All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

An Academic Accomplishment Index For Assessing Faculty Performance
Unformatted Document Text:  5 within that list is there some hierarchy among the criteria indicating that some of those categories of performance are more important than others? And third, if such a hierarchy is commonly used, what differential degree of weight, merit or value do administrators attach to each? METHODS The first task, then, was to identify “what counts.” That is, in assessing teaching, research and service, what specific indicators of performance are commonly reviewed by an administrator making judgments when examining a portfolio submitted by a candidate for reward? A review of the literature suggested that there were a number of commonly used criteria that are considered in making such performance assessments (Magner, 1997; Fairweather, 2002; Leslie, 2002). Of those that were identified from these sources, a list was prepared of the nine criteria that seemed to be most common. These are listed in Table 1: [Table 1 about here] That list of nine criteria was then circulated to six deans and chairpersons who offered to assist in designing the project. As it turned out, these judges suggested adding two additional criteria. The reason was that the use of technology has assumed greater importance in higher education over the last few years. The two activities added, then, were “developing and managing an online course in his or her discipline,” and “has a refereed article in online media.” The six judges were unsure of how these two activities were being, or should be, evaluated compared to the more traditional accomplishments as listed in Table 1. One of the additional objectives of this research, therefore, was to seek an answer to that question. Where to these technological activities fit into the hierarchy of criteria that administrators are now using in evaluating faculty performance. The resulting 11 criteria of performance were then arranged in a questionnaire to be sent to administrators in research, doctoral and comprehensive universities. A total of 148 such institutions were identified and the names of deans, directors or chairpersons in each was

Authors: Adams, Jonathan.
first   previous   Page 5 of 14   next   last



background image
5
within that list is there some hierarchy among the criteria indicating that some of those categories
of performance are more important than others? And third, if such a hierarchy is commonly used,
what differential degree of weight, merit or value do administrators attach to each?
METHODS
The first task, then, was to identify “what counts.” That is, in assessing teaching, research
and service, what specific indicators of performance are commonly reviewed by an administrator
making judgments when examining a portfolio submitted by a candidate for reward? A review of
the literature suggested that there were a number of commonly used criteria that are considered
in making such performance assessments (Magner, 1997; Fairweather, 2002; Leslie, 2002). Of
those that were identified from these sources, a list was prepared of the nine criteria that seemed
to be most common. These are listed in Table 1:
[Table 1 about here]
That list of nine criteria was then circulated to six deans and chairpersons who offered to assist in
designing the project. As it turned out, these judges suggested adding two additional criteria. The
reason was that the use of technology has assumed greater importance in higher education over
the last few years. The two activities added, then, were “developing and managing an online
course in his or her discipline,” and “has a refereed article in online media.” The six judges were
unsure of how these two activities were being, or should be, evaluated compared to the more
traditional accomplishments as listed in Table 1. One of the additional objectives of this research,
therefore, was to seek an answer to that question. Where to these technological activities fit into
the hierarchy of criteria that administrators are now using in evaluating faculty performance.
The resulting 11 criteria of performance were then arranged in a questionnaire to be sent
to administrators in research, doctoral and comprehensive universities. A total of 148 such
institutions were identified and the names of deans, directors or chairpersons in each was


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 5 of 14   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.