Effective Faculty Evaluation:
Annual Salary Adjustments,
Tenure and Promotion
Appendix A
Selected Excerpts from Scholarship Reconsidered
Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. A Special Report by Ernest L. Boyer. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Princeton University Press, 1990.
Scholarship Reconsidered is a welcome, new perspective in the debate about the work and responsibilities of higher education, presented in eighty pages of thought-provoking reading. The following excerpts are offered only as an "appetizer," with the hope that faculty members will choose to read the complete report before they endeavor to establish evaluation standards, criteria, and guidelines for their departments.
"What we urgently need today is a more inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar--a recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, through synthesis, through practice and through teaching. We acknowledge that these four categories--the scholarship of discovery, of integration, of application, and of teaching--divide intellectual functions that are tied inseparably to each other. Still, there is value, we believe, in analyzing the various kinds of academic work, while also acknowledging that they dynamically interact, forming an interdependent whole. Such a vision of scholarship, one that recognizes the great diversity of talent within the professoriate, also may prove especially useful to faculty as they reflect on the meaning and direction of their professional lives." (p. 24)
"What we propose, in short, is that faculty expectations and related evaluation not only be broadened but that they be individualized and continuous as well. If faculty are to build on their strengths and contribute constructively to the institutions where they work, evaluation criteria must be tailored to personal talents, as well as campus needs. And it is especially important, we believe, that the criteria used reflect changing patterns of personal and professional growth across a lifetime. Once again, diversity, not uniformity, is the key." (p. 50)
"Broadening scholarship has implications not only for individuals but for institutions, too. Today's higher education leaders speak with pride about the distinctive missions of their campuses. But such talk often masks a pattern of conformity. Too many campuses are inclined to seek status by imitating what they perceive to be more prestigious institutions. We are persuaded that if scholarship is to be enriched, every college and university must clarify its own goals and seek to relate its own purposes more directly to the reward system for professors." (p. 53)
In order to return the term scholarship to the broader meaning, Boyer proposes that the work of the professoriate be thought of as having four separate, yet overlapping, functions; the scholarship of discovery; the scholarship of integration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching.
The Scholarship of Discovery (pp. 17-18)
"Scholarly investigation, in all the disciplines, is at the very heart of academic life, and the pursuit of knowledge must be assiduously cultivated and defended. The intellectual excitement fueled by this quest enlivens faculty and invigorates higher learning institutions, and in our complicated, vulnerable world, the discovery of new knowledge is absolutely crucial."
"The scholarship of discovery, at its best, contributes to the stock of human knowledge but also to the intellectual climate of a college or university. Not just the outcomes, but the process, and especially the passion, give meaning to the effort."
The Scholarship of Integration (pp 18-21)
"By integration, we mean making connections across the disciplines, placing the specialities in larger context, illuminating data in a revealing way, often educating nonspecialists, too. . . . what we mean is serious, disciplined work that seeks to interpret, draw together, and bring new insight to bear on original research.²
"Today, interdisciplinary and integrative studies, long on the edges of academic life, are moving toward the center, responding both to new intellectual questions and to pressing human problems. As the boundaries of human knowledge are being dramatically reshaped, the academy surely must give increased attention to the scholarship of integration."
The Scholarship of Application (pp. 21-23)
"The scholarship of application, as we define it here, is not a one-way street. Indeed, the term itself may be misleading if it suggests that knowledge is first `discovered' and then `applied'. The process we have in mind is far more dynamic. New intellectual understandings can arise out of the very act of application--whether in medical diagnosis, serving clients in psychotherapy, shaping public policy, creating an architectural design, or working with the public schools. In activities such as these, theory and practice interact, and one renews the other."
"Clearly, a sharp distinction must be drawn between citizenship activities and projects that relate to scholarship itself. . . . [A]ll too frequently, service means not doing scholarship but doing good. To be considered scholarship, service activities must be tied directly to one's special field of knowledge and relate to, and flow directly out of, this professional activity. Such service is serious, demanding work, requiring the rigor--and the accountability--traditionally associated with research activities."
The Scholarship of Teaching (pp. 23-24)
"In the end, inspired teaching keeps the flame of scholarship alive. Almost all successful academics give credit to creative teachers--those mentors who defined their work so compellingly that it became, for them, a lifetime challenge. Without the teaching function, the continuity of knowledge will be broken and the store of human knowledge dangerously limited."
