Academic journal article Academy of Educational Leadership Journal

Encouraging Faculty Development by Quantifying Faculty Performance

Academic journal article Academy of Educational Leadership Journal

Encouraging Faculty Development by Quantifying Faculty Performance

Article excerpt

ABSTRACT

This paper will summarize how a quantifiable faculty annual performance rating system has been used to assess faculty performance and development, assist faculty in planning, ensure faculty currency, and provide a consistent database for decision making regarding merit increments, tenure, and promotion. In the paper, we will discuss how the Faculty Annual Performance Rating System was created, its administration, how it assists faculty, faculty's acceptance of the system, and how it has positively affected faculty performance.

INTRODUCTION

Clayton College & State University (CCSU) is a technology focused, progressive university located in southern metropolitan Atlanta. The School of Business currently has 20 faculty members, including a Dean, Associate Dean, and endowed chair position. The School is currently completing its fourth year in candidacy for AACSB accreditation. As a part of the candidacy process, the Faculty Development & Intellectual Contribution Committee (FDIC) was formed in 1999 to develop a faculty evaluation system that promoted faculty scholarship and rewarded faculty performance. The Committee's main responsibility was to develop a comprehensive faculty evaluation system that would ensure faculty activities are in line with the mission of the school, accurately measure and reward performance, and assist in the creation of customized development plans for individual faculty members. The Committee's constraints were that the evaluation system had to be quantifiable, acceptable to faculty and evaluators, and consistent with the University's tenure and promotion requirements.

The Committee met on a bimonthly basis throughout the 1999--2000 academic year and in September of 2000 presented a draft of the Faculty Annual Performance Rating System (FAPRS) to the entire School of Business faculty. The FAPRS consists of four forms, the Summary of Professional Activity Form (partially displayed in Figure 1), the Faculty Annual Performance Rating Form (FAPRF) (Figures 2, 3, 4), the Two-Year Development Plan (Figure 6), and the Faculty Publication Matrix (Figure 7). While developing this evaluation system, the Committee recognized that an effective evaluation system requires faculty agreement on numerical ratings for certain measures of teaching, scholarly activity and service.

[FIGURES 1-4 & 6 OMITTED]

The proposed FAPRS was accepted by the faculty with some minor changes and was put into use in the 2000-01 academic year. Since then, the Committee has continued to revise and refine the evaluation system based on the refinement of the School's Mission Statement, faculty feedback, and lessons learned. The FAPRS is intended to measure the annual performance of faculty by providing a reliable and consistent database to assist in faculty evaluation so that important decisions regarding retention, merit, tenure, and promotion can be made in a fair, efficient and timely manner. In addition, it is intended to serve as a mechanism to assist in faculty development by identifying strong and weak areas in teaching, scholarly activity or service. The model uses a point system that is meaningful within the School of Business and useful in University-wide tenure and promotion decisions.

The Faculty Development & Intellectual Contribution Committee at the outset recognized that faculty evaluation requires subjectivity. However, the FAPRS is objective, i.e., it seeks to measure faculty performance and reports a numerical rating. These apparent opposites are reconciled by using the concept of controlled subjectivity. The concept requires faculty agreement on numerical value ratings for certain measures of teaching, scholarly activity and service.

Each year, each faculty member prepares the Summary of Professional Activity Form (Figure 1 above; due to space constraints, only the first page is shown), which reviews in detail all relevant professional activities that transpired during the year being evaluated. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.