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 ...Show more