Faculty Evaluation at

1. Faculty Evaluationat Willamette University Prepared by Ron Loftus

2. Disclaimer • These slides were created to help frame a discussion with colleagues. • As such, they are kind of “talking points”and do not represent anyone’s viewpoint or interpretation but my own. • I did share an earlier version of them with FC colleagues and received some input, but I alone am responsible for the content.

3. What are our Standards or Criteria? • See PPP, Sec. VI. Evaluation Standards and Procedures; • “The criteria for retention, promotion, tenure and step increases shall be • 1) teaching effectiveness • 2) professional development, and • 3) University and community service”

4. Key Language from the PPP • “Although faculty members are expected to make contributions in all three areas, effective teaching is of paramount importance; poor teaching cannot be redeemed in the other two areas.” • However, this endorsement of the centrality of effective teaching should not be construed as negating the need for a professional development program.

5. PPP Language on Teaching • There is a lot of it: under VI., A, 1, a-f • We find such language as: • Demonstrates substantial understanding of subject matter s/he teaches and revises courses when necessary to reflect current developments in the discipline; • Is well prepared for classes and presents courses in an organized fashion; • Seeks to maintain the interest of students and to stimulate their intellectual curiosity and creative abilities;

6. How does FC Evaluate Teaching Effectiveness? • Are SETEs/SAIs over emphasized? • What is considered along with course evaluations forms? • Student letters • Colleague letters • Teaching materials submitted by the faculty member • Information in the Personal Statement

7. More on Teaching • Explores new teaching techniques when necessary; • Makes clear to students the objectives and requirements of his/her courses and the criteria by which students will be evaluated. The effective teacher exhibits fairness and impartiality in evaluating student achievement. • Etc.

8. What would constitute “Ineffective” Teaching? • What kind of “high number” on the SETE forms do you think should grab (your and) FC’s attention? • What other considerations should be factored in? • What is the role of student letters? • What else should be taken into consideration? • Don’t overlook the role of the Personal Statement!

9. Language about Professional Development • “Engages in such scholarly activities as research and writing for publication, artistic creativity and performance. . . • Although the nature of what constitutes professional development will vary by discipline, it is expected that the faculty member demonstrates professional development in a manner accepted by individuals in his/her field of study and subject to the process of peer review.”

10. Section VII. C., 1 Promotion to Associate • 1. “In order to be promoted to Associate Professor, an Assistant Professor must have demonstrated a sustained and consistent record as an effective teacher, engaged in a continuing program of professional development, and actively contributed in the area of of University and community service.”

11. Promotion to Professor • VII, C. 2 “In order to be promoted to Professor, an Associate must have demonstrated consistently effective teaching, significant and continuing accomplishments in professional development and University and community service. The person must have additionally demonstrated personal and professional traits which are important in performing a leadership role as an active and effective member of the CLA.”

12. So, could we conclude from this that in regard to Professional Development: • 1. For Tenure and Promotion one needs to demonstrate a professional development program that is consistent with the standards in one’s field or discipline • 2. And that this should include work that is “subject to the process of peer review”?

13. What we are not specifying • The number of publications • Their length • Precisely what is “required” for tenure in any formulaic sense • But the implication is clear that some constellation of activities such as • Conference presentations or papers • Shorter, non-peer reviewed writing • More substantial, peer-reviewed work • Would be appropriate

14. The Role of the Personal Statement • In the end, it is up to the faculty member to explain to the FC • What their professional development program consists of • Why it is the appropriate mixture or constellation for them at this time in their career • How it conforms for the PPP guidelines

15. Organizing Your CV • Under Publications, many use the category Peer Reviewed Publications • If a manuscript is submitted, or under review, please so indicate. • If a manuscript is accepted but publication date is not certain, say (Forthcoming) after your entry. • If the book or journal has been copy edited, and all final changes have been made, you can say (In Press).

16. How does the “bar” differ for Promotion to Professor? • Consistently effective teaching record • Significant and continuing accomplishments in professional development and University service • v. • “engaged in a continuing program of professional development” • It follows, then, that when one stands for promotion to Professor, a significant and continuing record of accomplishment needs to be in evidence.

