report if specifically noted in writing by the evaluator.
Furthermore, the Dean may deduct discretionary points
for failure to include appropriate artifacts.
Artifact 1-Student Artifact 2-Adjunct Artifact 3-Adjunct
Faculty Mentoring.docx
Mentoring .docx System Mentor SOS Evaluations.docx

Please list 1 to 5 documents/artifacts which support your Artifact 4- FTF Artifact 5 -

Faculty Mentoring.docx
Enrollment Coaches and Academic Advisors.docx
performance in this area.

1. Artifact 1-Student Mentoring

2. Artifact 2-Adjunct System SOS Evaluations
3. Artifact 3-Adjunct Faculty Mentoring
4. Artifact 4-FTF Faculty Mentoring
5. Artifact 5-Enrollment Coaches and Academic Advisors

**Insert 1 to 5 artifacts in the area to the right**

ASSOCIATE DEAN EVALUATION (Comments to support score are required)

Dr. Good enjoys the process of helping others learn. To this end, she has used her skills to mentor students,
faculty, and university personnel. Although she primarily works remotely, her willingness and practice of making
herself available to Brandman stakeholders is commendable.
RECOMMENDED
SCORE
5

FPC EVALUATION (Comments to support score are required)

FPC notes that Dr. Good has demonstrated evidence of seizing an ample opportunity for
mentoring across online MFT and Psychology for both students and adjunct faculty. FPC is
pleased to know about Dr. Good’s plan to develop a repository for adjunct that includes
tips and tools. This demonstrates Dr. Good’s ability to be creative and innovative in her
11
approach. Her mentoring system goes above and beyond expectations, especially for a first-
year faculty. FPC is pleased that Dr. Good worked in collaboration with advisements and
enrollment coaches. She created adjunct training sessions and many artifacts for mentoring
students.
RECOMMENDED
SCORE
5
DEAN EVALUATION (Comments to support score are required)
Dr. Good went well above expectations, providing thoughtful and meaningful support even in light of the large
number of individuals she mentored. Multiple times during the year, she reviewed SOS for upward of 40 adjunct
faculty, effectively dividing them into categories and providing support as needed. She mentored additional
adjuncts through her role as Course Manager and created adjunct trainings with Dr. Ribadu. She mentored
online MFT students, paying special attention to licensure requirements in their various home states. Finally, Dr.
Good mentored other fulltime faculty. Her effectiveness is evident from the handwritten Thank Yous included
as artifacts. Dr. Good still seeks to improve her mentoring skills, including learning about the advancement
process, proactively reaching out to enrollment coaches, and reaching out to her co-mentor. She is certainly an
asset to those she mentors.
FINAL SCORE
5

SERVICE

INTERNAL SERVICE (Weight: 12.5 %) EXTERNAL SERVICE (Weight: Select 7.5 %) Note: If your percentage in
this area is different from the customary range (Service: 10 to 20%) as indicated in the Fulltime Faculty
Manual, please note this in your reflective statement.

REFLECTIVE STATEMENT ON SERVICE

Your reflective statement should be a combination of direct reflection and focused narrative supported by
evidence. The purpose of the reflective statement is to demonstrate deep learning which leads to
professional growth, which is the primary focus of the annual evaluation process. Reflective statements
which do not align with this purpose and/or significantly depart from the required word count may result in a
reduced points in this performance area.

The reflective statement should be 200 to 1,500 words in length and describe how the faculty member’s
activities for internal and external service advanced the mission and strategic direction of the University, the
School and/or its academic program(s). The reflection must explain the specific external and internal service
activities that were performed, the frequency of these activities and the impact of these activities to the
community, the discipline, and/or the University.

12
This section discusses my contributions to the University and my community. The service activities are divided
into two categories: Internal and External Services activities. Over the past year, throughout my efforts and
participation within each of the noted opportunities, I have been able to increase my connections to both the
community at Brandman and within the community of New Oxford, PA. I continue to work to reflect
Brandman’s core values of respect, innovation, service-orientation, teamwork and integrity throughout my
services opportunities both within and outside the university.

Internal Service Activities

I continued to attend all of the School of Arts and Sciences meetings. Through these meetings, I was able to gain
a clear perspective of what was occurring on a larger level within the Brandman community. As a result,
connections were formulated and the mission of innovation and dedication continued to resonate through my
mind during and after these meetings.

