Faculty Evaluation
at
Willamette University
Prepared by Ron Loftus
Disclaimer



These slides were created to help frame a
discussion with colleagues.
As such, they are kind of “talking
points”and do not represent anyone’s
viewpoint or interpretation but my own.
I did share an earlier version of them with
FC colleagues and received some input,
but I alone am responsible for the content.
What are our Standards or
Criteria?

See PPP, Sec. VI. Evaluation Standards
and Procedures;

“The criteria for retention, promotion, tenure
and step increases shall be
1) teaching effectiveness
 2) professional development, and
 3) University and community service”

Key Language from the PPP


“Although faculty members are expected
to make contributions in all three areas,
effective teaching is of paramount
importance; poor teaching cannot be
redeemed in the other two areas.”
However, this endorsement of the
centrality of effective teaching should not
be construed as negating the need for a
professional development program.
PPP Language on Teaching


There is a lot of it: under VI., A, 1, a-f
We find such language as:



Demonstrates substantial understanding of subject
matter s/he teaches and revises courses when
necessary to reflect current developments in the
discipline;
Is well prepared for classes and presents courses in
an organized fashion;
Seeks to maintain the interest of students and to
stimulate their intellectual curiosity and creative
abilities;
How does FC Evaluate
Teaching Effectiveness?


Are SETEs/SAIs over emphasized?
What is considered along with course
evaluations forms?




Student letters
Colleague letters
Teaching materials submitted by the faculty
member
Information in the Personal Statement
More on Teaching



Explores new teaching techniques when
necessary;
Makes clear to students the objectives and
requirements of his/her courses and the
criteria by which students will be
evaluated. The effective teacher exhibits
fairness and impartiality in evaluating
student achievement.
Etc.
What would constitute
“Ineffective” Teaching?





What kind of “high number” on the SETE forms
do you think should grab (your and) FC’s
attention?
What other considerations should be factored
in?
What is the role of student letters?
What else should be taken into consideration?
Don’t overlook the role of the Personal
Statement!
Language about Professional
Development


“Engages in such scholarly activities as
research and writing for publication, artistic
creativity and performance. . .
Although the nature of what constitutes
professional development will vary by discipline,
it is expected that the faculty member
demonstrates professional development in a
manner accepted by individuals in his/her field of
study and subject to the process of peer review.”
Section VII. C., 1 Promotion to
Associate

1. “In order to be promoted to Associate
Professor, an Assistant Professor must
have demonstrated a sustained and
consistent record as an effective teacher,
engaged in a continuing program of
professional development, and actively
contributed in the area of of University and
community service.”
Promotion to Professor

VII, C. 2 “In order to be promoted to Professor,
an Associate must have demonstrated
consistently effective teaching, significant and
continuing accomplishments in professional
development and University and community
service. The person must have additionally
demonstrated personal and professional traits
which are important in performing a leadership
role as an active and effective member of the
CLA.”
So, could we conclude from
this that in regard to
Professional Development:

1. For Tenure and Promotion one needs to
demonstrate a professional development
program that is consistent with the standards
in one’s field or discipline

2. And that this should include work that is
“subject to the process of peer review”?
What we are not specifying




The number of publications
Their length
Precisely what is “required” for tenure in any
formulaic sense
But the implication is clear that some
constellation of activities such as




Conference presentations or papers
Shorter, non-peer reviewed writing
More substantial, peer-reviewed work
Would be appropriate
The Role of the Personal
Statement




In the end, it is up to the faculty member to
explain to the FC
What their professional development
program consists of
Why it is the appropriate mixture or
constellation for them at this time in their
career
How it conforms for the PPP guidelines
Organizing Your CV




Under Publications, many use the category Peer
Reviewed Publications
If a manuscript is submitted, or under review,
please so indicate.
If a manuscript is accepted but publication date
is not certain, say (Forthcoming) after your entry.
If the book or journal has been copy edited, and
all final changes have been made, you can say
(In Press).
How does the “bar” differ for
Promotion to Professor?


Consistently effective teaching record
Significant and continuing accomplishments
in professional development and University
service



v.
“engaged in a continuing program of
professional development”
It follows, then, that when one stands for
promotion to Professor, a significant and
continuing record of accomplishment needs to
be in evidence.
What is the Role of Service?