"As a scholarly enterprise, teaching begins with what the teacher knows. Those who teach must, above all, be well informed, and steeped in the knowledge of their fields. Teaching can be well regarded only as professors are widely read and intellectually engaged."
"Teaching is also a dynamic endeavor involving all the analogies, metaphors, and images that build bridges between the teacher's understanding and the student's learning. Pedagogical procedures must be carefully planned, continuously examined, and rela te directly to the subject taught. . . . [G]reat teachers create a common ground of intellectual commitment. They stimulate active, not passive, learning and encourage students to be critical, creative thinkers, with the capacity to go on learning after their college days are over."
Appendix C
Sources of Assistance
A major purpose of this document is to identify and discuss several issues concerning summative faculty evaluation systems that relate to institutional excellence. In this appendix, the focus shifts to assistance for persons charged with the responsibilities of evaluating faculty performance. This discussion is divided into three subsections: administrative commitment to providing systematic orientation for heads of units, general sources of help regarding summative faculty evaluation, and sources of help regarding the specific domains of faculty responsibility.
Administrative Commitment
Faculty evaluations are essential for personnel decisions and for academic productivity. Excellence in the conduct of these evaluations requires a commitment of support from University administrators at the highest levels. Department heads and deans need to receive systematic orientation to the ideas, content, and processes of faculty evaluation, as well as opportunities for developing, renewing, and enhancing their competence in faculty evaluation. Follow-up to seminars and workshops on faculty evaluation has been demonstrated to be critical for retention and continued quality performance (Centra, 1979; Miller, 1987).
General Sources of Help on Faculty Evaluation
Following are lists of three kinds of help that may be considered for those charged with developing or implementing summative faculty evaluation.
Published Works
Some excellent printed materials are available on the overall topic of faculty evaluation. Some of the more highly regarded materials are cited below.
Books
Centra, J. A. (1979). Determining faculty effectiveness: Assessing teaching, research, and service for personnel decisions and improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
This book is regarded by some authorities to be the best single source on faculty evaluation. Centra relies heavily on research to support his assertions. He emphasizes the need for local involvement in developing evaluation systems that are pertinent to the local conditions. The book covers goals and procedures of faculty evaluation, uses and limitations of student ratings, benefits of self-assessment and self-analysis, evaluation by colleagues, measures of student learning, assessment of research, advising, and public service, and assembling data for making decisions.
Chait, R. P., & Ford, A. T. (1982). Beyond traditional tenure: A guide to sound policies and practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
The authors provide a thoughtful and balanced treatment of the pros and cons of tenure, its alternatives, and its major variants. The book, and particularly Chapter 7, contains well reasoned, research-based recommendations for sound personnel policies and practices.
Menges, R. J., & Mathis, B C. (1988). Key resources on teaching, learning, curriculum, and faculty development: A guide to the higher education literature. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
This broad-scope book reviews a rich variety of published materials. Its seven chapters address literature on teaching, learning, curriculum, and faculty development; teaching and teaching effectiveness; learners and the learning process; college and University curricula; faculty and staff development; periodicals and reference tools; and key trends and issues for research and practice.
Miller, R. I. (1987). Evaluating faculty for promotion and tenure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Coverage includes guidelines for improving evaluation systems, evaluating teaching, evaluating scholarship and service, assessing other aspects of professional effectiveness, understanding purposes and procedures of academic promotion and tenure decisions, monitoring compliance with the law, administrative roles in promotion and tenure processes, and preparing for future evaluation and personnel needs. Three appendices present a variety of resource materials.
Seldin, P. (1980). Successful faculty evaluation programs: A practical guide to improve faculty performance and promotion/tenure decisions. Crugers, NY: Coventry Press.
The author's purpose was to help faculty and administrators avoid the pitfalls and develop the skills and sensitivity needed for successful evaluation programs. Ten chapters cover what is involved in evaluating faculty performance, current evaluation practices, student evaluations, peer evaluations, self-evaluation, other ways of evaluating teaching, institutional service and student advising, research and publications, models of evaluation, and a guide to successful faculty evaluation.
