Composite Role Rating - Essay Example

Composite Role Rating The faculty evaluation process is routinely adopted by universities for evaluating performance and improving the teaching effectiveness of its faculty members. A successful evaluation system commonly involves obtaining valid and reliable inputs from students, peers and department chair. However, according to Arreola (2007), the evaluation process is necessarily subjective but, for consistency of conclusions, it needs to be made objective through the strategy of controlled subjectivity.

The evaluation procedure essentially consists of a numerical rating provided by the sources in several pre-defined areas (roles and components) of teacher performance. Measurement tools viz., rating forms, observational checklists or questionnaires are used to obtain measures (numbers) that are valid and reliable (Arreola, 2007). In the hypothetical Impact Matrix (Appendix A) that I have prepared, I have used typical activities that university teachers engage in namely, Teaching, Scholarly Activity, and Service as the 3 major roles to evaluate faculty performance.

Under ‘Teaching’, the role components identified are ‘instructional delivery’, ‘instructional design’, ‘content expertise’ and ‘course management.’ In my impact matrix, students, being the target entity, will be the sole judge for instructional delivery skills. This component is best evaluated through the following list of desirable attributes of faculty teaching performance whereby “the instructor creates an intellectually stimulating environment by : demonstrating interest and enthusiasm in the student learning process; demonstrating effective communication skills: writing, speaking and listening; eliciting responsible student participation; …being available to students outside of class time to discuss course materials; …and returning student work in a timely manner” (Clarke University Faculty Evaluation Manual, 2008, pp 4-5).

These are qualities in a teacher that are especially needed for effective guidance of students in their academic course work; therefore, I have assigned 35% as the source impact. With an arbitrary source rating of 4, the weighted rating works out to 1.4 (as shown in Appendix A). The ratings are based on a 5-point performance scale which is: 1 (Unacceptable); 2 (Satisfactory); 3 (Good); 4 (Very Good); and 5 (Excellent). For the instructional design component, students (source impact weight, 10%); peers (15%); self (10%) all contribute the data.

The weighted rating from all these sources adds up to an arbitrary value of 1.25. The content expertise component is evaluated by peers and department head, besides self. Content expertise is “the formally recognized knowledge, skills, and abilities a faculty member possesses in a chosen field by virtue of advanced training, education, or experience” (Clarke University Faculty Evaluation Manual, 2008, p 4) which is judged by peer evaluators and department head on the following criteria: the faculty member “possesses an appropriate degree, ongoing professional experience, and licensure or certifications when applicable; is knowledgeable about recent trends, findings and value issues within his/her discipline and incorporates this information in the teaching-learning experience; and, develops a breadth of knowledge that enriches his/her teaching by making connections to other areas within the field of expertise or in other fields” (Clarke University Faculty Evaluation Manual, 2008, p 4) .

The ‘course management’ component of teaching is evaluated by only one source that is, the department head since it includes all the “organizational and administrative tasks involved in maintaining and operating a course” (Clarke University Faculty Evaluation Manual, 2008, p 5) Under the faculty role of ‘scholarship’, “the development of personal professional skills or standing”, “the development of knowledge (research) or of creative work or of professional practice” and the dissemination of knowledge in the professional community through publishing research papers, monographs, text books etc.

(Clarke University Faculty Evaluation Manual, 2008, pp 5-6) are considered suitable for evaluation by self, peers and department head. And, the faculty role, ‘service’ that includes those activities of a faculty member in which (s)he assumes responsibilities relating to the academic and support services of the college besides participating in community service activities are evaluated by only self and department head. According to Elmore (2008), the evaluation system has to be so designed as to “encourage faculty to take all aspects of the faculty workload seriously, decreasing the tendency among those who perform well in highly visible areas to regard mundane aspects of faculty work as beneath them”.

I have tried to do just that in the rating system that I have proposed in Appendix A. In summary, the hypothetical impact matrix presented here represents a format to evaluate the various roles and their components proposed by me earlier as the faculty role model. The evaluations are weighted in direct proportion to the pre-determined emphasis placed on those activities. Reference List Arreola, R.A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators on designing and operating a comprehensive faculty evaluations system (3rd ed.).  Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

ISBN: 978-1-933371-11-5Clarke University Faculty Evaluation Manual. (2008). http://www.clarke.edu/media/files/Academic_Affairs/Faculty_Evaluation/ facultyevaluationmanual_2008.pdf. Retrieved on February 18, 2009.Elmore, H. W. (2008). Toward Objectivity in Faculty Evaluation. Academe Online. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2008/MJ/Feat/elmo.htm. Retrieved on February 19, 2009 StudentsPeersTeachingY/NSource WeightSource Impact WeightSource RatingY/NSource WeightSource Impact WeightSource RatingInstructional DeliveryY100%35%4 x 35%N0%0% Instructional DesignY25%10%4 x 10%Y50%15%3 x 15%Content ExpertiseN0%0% Y40%10%4 x 10%Course ManagementN0%0% N0%0%    45%   25% Scholarship        Personal DevelopmentN0%0% N0%0% Original ResearchN0%0% Y30%10%4 x 10%Publication, Poster etc.

N0%0% Y30%10%3 x 10%   0%   20% Service        InstitutionalN0%0% N0%0% CommunityN0%0% N0%0% OtherN0%0% N0%0%    0%   0% SelfDept. ChairY/NSource WeightSource Impact WeightSource RatingY/NSource WeightSource Impact WeightSource RatingN0%0% N0%0% Y25%10%4 x 10%N0%0% Y20%5%4 x 5%Y40%10%4 x 10%Y0%0% Y100%5%3 x 5%  15%   15%         Y50%25% 3 x 25%Y50%25%3 x 25%Y30%5%4 x 5%Y40%10%4 x 10%Y40%5%3 x 5%Y30%10%3 x 10%  35%   45%         Y35%10%4 x 10%Y65%50%3 x 50%Y35%10%3 x 10%Y65%15%2 x 15%Y35%5%2 x 5%Y65%10%2 x10%  25%   75% Total Source Impact WeightRole Component Weight (Must Add up to 100%)Final Weighted Rating 35%1.4 35%1.25 25%1 5%0.

15100%100%3.8    50%1.5 25%1 25%0.75100%100%3.25    60%1.9 25%0.6 15%0.3100%100%2.8