Is service is being downplayed?
NOT necessarily so.
Service is one of the three criteria by which we
are judged.
Service is more than committee work; what
kinds of things might be be included in service?



service to one’s profession,
community service
At the same time, some writing or publication may fall
into the “service” category
Professional Development v.
Service


Can the argument be made that now Prof.
Devt is more likely to be a “deal breaker”
than service?
Another way to pose the question: Unlike
twenty-some years ago, when a very
strong service record and relatively little
PD might have secured promotion, is the
opposite now the more likely scenario?
What about Criteria for Step
Increases?


This language added only recently because we
had none. See VII, E
“Step advances are not automatic. . .In order to
receive a step advance a faculty member must
demonstrate consistent teaching
effectiveness, a continuing program of
professional development, and a
commitment to University and community
service as defined in Sec. VI. A.”
General Practices


For 3-year periodic reviews, if a faculty
member seems to be struggling in any of
the three areas, and the area of difficulty is
not one that FC has previously drawn
attention to, then
Mention will be made in a letter so that in
the ensuing review, if the problem persists,
the step advance may not be forthcoming.
Have our Evaluation
Standards Changed
Significantly over the Years?



Yes. . .and No depending how far back one
wishes to go.
WU did go through a transition from a primarily
teaching institution to one where expectations
for professional development were articulated.
Anyone who joined WU since 1980, however,
has heard a consistent message: a professional
development record is required for tenure and
promotion.
Has the “Bar,” then, been
Raised?

In some senses, yes. Language about
“significant and continuing accomplishments”
and “peer review” now exist in the PPP.

At the same time, more and more junior faculty
members come to WU with such expectations of
themselves, and they proceed to demonstrate a
strong record of professional development early
in their careers here.
A Typical Tenure Review File?






Demonstration of a sustained and consistent
record of effective teaching
Engagement in a continuing program of
professional development
Evidence of some peer reviewed work
Some conference papers, posters, or
presentations
Concise Personal Statement that addresses
accomplishments and future directions
A record of service appropriate to the faculty
member
“What exactly are the
Expectations that FC works
with?”




This is the question I hear the most.
But what does it really mean?
Do faculty honestly want to hear that we
all must have 3 articles, 4 conference
presentations, 2 or more book reviews in
our portfolios to receive tenure?
Would some formula like this work for
everybody? I don’t think so!
As stated previously,



You need to tell FC what it is you do in the
area of Professional Development
And WHY that is the appropriate trajectory
for you to be on.
If it is a tenure or promotion decision, and
outside evaluators will comment on the
contributions you make to your discipline
and how appropriate your professional
development agenda appears to them.
You should be aware that


Outside evaluators, sometimes from top-50
liberal arts colleges, do inform us that the
file they were asked to review might be
considered “thin” or even inadequate in the
realm of professional development at their
institutions.
But they usually hasten to add that teaching
requirements appear to be heavier at WU,
and FC adjusts its expectations accordingly.
Is our Evaluation Process Fair
and Consistent?



Absolute consistency may be difficult to achieve
simply because each Council, with its elected
membership, will be differently nuanced.
But each Council works within parameters set by
previous Councils as outlined in their letters to
the faculty member.
Since FC often begins its review of a file with a
careful reading of previous FC letters, a clearly
demarcated “channel” keeps the FC’s
discussion within certain established
parameters.
How to Read FC Letters






With some care!
Letters summarize what FC sees in the file
Letters provide feedback in terms of student and
colleague comments
Letters also point to areas of performance that
may need to be addressed
Letters provide a record for future Councils
Letters constitute a record of an ongoing
conversation between FC and faculty member
A Personal View



While we may give up something in terms of
disciplinary “expertise” by having a committee
made up of elected “generalists,”
We compensate for this by requiring external
evaluators to assist the FC.
And we always operate within the parameters
set by previous FC reviews which should militate
against wildly inconsistent decisions.
Furthermore



By not having a hierarchical structure whereby
FC and “Administration” views of a case need to
be reconciled;
We do not experience the inconsistency of a FC
decision being reversed by a Dean only to be
reinstated by a VP or Provost only to be
reversed again by the President.
Therefore, for all its flaws, our evaluation system
is, on the whole, very unique and “faculty
friendly.”