ERIC Review: Faculty Evaluation in Community Colleges

Abstract

Evaluation is recognized as an important part of education in general, but its role in the two-year college environment has received less attention" (Miller, 1988, p. 1). Faculty evaluation in the community college first became an issue of discussion and research during the 1970s. Nevertheless, a clear faculty evaluation theory has yet to be developed. In spite of many programs and extensive research on performance appraisal, few community colleges have effectively come to terms with this difficult task. In fact, in the last 10 years, research focused on faculty evaluation practices at two-year colleges has been limited.Higher education's current state of limited resources, coupled with mounting pressures for accountability from legislators and the public, as well as an increasing emphasis on outcomes, is forcing institutions to make better use of their human resources. That is, an interest has developed in measuring the extent to which institutions are efficient and effective, including the efforts of their faculty. Therefore, an appropriate, well-defined means of evaluating and improving community college faculty performance is likely to become essential to institutional success.The purpose of this review is to examine the issues surrounding faculty evaluation in community colleges. This presentation focuses on the controversy over the purpose of faculty evaluation, what faculty evaluations are designed to evaluate, who is doing the evaluation, and the problems faced by faculty evaluation programs.

Faculty evaluation in Departments of Family Medicine: do our universities measure up?

“…They rely on a mix of academic faculty (primarily hospital‐ or university‐based) and part‐time community practice‐based physicians to teach undergraduate and post‐graduate medical trainees. The literature supports the idea that faculty evaluation and faculty development are both essential components of any excellent teaching programme ( McGaghie et al 1981 ; Irby 1983; Hitchcock et al 1986 , 1993; Neal 1988; Ramsey et al 1988 ; Wilkerson et al 1990 ; Ward‐Griffen & Brown 1992; Jacobs 1993; Squires 1993; Steinert 1993; Rifkin 1995). The purpose of this paper is to compare evaluation methods currently used in Canadian Departments of Family Medicine to the standards set in the literature and to those demanded by continuous quality improvement (CQI) programmes in medical practice.…”

“…Faculty resistance. As faculty members have been found to believe that the summative purposes of evaluations are primary, they are thus fearful and suspicious of evaluative mechanisms and programmes ( Neal 1988; Rifkin 1995). They are also concerned that the individuals conducting their evaluations are not objective ( Keig & Waggoner 1995).…”

“…Models of faculty evaluation developed in the 1970s focused on separating these two types of evaluation ( Buchanan et al 1974 ; Cohen 1974). These were not found to be successful in the long term ( Rifkin 1995). More recently, there have been calls for the combination of formative/summative evaluations, but faculty concerns about frank and open participation in an evaluative process that may be used for summative purposes may make this practically impossible.…”

“…Two papers described tools or methods of assessing the quantity of educational work done ( Rainey et al 1993 ; Bardes & Hayes 1995) and four discussed faculty evaluation as it relates to decision making for promotion and tenure ( Jackson & Maclnnes 1984; Carey et al 1993 ; McHugh 1994; Lindemann 1995). The remaining articles discussed the topic of evaluation in general terms only, or in relation to other topics ( Buchanan et al 1974 ; Cohen 1974; McGaghie et al 1981 ; Cashin 1983; Irby 1983a; Hitchcock et al 1986 , 1993; Neal 1988; Rost et al 1989 ; Wilkerson et al 1990 ; DeWitt et al 1993 ; Jacobs 1993; Squires 1993; Steinert 1993; Colyle 1994; Jones & Froom 1994; Rifkin 1995).…”

“…The literature clearly shows that faculty development programmes can be effective ( Buchanan et al 1974 ; McGaghie et al 1981 ; Gjerde & Coble 1982; Rost et al 1989 ; Wilkerson et al 1990 ; DeWitt et al 1993 ; Guyatt et al 1993 ). Many authors emphasize the formative as the primary goal of evaluations ( Jeffers & Guthrie 1988; Neal 1988; Guyatt et al 1993 ; Squires 1993; Steinert 1993; Rifkin 1995; Rosendaal 1995). Many faculty, however, perceive evaluation to be primarily summative ( Neal 1988).…”