Faculty Evaluation: Strengths and Concerns

By Andrews, Hans A.; Harris, Beverly Jo et al. | Community College Enterprise, Spring 2002 | Go to article overview

Faculty Evaluation: Strengths and Concerns


Andrews, Hans A., Harris, Beverly Jo, Licata, Christine M., Community College Enterprise


The current study helps fill avoid in community college faculty evaluation. It builds upon earlier research by the authors that found major gaps in what is taking place in faculty evaluation versus what educators believe should be done. For the 19-state Higher Learning Commission (previously North Central Association) the largest accrediting association in America, a majority of survey respondents identified faculty development as a need. Though the need is often discussed, too often institutions provide only "lip service," then give little recognition for outstanding teaching and few sanctions for teachers not performing at a satisfactory level

Introduction

Research on tenured faculty evaluation practices in the American community college system is very limited. To help fill the void, the authors conducted a study to determine the status of post-tenure review in the 19-state region of the North Central Association (recently renamed the Higher Learning Commission). The present study concluded in early 2001. Andrews and Licata conducted a similar study ten years ago (1991). Related research in senior colleges and universities is in process through the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), New Pathways IT Project (Licata 1998).

In the early 80s, the National Commission on Higher Education Issues (1982) urged campus administrators to develop periodic post-tenure review systems and make peer review a critical component. A study on evaluation practices in selected community colleges (Licata 1984) reported that both faculty and administrators support having such review practices and agree that evaluation reviews should produce faculty improvement. Despite the support for such policy, faculty and administrators expressed uncertainty about the effectiveness of their own evaluation systems. They asserted that review practices paid only lip service to faculty development and competence was not adequately measured (Licata 1984).

In a later report, Andrews and Licata (1991) found that over 70 percent of responding community colleges (199 colleges) within the North Central Association (19 state region) indicated post-tenure evaluation existed in their colleges. Classroom effectiveness ranked as the number one criterion used in evaluations. At that time, chief academic officers and faculty leaders identified two major problems: (1) lack of a reward system for outstanding performance and (2) ineffective implementation of a development plan. Other problem areas included faculty resistance and inadequately trained evaluators. Responses divided almost evenly on the question of evaluation effectiveness, with about one-half indicating effective evaluation systems and the rest indicating ineffective systems or ones of uncertain effectiveness. The main reasons given for uncertainty about the effectiveness include the following: (a) evaluation pays only "lip service" to faculty development, (b) no mechanism exists to measure competence/incompetence, (c) evaluators are not adequately trained, and (d) poor instructors are not placed on warning.

Recommendations for improvement focused on ways to: (a) tie an evaluation system to faculty development and a formative purpose, (b) provide incentives (merit recognition) for excellent performers, and (c) lessen importance of student evaluation.

Faculty leaders within the surveyed institutions overwhelmingly favored periodic performance assessment (97%) and believed that "there should be a faculty development program implemented in conjunction with posttenure evaluation." Surprisingly, over 80 percent also asserted "post-tenure evaluation should lead to the weeding out of incompetent faculty."

Purposes for the study The present study attempts to determine (a) what types of post-tenure evaluation practices presently exist, (b) how effective these practices are, (c) what strengths and weaknesses exist in evaluation systems, and (d) what suggestions could be made for improvement. …

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

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.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

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

Faculty Evaluation: Strengths and Concerns
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?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access 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

    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.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    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.