In addition, I participated as a member of the psychology curriculum team. I attended all of the team meetings.
As this was my second year at Brandman, I felt better able to assert my voice. The launch of the Online program
brought about a mixture of perspectives related to this new modality. As I am the only 100% fully online
psychology faculty member, my perspective and viewpoint from the Online campus is a valuable one, and one
that will help to move the curriculum team forward towards goals for the future.

Last year, Dean Korr had asked me to lead the MA Psychology Assessment. I accepted this responsibility and
worked to formulate a team approach. With the help of Dr. Ellen Derwin, we created several subcommittees to
work on the various areas of assessment. Each member of the psychology curriculum team was involved in the
assessment in some regard. It should be noted that I assisted in piloting a new phase of the Assessment process,
student data and a focus group. These new sources provided additional information to consider when looking at
the success and areas of growth within the program. At the conclusion of the assessment, Dr. Ellen Derwin had
asked for a copy of my contacts/emails to faculty in order to create templates for future faculty to utilize. See
Artifact 1. Through the completion and leadership of this assessment, I was able to recognize the various gears
within our program and enjoyed leading my team in the project.

I continued to serve on several subcommittees within the psychology curriculum team. These subcommittees
started within the previous academic year and achieved an enormous amount of growth and support as a result
of the work that was accomplished. During our Spring 2018 Faculty retreat, Associate Dean Ribadu asked for
individuals to volunteer for chairs of the subcommittees. I volunteered to chair the Faculty Training and
Mentoring subcommittee. During this past academic year, we were able to utilize the materials that were
created in the 2017-2018 academic year to create a Psychology Faculty training. Each member of the committee
took on the task of writing and designing a specific script for our faculty training. See Artifact 2 for a “rough
draft” of the training.

I continued to serve on the Student Engagement and Recruitment subcommittee. This subcommittee focused on
creating an MA Psychology Program Student Orientation. The committee used the materials that were
developed during the previous academic year and created several modules to be included in our training video.
Each member wrote up a separate script and during the faculty retreat we recorded our section of the script
through the collaboration of the Cii. See Artifact 2 for the “rough” version of our completed project.

I was a member of the Online MA Psychology team. In this subcommittee, we worked to review the student
progress note and process. Throughout the course of the year, we created a new student progress note and
adapted the process of when and how to review these notes. We plan to implement the new note and process
in the 2019-2020 academic year.

I participated in the newly formed MA Psychology subcommittee. This subcommittee focused on visiting the
idea of creating a competency exam as part of the requirement for students within the MA Psychology program.

13
The committee worked to gather research and address concerns within this area. Ultimately, this concept is still
a work in progress as the subcommittee had several areas requiring response from administration to move
forward with this new idea.

I was assigned the task of participating in a special project in relation to the PCC program. First, I was asked to
review the spreadsheet that I had created for the PCC program from the previous year. This spreadsheet
included information from 50 states and the District of Columbia related to requirements of the PCC program
(governing body, units, required coursework, accreditation, practicum hours and other). Next, after completion
of this task, I was assigned 18 states to complete a Brandman course and state requirement comparison. (See
Artifact 3) Throughout completion of this special project, I recognize the need to continue to visit the state
requirements and stay informed about any changes that may occur.

I continued to serve as the Lead faculty for the online campus. This responsibility entailed mentoring all online
adjunct faculty. I reached out to all online adjunct faculty following the compilation of the Student Opinion
surveys. In addition, I was able to continue to build connections with other adjuncts from the previous year and
had several opportunities for 1:1 mentoring. Furthermore, I was able to start a new adjunct psychology training
series with Dr. Isa Ribadu. Dr. Ribadu and I invited all the psychology adjuncts to attend a training in the Spring
and in the Summer. We plan to continue to offer these trainings once each term. This will allow the adjunct
faculty members to continue to connect with the Brandman community, to stay present and to foster ongoing
growth.

