All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

An Academic Accomplishment Index For Assessing Faculty Performance
Unformatted Document Text:  3 career advances (Tierney and Bensimon, 1996). Interestingly, faculty members tend to perceive their own productivity in terms of scholarly research and grants (Massy & Wilger, 1995) and place less importance on other factors. Such variations in which of these areas are regarded as more important are generally related to how a particular college or university is characterized. For example, in “research 1” institutions, the expectation may be skewed more heavily towards a distinguished publishing record. In such cases, an outstanding evaluation may result even though acceptable teaching evaluations and minimal service may be indicated in an evaluation. In some four-year colleges research may not be viewed as all that important. Exceptional teaching and service might be of greater importance during promotion and tenure reviews (Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Wilson, 2002). Here again, while differences are to be expected between categories of institutions, a variety of evaluation methods and weights are used to assess various aspects of professional activities within homogeneous categories of universities (Leslie, 2002). In most large institutional organizations, policies take two forms; espoused rules in the form of written guidelines, and expectations. Explicit, written rules vary greatly in procedure, criteria and standards but of greater importance to junior faculty is the history of how tenure and promotion decisions are made (Middaugh, 2001). In several books published to help guide junior faculty through the evaluation process, readers are advised to not only read tenure guidelines but to also carefully review a successful portfolio and ask senior faculty to relate variations in the written guidelines (Bukalsky, 2000). In recent years, determining how to evaluate the use of technology has become an important topic of discussion in many universities. According to a survey conducted in 2001 by the Campus Computing Project, 84% of public and 54% of private universities have some form of online courses. In an earlier study conducted by the Campus Computing Project, information technology development programs exist in 74% of universities and 66% have campus support

Authors: Adams, Jonathan.
first   previous   Page 3 of 14   next   last



background image
3
career advances (Tierney and Bensimon, 1996). Interestingly, faculty members tend to perceive
their own productivity in terms of scholarly research and grants (Massy & Wilger, 1995) and
place less importance on other factors.
Such variations in which of these areas are regarded as more important are generally
related to how a particular college or university is characterized. For example, in “research 1”
institutions, the expectation may be skewed more heavily towards a distinguished publishing
record. In such cases, an outstanding evaluation may result even though acceptable teaching
evaluations and minimal service may be indicated in an evaluation. In some four-year colleges
research may not be viewed as all that important. Exceptional teaching and service might be of
greater importance during promotion and tenure reviews (Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Wilson,
2002). Here again, while differences are to be expected between categories of institutions, a
variety of evaluation methods and weights are used to assess various aspects of professional
activities within homogeneous categories of universities (Leslie, 2002).
In most large institutional organizations, policies take two forms; espoused rules in the
form of written guidelines, and expectations. Explicit, written rules vary greatly in procedure,
criteria and standards but of greater importance to junior faculty is the history of how tenure and
promotion decisions are made (Middaugh, 2001). In several books published to help guide junior
faculty through the evaluation process, readers are advised to not only read tenure guidelines but
to also carefully review a successful portfolio and ask senior faculty to relate variations in the
written guidelines (Bukalsky, 2000).
In recent years, determining how to evaluate the use of technology has become an
important topic of discussion in many universities. According to a survey conducted in 2001 by
the Campus Computing Project, 84% of public and 54% of private universities have some form
of online courses. In an earlier study conducted by the Campus Computing Project, information
technology development programs exist in 74% of universities and 66% have campus support


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 3 of 14   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.