 |
Workshop #1: Faculty Evaluations
The College of Arts & Sciences hosted a chair leadership development workshop on faculty
evaluations, January 19, 2012. Click on the topics below to view helpful tips from
the workshop.
Special thanks to
Moderator:
Joy Clay, Associate Dean for Interdisciplinary Studies
Panelists:
- Ralph Albanese, Chair of Foreign Languages and Literature
- Matthias Kaelberer, Chair of Political Science
- Abby Parrill, Chair of Chemistry
Why is the faculty evaluation process important?
- Provides official documentation of the faculty member's goals and accomplishments
- Gives specific feedback about strengths, priorities, and opportunities for growth
- Used by University reviewers in tenure and promotion decisions
- Forms basis for the decision whether or not to reappoint tenure track faculty and
instructors
- Creates the opportunity for collaborative goal-setting
- Presents the faculty member with an opportunity to discuss the department's direction
and needs
- Helps set the agenda on where to revise/update departmental tenure and promotion guidelines
- Affords the chair important information on faculty accomplishments that can be shared
with the wider university
How does the overall evaluation process differ across departments?
- The number of evaluations conducted by each chair ranges from about 6 to over 50 and
that magnitude influences the processes chairs select to use.
- One large department with multiple concentrations uses an advisory council to review
faculty SETES and provide the chair with input which is taken into account when the
chair composes the narrative. The chair also reviews all faculty data independently.
- In small departments it's not hard for the chair to do the evaluations him/herself.
In fact, in some departments there is resistance by faculty to be involved in faculty
evaluations. They think it is solely the chair's responsibility.
- Some departments with assistant professors have senior faculty meet to review and
discuss the progress of all tenure track faculty.
- The evaluation process in each department reflects the norms and expectations that
have developed over time, disciplinary values, and university requirements.
What kinds of data are available and how are they collected?
- Student evaluations of teaching and CVs are available on-line.
- Faculty should update their on-line CVs in preparation for the annual evaluation.
- Course success rate reports are available on-line through the Office of Institutional
Research.
- Some departments have peer evaluations of teaching which are taken into account during
annual review.
- Formats for faculty data collection are unique to each department, varying from very
structured to more narrative
- Some departments use the Planning & Activity form (Word document) available on the
College website.
- The Biology department developed multi-year spreadsheet (Excel document) which captures
summary data at the top and evaluation data at the bottom. The multi-year format is
useful for tracking change over time. This document is also available on the College
website.
- Documentation also varies. Chairs may or may not request to see copies of research
products.
- Even within one discipline, there are often different subareas with different journals
and different "valued" research products. So the chair needs to be aware of those
respective differences and review materials accordingly.
- For interdisciplinary work, the chair needs to take into account the unique features
of the collaboration as well as the differences between the involved units/disciplines.
What is the role of goal-setting in the evaluation process?
- Goal-setting should be an ongoing process throughout the year
- Encourage the employee to set individual goals
- Goals should be realistic (achievable) and limited in number
- Use the face-to-face meeting to formalize what the faculty member and chair can do
to support faculty growth
- Collectively, the individual goals can serve as the basis for other departmental reporting,
e.g., program reviews, accreditation, etc.
How do you keep the conversation focused on performance, not the score?
- Each discipline has its own norms that guide expectations
- Positive feedback should be addressed first
- Pay attention to phrasing
- Recommendations for improvement will be received better if stated in a positive manner
- Strategically consider the scoring system. Ideally, there should be a range of scores
in each department that reflects disciplinary expectations. When we have a merit raise
cycle, the annual evaluation scores serve as a key factor in the distribution of raises.
- Be prepared to provide an explanation of the score
- Faculty have the opportunity to provide written comments on the evaluation document
when they acknowledge the evaluation
Should you follow up throughout the year?
- Grab opportunities to have hallway discussions or drop in on your faculty in their
offices both to celebrate accomplishments and to give advice
- Consider using mentors to help faculty improve on gaps identified during the annual
evaluation
- By taking evaluation seriously, a chair has the opportunity to communicate what is
important, how the faculty member fits with the priorities of the department, college,
and university; and why strategies for improvement will strengthen the unit
|
|
Recommended reading (Copies available for checkout from Dean's office):
Buller, J. (2006) The Essential Department Chair: A Practical Guide to Administration.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
|
Facebook 
YouTube 
Twitter