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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackerman, A. (1996, February). Faculty performance review and evaluations: Principles, guidelines, and successes. In The olympics of leadership: Over-coming obstacles, balancing skills, taking risks. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the National Community College Chair Academy, Phoenix, AZ, February 23-26. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 394 566)
2.
Andrews, H. A. (1991). Negative impact of faculty contract negotiations on community collegefaculty evaluation systems. Oglesby, IL: Illinois Valley Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 628)
3.
Arreola, R. A. (1983). Establishing successful faculty evaluation and development programs. In A. Smith (Ed.), Evaluating faculty and staff (pp. 83-93). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Centra, J. A. (1993a). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Centra, J. A. (1993b, April). Use of the teaching portfolio and student evaluations for summative evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 358 133)
6.
Central Oregon Community College. (1997, April). Faculty evaluation official practices. Bend, OR: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420 357)
7.
Cohen, A. (1974). Evaluation of faculty. Community College Review, 2(2), 12-21.
8.
Defina, A. (1996, February). An effective alternative to faculty evaluation: The use of the teaching portfolio. In The olympics of leadership: Overcoming obstacles, balancing skills, taking risks. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the National Community College Chair Academy, Phoenix, AZ. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 394 561)
9.
Dockery, M., Lamb, B., & Rhinehart, M. (1994, February). Performance review aerobics: Exercises which systemize the process. Paper presented at the International Conference for Community College Chairs, Deans, and Other Instructional Leaders, Phoenix, AZ. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 368 443)
10.
El Paso County Community College. (1996, May). Procedure for tenure review and recommendations. El Paso, TX: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 409 959)
11.
Hammons, J. (1983). Faculty development: A necessary corollary to faculty evaluation. In A. Smith (Ed.), Evaluating faculty and staff (pp. 75-82). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Licata, C. M. & Andrews, H. A. (1992). Faculty leaders' responses to post-tenure evaluation practices. Community/Junior College Quarterly, 16(1), 47-56.
13.
McGee, R. L. (1995). Faculty evaluation process in 11 western community colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 19(4), 341-348
14.
Murray, J. P. (1994, February). The teaching portfolio: The department chairperson's role in creating a climate of teaching excellence. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference for Community College Chairs, Deans, and Other Instructional Leaders, Phoenix, AZ, February 23-26. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 368 410)
15.
Nolte, W., Legate, J., & Schaus, R. (1997, February). Faculty evaluation, portfolio development, and accreditation: Walking the tightrope. In Walking the Tightrope: The Balance between Innovation and Leadership. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Chair Academy, Reno, NV, February 12-15. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 011)
16.
Olp, M., Watson, K., & Valek, M. (1991, October). Appraisal offaculty: Encouragement and improvement in the classroom. Yuma, AZ: Arizona Western College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 336 159)
17.
Palmer, J. (1983). Sources and information: Faculty and administrator evaluation. In A. Smith (Ed.), Evaluating faculty and staff (pp. 109-118). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
Renz, F.J. (1984). Study examining the issues offaculty evaluation. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 243 559)
19.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the pradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Rifkin, T. (1995). ERIC Review: Faculty evaluation in community colleges. Community College Review, 23(1), 63-72.
21.
Seldin, P., & Associates. (1993). Successful use of teaching portfolios. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
22.
Smith, A. B., & Barber, J. A. (1993). Faculty evaluation and performance appraisal. In A. M. Cohen & F. B. Brawer (Eds.), Managing community colleges: A handbook for effective practice (pp. 382-399). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Wolverton, M. (1996). Teaching portfolios: The experience at Miami-DadeCommunity College Journal of General Education, 45(4), 295-305.