17. What is the Role of Service? • Is service is being downplayed? • NOT necessarily so. • Service is one of the three criteria by which we are judged. • Service is more than committee work; what kinds of things might be be included in service? • service to one’s profession, • community service • At the same time, some writing or publication may fall into the “service” category

18. Professional Development v. Service • Can the argument be made that now Prof. Devt is more likely to be a “deal breaker” than service? • Another way to pose the question: Unlike twenty-some years ago, when a very strong service record and relatively little PD might have secured promotion, is the opposite now the more likely scenario?

19. What about Criteria for Step Increases? • This language added only recently because we had none. See VII, E • “Step advances are not automatic. . .In order to receive a step advance a faculty member must demonstrate consistent teaching effectiveness, a continuing program of professional development, and a commitment to University and community service as defined in Sec. VI. A.”

20. General Practices • For 3-year periodic reviews, if a faculty member seems to be struggling in any of the three areas, and the area of difficulty is not one that FC has previously drawn attention to, then • Mention will be made in a letter so that in the ensuing review, if the problem persists, the step advance may not be forthcoming.

21. Have our Evaluation Standards Changed Significantly over the Years? • Yes. . .and No depending how far back one wishes to go. • WU did go through a transition from a primarily teaching institution to one where expectations for professional development were articulated. • Anyone who joined WU since 1980, however, has heard a consistent message: a professional development record is required for tenure and promotion.

22. Has the “Bar,” then, been Raised? • In some senses, yes. Language about “significant and continuing accomplishments” and “peer review” now exist in the PPP. • At the same time, more and more junior faculty members come to WU with such expectations of themselves, and they proceed to demonstrate a strong record of professional development early in their careers here.

23. A Typical Tenure Review File? • Demonstration of a sustained and consistent record of effective teaching • Engagement in a continuing program of professional development • Evidence of some peer reviewed work • Some conference papers, posters, or presentations • Concise Personal Statement that addresses accomplishments and future directions • A record of service appropriate to the faculty member

24. “What exactly are the Expectations that FC works with?” • This is the question I hear the most. • But what does it really mean? • Do faculty honestly want to hear that we all must have 3 articles, 4 conference presentations, 2 or more book reviews in our portfolios to receive tenure? • Would some formula like this work for everybody? I don’t think so!

25. As stated previously, • You need to tell FC what it is you do in the area of Professional Development • And WHY that is the appropriate trajectory for you to be on. • If it is a tenure or promotion decision, and outside evaluators will comment on the contributions you make to your discipline and how appropriate your professional development agenda appears to them.

26. You should be aware that • Outside evaluators, sometimes from top-50 liberal arts colleges, do inform us that the file they were asked to review might be considered “thin” or even inadequate in the realm of professional development at their institutions. • But they usually hasten to add that teaching requirements appear to be heavier at WU, and FC adjusts its expectations accordingly.

27. Is our Evaluation Process Fair and Consistent? • Absolute consistency may be difficult to achieve simply because each Council, with its elected membership, will be differently nuanced. • But each Council works within parameters set by previous Councils as outlined in their letters to the faculty member. • Since FC often begins its review of a file with a careful reading of previous FC letters, a clearly demarcated “channel” keeps the FC’s discussion within certain established parameters.

28. How to Read FC Letters • With some care! • Letters summarize what FC sees in the file • Letters provide feedback in terms of student and colleague comments • Letters also point to areas of performance that may need to be addressed • Letters provide a record for future Councils • Letters constitute a record of an ongoing conversation between FC and faculty member

29. A Personal View • While we may give up something in terms of disciplinary “expertise” by having a committee made up of elected “generalists,” • We compensate for this by requiring external evaluators to assist the FC. • And we always operate within the parameters set by previous FC reviews which should militate against wildly inconsistent decisions.

30. Furthermore • By not having a hierarchical structure whereby FC and “Administration” views of a case need to be reconciled; • We do not experience the inconsistency of a FC decision being reversed by a Dean only to be reinstated by a VP or Provost only to be reversed again by the President. • Therefore, for all its flaws, our evaluation system is, on the whole, very unique and “faculty friendly.”