Seldin, P. (1991). The teaching portfolio. Boston: Anker Publishing.
This paperback introduces teaching portfolios, describes how to prepare them, lists 30 items that might be included, and discusses how they might be used. One of the book's strengths is eight sample teaching portfolios. A possible limitation is the focus on portfolios as samples of teachers' best work--analogous to artists' portfolios. This approach emphasizes using portfolios more for development than for evaluation, although the latter also receives some attention.
Newsletter
Assessment Update: Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
This quarterly newsletter's articles address such topics as linking assessment and teaching, assessment activities at large research universities, politics and assessment in the University, faculty response to assessment at a major research University, and how assessment results are being used. Regular columns present profiles of assessment activities on specific campuses, the status of state-mandated assessment initiatives, and available assessment measures. The annual cost is $60.00.
Periodical Literature
Among the numerous articles published about faculty evaluation, here are some worth considering.
Braskamp, L. A., Fowler, D. L., & Ory, J. C. (1984). Faculty development and achievement: A faculty's view. Review of Higher Education, 7, 205-222.
Braskamp, L. A., Muffo, J. A., & Langston, I. W. (1978). Determining salary equity: Policies, procedures, and problems. Journal of Higher Education, 49, 231-246.
Craven, E. C. (1980). Academic program evaluation: New directions for institutional research, No.27. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, K. A. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teachers are related to their instructional effectiveness: A review and exploration. Research in Higher Education, 26, 227-298.
Holley, W. H. & Field, H. S. (1977). The law and performance evaluation in education: A review of court cases and implications for use. Journal of Law and Education, 6, 427-448.
Root, L. S. (1987). Faculty evaluation: Reliability of peer assessments of research, teaching, and service. Research in Higher Education, 26, 71-84.
Smith, K. L. & Clark, R. W. (1987). Executive Development Center: Taking the guesswork out of staff selection. Journal of Extension, XXV (Winter), 19-22.
Smock, H. R. (1982). Planning for an evaluation network and institutionalization. In R. Wilson (Ed.), Designing academic program reviews: New directions for higher education, No. 37 (pp. 67-73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Verna, O. S. & Bhaskar, V. V. (1988). Scientists' productivity: Miscellaneous activities are integral part of assessment system. Journal of Extension Systems, 4(1), 29-36.
Workshops and Seminars
Some organizations provide workshops and seminars on faculty evaluation and faculty development. The names and addresses of some of these organizations are given below.
On-Campus Resources
Center of Faculty Evaluation and Development
Kansas State University
College Court Building, 1615 Anderson Avenue, Manhattan, KS
Planning and Evaluation Services
Kansas State University, Fairchild Hall
Off-Campus Resources
Comprehensive Data Evaluation Services, Inc.
6730 North Camino Padre Isidoro, Tucson, AZ 85718
Division of Continuing Education
Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701
Consultants
Consultants willing to work with universities and colleges on faculty evaluation include the following:
On-Campus Resources
William Cashin
Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development
Kansas State University
College Court Building 1615 Anderson Avenue
Victoria Clegg
Educational Improvement, Fairchild Hall, Kansas State University
Off-Campus Resources
Lawrence A. Braskamp
University of Illinois -- Chicago Circle, Chicago, IL
Peter Cohen
Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA
John Hammonds
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
Peter Seldin
Pace University, Pleasantville, NY
Personnel Development
Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Literature on Specific Domains of
Faculty Responsibility
Teaching
Bennett, J. B., & Chater, S. S. (1984). Evaluating the performance of tenured faculty members. Educational Record, 65, 38-41.
Braskamp, L. A., Brandenburg, D. C., & Ory, J. C. (1984). Evaluating teaching effectiveness: A practical guide. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cashin, W. E. (September, 1988). Student ratings of teaching: A summary of the research. IDEA Paper No. 20. Manhattan, KS: Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.
Cashin, W. E. (September, 1989). Defining and evaluating college teaching. IDEA Paper No. 21. Manhattan, KS: Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.
Cashin, W. E. (January, 1990). Student ratings of teaching: Recommendations for use. IDEA Paper No. 22. Manhattan, KS: Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.
