Faculty Evaluation and Development Task Force

This task force will review policies and procedures for faculty evaluation and development at Appalachian and make recommendations for improvement. The goal is not to create more oversight of faculty work, but rather to find the most meaningful, efficient, and effective ways of articulating, evaluating and supporting the work of the faculty, particularly in the context of local and national changes in the nature of faculty work and in university culture.

Much of the task force’s work will be conducted through five subcommittees, each of which will assess current practices, research best practices nationally, and make recommendations to the Provost for changes in policies and/or procedures. Subcommittee chairs will meet regularly with the task force chair.

Evaluation Subcommittees:

Inevitably there will be some overlap in the work of these three subcommittees, which are listed in order of the issues’ priority. However, the separate charges are intended (1) to allow for the development of some specialized expertise in these areas and (2) to prevent operational details from driving central issues. For example, criteria and standards need to be developed independently of the processes and instruments that will assess how the criteria are being met, so that we prevent our choice of evaluation instruments from determining what we decide to evaluate.

1. Criteria and Standards: What to Evaluate

This subcommittee will address criteria for quality faculty work, with the goal of clearly articulating the most important results of what faculty do (e.g., the effective enabling of student learning, significant peer-reviewed scholarship, effective service). This subcommittee should pay particular attention to recent changes in how faculty work has been defined both nationally and locally. This subcommittee will also recommend measurable standards for meeting those criteria (e.g., quantity and quality of publications; expected achievement of student learning outcomes; quantity, level, and quality of committee service). Specific university policies to be addressed may include criteria for promotion, tenure, and merit pay; criteria for reassigned time, and standards for effective teaching. Other issues may include how to balance university, college, and departmental criteria; what kinds of standards can be objectively applied and what kinds must allow for individual judgment; and criteria for evaluating and rewarding faculty participation in co-curricular activities such as service learning, student research, and international initiatives.


2. Evaluation Processes: How, When, and Who

This committee will recommend what general forms of evaluation should be done, when evaluation should be required of whom, and who should participate in the evaluating. Issues to consider include what types of evaluation are appropriate at different career stages and for different kinds of faculty members (e.g., tenure-track and non-tenure-track), how formative and summative evaluation should be related and divided, how validity and reliability can be assessed, how evaluation can be tailored to the proportions of a faculty member’s responsibilities, and how related evaluation processes can be aligned (e.g., tenure review and post-tenure review). The committee may also want to consider how to coordinate the various ways of evaluating teaching (e.g., student, peer, and self-evaluation), whether and how external letters should be used for promotion and tenure, whether DPC composition or procedures should be modified, and whether and how university or college-level promotion and tenure committees should be used.

3. Procedures and Instruments: Tools for Evaluation

This committee will evaluate the specific instruments that are available for faculty evaluation and recommend which instruments to adopt at Appalachian. Issues to consider include how to streamline administrative processes and minimize faculty workload, how best to use on-line resources (e.g., faculty e-portfolios, electronic annual reports, online student evaluations), valid and reliable formats and procedures for student evaluations, and appropriate mechanisms for evaluative feedback both to the faculty and to those who evaluate them.

Faculty Development Subcommittees

4. Academic Development

This subcommittee will recommend policies and procedures for development of the faculty in their academic careers. Issues to consider include how best to use available resources in the Hubbard Center and elsewhere for academic development, how to support faculty members in different career stages, and what the university’s basic commitment should be for computer support, travel, and reassigned time. Other topics may include faculty mentoring relationships, leadership training, awards and other incentives, and faculty development for specific university initiatives, such as external funding, distance education, and general education.


5. Support Services

This subcommittee will recommend polices and procedures for bettering the economic, social, and health-related support of faculty members. Issues to consider include housing, spousal employment, day care, health care, retirement benefits, and the needs of various faculty subgroups, including GLBT, ethnic minorities, women, and international members.