Below are a few other opportunities detailing ways that I was an active member of Brandman over the past year
(See Artifact 4):
• Participated in Student Focus Group with Twyla Tanaka, Leigh Ann Wilson, Tami Lincoln and Ellen
Derwin
• Attended all FAC meetings
• Mentored three faculty members per request (one that was an ongoing mentorship from last year, a
new faculty member all year and the start of a mentoring relationship for a fulltime faculty member that will
start in the 2019-2020 academic year) of Dean Korr
• Continued to manage PSYU 310, 322 and 333
• Took over PSYU 508, PSYU 565, PSYU 601, PSYU 617
• Completed IQ tool for PSYU 333
• Joined AAUW and attended their annual training at the start of the Spring retreat
• Attended several faculty trainings at the Faculty Retreat
• Helped to lead a faculty training at the Faculty Retreat in the Spring that reviewed creative projects
• Presented one of my Mixed Media assignments at the BCDC Kick-off per request of Andrea Munro
• Worked with Justyn Howard about Title 9 for an IVF/pregnant student
• Assisted Leigh Ann Wilson with the Birthday list (her back-up)-will take this over in the 2019-2020 school
year
• Engaged in Blackboard Collaborate Pilot
• Engaged in Kaltura Pilot
• Attended BA Psych Review for Fulltime faculty
• Assisted in the BA Psych Review-provided alumni, students, and adjunct faculty list, answered questions
about diversity
• Received bridge builder award at BCDC kick-off
• Assisted in hiring adjunct faculty-participated in 10 interviews
• Setting up Practicum sites-set up one in California; set up one in Oregon

External Service Activities

It is important to continue to connect with our community outside of the context of Brandman. Over this past

14
academic year, I worked August-December one day a week providing geriatric psychology services in a nursing
home. I switched to another position in January providing outpatient therapy services and dementia evaluations
for a company named Behavioral Healthcare Consultants. This position allows me to stay current in the field
while continuing to sharpen and refine my clinical skills.

Over the past academic year a few colleagues (Dr. Isa Ribadu, Dr. Brittany Aleshire and Dr. Vanessa Holtgrave)
and I decided to pursue research in relation to the online synchronous model. We met, when able, on a monthly
basis and have created an annotated bibliography (See Artifact 5) about various topics in relation to Online
teaching and the synchronous model. We hope to continue to expand on this work in the upcoming years to
create our own research, potentially publish some of our findings and eventually present the material. I have
also worked to collaborate with several other individuals to discuss presentations in the 2019-2020 academic
year.

I continued to remain active with my son’s elementary school, volunteering as needed. Volunteering allowed me
to apply the skills and knowledge from my PSYU 508 and PSYU 565 courses. In my role as a volunteer, I worked
to create and maintain an environment of safety for the students. I also was active in my son’s and daughter’s
various sports teams, offering encouragement, support and comfort to my children and their teammates.

EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT REFLECTIVE STATEMENT

EMBED 1 TO 5 DOCUMENTS/ARTIFACTS BELOW
The Dean, Associate Dean and FPC members may consider (NOTE: If you add links to Googledocs, make sure that the
knowledge of faculty activities not mentioned in annual document is viewable by anyone who has the link).
report if specifically noted in writing by the evaluator.
Furthermore, the Dean may deduct discretionary points
for failure to include appropriate artifacts.
Artifact 1- Lead Artifact 2-Work on Artifact 3-PCC
Faculty for the MA Program
committees.docx
Assessment.docxProject.docx
Please list 1 to 5 documents/artifacts which support your
performance in this area.

1. Artifact 1-Lead Faculty for the MA Program Assessment Artifact 4-Internal Artifact 5-External
2. Artifact 2-Work on committees Service.docx Service Research.docx
3. Artifact 3-PCC Project
4. Artifact 4-Internal Service
5. Artifact 5-External Service Research

**Insert 1 to 5 artifacts in the area to the right**

ASSOCIATE DEAN EVALUATION (Comments to support score are required)

Dr. Good does not hesitate when it comes to volunteering with the purpose of enhancing the psychology
program of the University. Her detailed account of internal and external service shows how willing she is to take
on new tasks. It is clear to me that Brandman University benefits from her ambassadorship.
RECOMMENDED
SCORE
5

FPC EVALUATION (Comments to support score are required)

FPC is proud of Dr. Good’s contribution to service. She attended all scheduled meetings. Dr.
Good embraced the opportunity to be part of various subcommittees (Please see artifacts).
Dr. Good continues to demonstrate her ability to utilize innovative ideas by creating a
spreadsheet to show all 50 states requirements for the MFT program and an alignment
project with 17 states to match Brandman. FPC is impressed with Dr. Good’s external
15
services, which bring reality base experiences to inform teaching and demonstrate
Brandman expertise to the community at large by providing psychiatric services to a
nursing home and by helping the school system with violence prevention information.

