TO:              Faculty

FROM:        DEC

DATE:        April, 2005

RE:              Faculty Survey on the Evaluation System

Summary Report on

'Survey of Faculty Opinion on the Current Evaluation System'

Fall, 2004

          The DEC distributed a “Survey of Faculty Opinion on the Current

Evaluation System” in the fall of 2004.  Most of the survey items were statements followed by a five-point Likert scale (5 = Strongly agree and 1 = Strongly disagree).  Respondents could also check a “No opinion” option.  Eighty-two questionnaires were distributed and only 38 were returned.  The response rate of 46% is disappointingly low given the supposed importance of the topic and tempers any conclusions that are drawn from the data.

The most obvious finding is an indication of ambivalence toward the current system of evaluation.  The mean response to Item 1 (“The current faculty evaluation system provides for an adequate appraisal of my contribution to the college.”) was 3.06.  On 13 of 27 items the mean response fell into a range of 2.7 to 3.3. The data obtained from some of the other 14 items seem to require little explanation.  For example, on Item 7 (“The current faculty evaluation system provides for a fair comparison with that of colleagues from other divisions”) the mean response of 2.21 validly reflects the fact that each division is, to some extent, using its own evaluation system. 

Based on the data from the remaining items, the DEC presents a summary of results and some interpretation below: 

    1.  Responses to Items 24 and 25 indicate some disenchantment with SIR II and a moderately strong desire for LC to develop its own, locally constructed inventory.  Of course, developing norms for our own instrument would require some time. 

    2. Respondents think (Item 8) that the current system is deficient in providing feedback to aid in improving teaching.  Whether this means that faculty members desire more specific feedback to modify teaching techniques is unknown.  However, our current system does seem to emphasize summative rather than formative evaluation.  Anecdotally, many faculty members have expressed that students’ written comments on SIRII are more meaningful and useful than the quantitative data.  Also, the mean response of 4.0 on Item 26 (“Student evaluations of teaching should include a narrative component.”) supports the notion that teachers desire such feedback.  Perhaps, we should consider altering the instructions for SIRII to increase the number of student narratives or make this an integral component of an “in house” evaluation form. 

3. Faculty strongly favored the administration of the SIR II by administrative assistants (mean = 4.16, Item 27).

 4. Faculty expressed disapproval of using only a “numerically based evaluation system” (Item 29); there was strong support for a “narrative-based” approach (Item 30) and an integrated approach combining quantitative and qualitative components (Item 31).

5. The respondents were divided on the issue of whether divisions should use separate evaluation systems (Item 22).  Very few respondents were neutral, with over half expressing a preference for separate systems, but over a third disagreeing with such an approach.

6. Only seven respondents agreed or strongly agreed with linking merit pay to the current faculty evaluation system (Item 32).  The mean response of 1.89 was the lowest on the entire survey.

 7. The faculty seems to be divided concerning allocation percentages for teaching, professional growth, and service (Questions 16-18).  Mean figures were 65, 20, and 15 for the three areas, respectively.  However, the response ranges were large.  A good guess is that instructors who devote more energy to service or professional development desire increasing the maximum percentages allowed in these categories.