Michael Middaugh, for 20 years the director of the National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity at the University of Delaware, a study whose findings UTM’s administration has used in the last several years; argues in the article linked below, that focusing strictly on faculty salary, number of courses taught, the enrollment of the University, student credit hour production and average grade awarded; is to focus too narrowly – not taking into account other forms of faculty productivity such as: research, student advisement, creative contributions, among other things. As we have seen before, when those outside of higher education begin to offer remedies to those of us inside it, problems tend to follow. Finding the right way to evaluate performance of jobs as complex as those of University Professors, should probably be done by, or at least with heavy input from, those who have performed the job.
http://chronicle.com/article/Measuring-Faculty/128802/
I was a graduate student at Texas A&M when this model was talked about being put into place. Even from afar, I still hear from people at TAMU how this has basically imploded. Although TAMU has many more problems than faculty evaluation at the moment, but I digress. I have wondered why here at UTM we place so much emphasis on student evaluations in determining faculty progress, given studies such as this, especially for new faculty who are still finding their way in the classroom.
I agree, Kate; I know it would be time intensive, but I wonder if all junior faculty should be assigned a memtor and a team of faculty in a position to do so, visit one another’s classes to offer constructive feedback?