Cashin W. E. (1990). Assessing teaching effectiveness. In P. Seldin (Ed.). How administrators can improve teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cashin, W. E. (1990). Students do rate different academic fields differently. In M. Theall, & J. Franklin (Ed.). Student ratings of instruction: Issues for improving practice: New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 43. San Francis co: Jopssey-Bass.
Centra, J. A. (1979). Determining faculty effectiveness: Assessing teaching, research, and service for personnel decisions and improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. See Chapters 2-5, pages 17-118.
Dunkin, M. J. (1986). Research on teaching in higher education. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Ed.) (pp. 754-777). New York: Macmillan.
French-Lazovit, G. (Ed.). (1982). Practices that improve teaching evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McLaughlin, G. W., Montgomery, J. R., Gravely, A. R., & Mahon, B. T. (1981). Factors in teaching assignments: Measuring workload by effort. Research in Higher Education, 14, 3-17.
Miller, R. I. (1987). Evaluating faculty for promotion and tenure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. See Chapter 3, pages 31-55 and Appendices A and B.
Seldin, P. (1980). Successful faculty evaluation programs: A practical guide to improve faculty performance and promotion/tenure decisions. Crugers, NY: Coventry Press. See Chapters 3-6, pages 36-107.
Seldin, P. (1991). The teaching portfolio. Boston: Anker Publishing.
Research
Blackburn, R. T., Behmyer, C. E., & Hall, D. E. (1978). Research note: Correlates of faculty publications. Sociology of Education, 51, 132-141.
Centra, J. A. (1979). Determining faculty effectiveness: Assessing teaching, research, and service for personnel decisions and improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. See Chapter 6.
Creswell, J. W. (1985). Faculty research performance: Lessons from the sciences and social sciences. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Jones, L. V. (1980). The assessment of scholarship. In E. H. Loveland (Ed.), Measuring the hard-to-measure: New directions for program evaluation, No. 6 (pp. 1-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, R. I. (1987). Evaluating faculty for promotion and tenure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. See Chapter 4, pages 56-70 and Appendices A and B.
Mortimer, K. P., Bagshaw, M., & Masland, A. T. (1985). Flexibility in academic staffing: Effective policies and practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Reports, No. 5. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Root, L. S. (1987). Faculty evaluation: Reliability of peer assessments of research, teaching, and service. Research in Higher Education, 26, 71-84.
Seldin, P. (1980). Successful faculty evaluation programs: A practical guide to improve Faculty performance and promotion/tenure decisions. Crugers, NY: Coventry Press. See Chapter 8, pages 127-141.
Directed and Non-Directed Service
Boyer, C. M., & Lewis, D. R. (1985). And on the seventh day: Faculty consulting and supplemental income. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Reports, No. 3. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Braskamp, L. A., Muffo, J. A., & Langston, I. W. (1978). Determining salary equity: Policies, procedures, and problems. Journal of Higher Education, 49, 231-246.
Centra, J. A. (1979). Determining faculty effectiveness: Assessing teaching, research, and service for personnel decisions and improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. See Chapter 6, pages 119-135.
Elman, S. E., & Smock, S. M. (1985). Professional service and faculty rewards: Toward an integrated structure. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
Miller, R. I. (1987). Evaluating faculty for promotion and tenure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. See Chapter 4, pages 56-70 and Appendix A.
Root, L. S. (1987). Faculty evaluation: Reliability of peer assessments of research, teaching, and service. Research in Higher Education, 26, 71-84.
Seldin, P. (1980). Successful faculty evaluation programs: A practical guide to improve Faculty performance and promotion/tenure decisions. Crugers, NY: Coventry Press. See Chapter 7, pages 108-126.
Extension
Gerber, J. H. (1985). Extension specialists: A self-analysis. Journal of Extension, XXIII (Winter),8-11
Ladewig, H., & Shiao, K. S. (1983). Development of personnel appraisal procedures to measure the job performance of County Extension agents: Summary of research. No. 30. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Department of Agricultural Educa tion.
Patterson, T. F. (1987). Refining performance appraisal: A reliable and useful method. Journal of Extension, XXV (Winter), 16-18.
Thompson, O. E., & Gwynn, D. (1989). Improving Extension: Views from agricultural deans. Journal of Extension, XXVII (Spring), 7-10.