RECOMMENDED
SCORE
5
DEAN EVALUATION (Comments to support score are required)
Dr. Good’s service was exemplary. Whenever she asked to head a project - such as the MA Psych Assessment,
or in comparing Brandman coursework with state requirements, or as lead faculty for the online campus - she
willingly accepted and often excelled. In other instances, she volunteered, such as chairing the Faculty Training
and mentoring subcommittee. She collaborated with colleagues in a variety of ways including a synchronous
model research project, faculty trainings, and the AAUW. Her outside work in a nursing home and in an
outpatient setting are certainly a benefit to her community and to her students alike. Finally, her volunteer
work with her children’s school and sports teams is also recognized. Dr. Good’s dedication to service is
appreciated, and we look forward to her committee work this upcoming year.
FINAL SCORE
5

REFLECTIONS ON ACTIVITIES NOT CAPTURED IN THE IN THE REFLECTION BOXES THROUGHOUT THIS
DOCUMENT:

Click here to enter up to 1,000 words. Box will grow as text is entered.

THE DEAN WILL UPLOAD YOUR FINAL ANNUAL REVIEW TO YOUR FACULTY FOLDER IN MY BRANDMAN.
FULLTIME FACULTY WILL BE NOTIFIED BY EMAIL WHEN THE FINAL ANNUAL REVIEW IS UPLOADED.

Dean’s Summary, Evaluation and Recommendations for 2017‐2018:

(Faculty please copy & paste last year’s evaluation here.)
Jenny, your overall score of 5.00 is unusual for a first-year faculty member and outstanding for any faculty
member. It reflects the high quality of your work during an excellent first year as fulltime faculty. As you noted,
Brandman has a substantial learning curve with respect to institutional policies, procedures, culture, and student
body. You expertly navigated that learning curve to provide superior teaching, mentoring, and service. While
there is always opportunity for growth and further improvement in every area, as you described with several
examples, you should be proud of the comprehensive work you completed in your first year. I especially
appreciate your role in ensuring that the online program was ready on time for successful launch, and in
mentoring your peer faculty colleague despite the potential awkwardness of both of you being in your first year
as fulltime faculty. Thank you for all that you do for the school and the university.

Dean’s Discretionary Points

Deans may adjust the overall rating by plus or minus 0 - 1.0. At the Dean’s discretion, points may be added
for exemplary performance in areas that further the mission and strategic plan of the institution and school
and are not fully recognized by the aforementioned system, potential examples of such performance may

16
 include noteworthy service to multiple campuses, class sizes beyond the set norms, outstanding efforts on
special projects, and/or high-quality publications/presentations to new audiences

Points may be deducted, at the dean’s discretion, for failing to meet school submission deadlines, failing to
participate in program assessment or accreditation activities, disciplinary interventions, lack of adherence to
university policy and procedure, or lack of collegiality. Documented evidence must be provided to justify
discretionary points (e.g., corrective action plan allowing for opportunities for remediation).

Dean’s Justification for Discretionary Points:

Click here to enter text.

Dean’s Discretionary Points:

Points Enter Points

Dean’s Summary, Evaluation and Recommendations:

Jenny, your overall score for 2018-19 was again a 5.00. This really is an achievement; you should be proud of
your work. Your peers recommend you for training and mentorship roles. You have also quickly moved into
leadership positions within the University, now serving as both a fulltime faculty mentor and an FPC
representative. I encourage you to continue seeking out such opportunities, and if time permits, consider
webinars or literature on effective leadership skills to further hone these skills.

Your student comments noted above bring to mind a quote one of your colleagues shared: “The mediocre
teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires.” –
William Arthur Ward

Great work this year. Thank you for all that you do.

Questions regarding your evaluation should be directed to your Dean and not a member of the Faculty
Personnel Committee or an Associate Dean.

Faculty members who do not agree with the Dean’s Annual Review shall have seven calendar days from
receipt of the Review to request consideration and an opportunity to be heard informally before the final
recommendation is forwarded to the Provost. The faculty member shall furnish the Dean with a written
statement of the basis for the request and with whatever evidence the faculty member believes is relevant.
The final Annual Review together with the written and additional evidence shall be forwarded to the Office
of the Provost and placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.

In addition, the faculty member may write a memo to the Office of Academic Affairs documenting
outstanding differences of opinion for placement in the faculty member’s personnel file.

Click here to enter text.

Dean’s Response to Request for Reconsideration:

Click here to enter text.

SCORING RUBRIC FOR ANNUAL REVIEW CRITERIA

17
The Dean’s scoring rubric may be previewed below.

Score.xlsx

18