ERIC Review Faculty Evaluation: A Response to Competing Values

By Redmon, Kent D. | Community College Review, Summer 1999 | Go to article overview

ERIC Review Faculty Evaluation: A Response to Competing Values


Redmon, Kent D., Community College Review


The author reviews the literature on faculty evaluation to define how different purposes (formative and summative) and competing values (those of administrators and those of faculty) have produced two approaches to the task. A procedural approach relies upon both self-evaluation and appraisals by peers, administrators, and students. The developmental approach rests upon teaching portfolios, dossiers, and self-evaluations. The author defines similarities and differences between both approaches and illustrates their use with examples from the literature.

Using faculty evaluations as a tool to address concerns about faculty quality, institutional accountability, and educational improvement continues to be of the utmost importance to community colleges across the United States. Nevertheless, using faculty evaluations to assess the work of full-time faculty can be a difficult issue because college administrators and faculty members often have different perceptions about why an appraisal process is implemented.

Community college administrators share a belief that their institutions should be stable, efficient, predictable, accountable, and in control of their faculty and staff. Faculty members, on the other hand, generally share a belief that administrators should be more willing to share resources and power, allow for creative growth and development in teaching, and allow for greater adaptability in showcasing their professional growth. These fundamental differences are what Quinn (1988) calls "competing values." Quinn asserts that,

   We want our organizations to be adaptable and flexible, but we also want
   them to be stable and controlled. We want growth, resource acquisition, and
   external support, but we also want tight information management and formal
   communication. We want an emphasis on the value of human resources, but we
   also want an emphasis on planning and goal setting (p. 49).

Given the perceived importance of faculty evaluation in community colleges, this ERIC review focuses on answering a central question: What impact have the competing values of community college administrators and faculty members had on faculty evaluation? This review will discuss two outcomes of competing values on faculty evaluation programs. The first outcome is that additional issues have been added to the debate over the perceived purpose of faculty evaluation. The second outcome is that two broad approaches to evaluating faculty have emerged, each seeking to address the competing values of faculty and administrators.

The Purpose of Evaluation

Any discussion of the approaches used to assess faculty must begin with a clear understanding of what faculty evaluation is designed to achieve. Despite the steps taken by community college administrators to show institutional accountability or to provide feedback to faculty members about their performance, it is widely agreed that the primary purpose of the evaluation is to aid administrators in reaching formative and summative goals.

A formative evaluation, as described by Centra (1993a), "is used to improve teaching performance; the information is given to teachers, whether it is obtained from students, colleagues, or faculty development specialists, and is meant to bring about positive changes. In contrast, summative evaluation is used to make personnel decisions--to hire, promote, grant tenure, or give a merit raise" (p. 5). Additionally, Smith (as cited in Rifkin, 1995) observed that "faculty evaluation has a formative purpose--the results are used to support faculty development, growth, and self-improvement. On the other hand, faculty evaluation has a summative purpose--the results are used to make personnel decisions on tenure, promotion, reappointment, and salary" (p. 64).

The dual purposes served by faculty evaluations continue to be a source of controversy. In his review of the literature on faculty and administrator evaluation, Palmer (1983) says, "faculty evaluation systems often have two contradictory purposes: to enhance faculty development efforts by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of individual instructors and to determine whether the employment of a faculty member should be continued or terminated" (p. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

ERIC Review Faculty Evaluation: A Response to Competing Values
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.