International journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN:2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 6, Issue 8 (August 2019), Pages: 32-38

----------------------------------------------

 Review Paper

 Title: A review of the methods in the evaluation of faculty performance

 Author(s): Fayez A. Al Fayez 1, Aly M. Ahmed 2, Hasem H. Darwish 2, Heba Y. El Khashab 3, Rim Bougatfa 4, Tamer M. Shawky 4, 5, Ahmed F. El Fouhil 2, 6, *

 Affiliation(s):

 1Department of Educational Administration, College of Education, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
 2Department of Anatomy, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
 3Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
 4Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Alfarabi College of Medicine, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
 5Department of Anatomy and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
 6Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7833-5247

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2019.08.005

 Abstract:

Institutional constraints and increasing accountability continue in Colleges and Universities. In order to improve outputs, it is a necessity to establish faculty performance evaluation program in each institution. To provide adequate and unbiased evaluation programs, administrators must involve faculty members in the process of determining the evaluation's purpose, as well as its scope, sources of data, participants, and assessment of effectiveness. An assessment of the performance evaluation program helps to determine a program's effectiveness in promoting faculty development and productivity. Because there are many dimensions in pedagogical work, it is better to use multiple measures involving multiple sources for evaluation. Evidence or data can be collected from students, colleagues, and chairs, or from faculties on their own. Faculty evaluation programs need annual reviewing to see how they fit with institutional purposes of evaluation. 

 © 2019 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Faculty, Performance, Evaluation, Methods

 Article History: Received 21 March 2019, Received in revised form 4 June 2019, Accepted 5 June 2019

 Acknowledgement:

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this work through the Research Project No. NFG-15-01-02.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest:  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 Citation:

 Al Fayez FA, Ahmed AM, and Darwish HH et al. (2019). A review of the methods in the evaluation of faculty performance. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 6(8): 32-38

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2

----------------------------------------------

 References (25) 

  1. Arreola RA (2000). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. 2nd Edition, Anker Publishing Company Inc., Bolton, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Berk RA (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1): 48-62.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Chism NVN (1999). Peer review of teaching: A sourcebook. Anker Publishing Company Inc., Bolton, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Costin F, Greenough WT, and Menges RJ (1971). Student ratings of college teaching: Reliability, validity, and usefulness. Review of Educational Research, 41(5): 511-535. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543041005511   [Google Scholar]
  5. de Almeida JC (2017). Teacher performance evaluation: The importance of performance standards. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 8(1): 2973-2981.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Fenwick TJ (2001). Using student outcomes to evaluate teaching: A cautious exploration. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2001(88): 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.38   [Google Scholar]
  7. Gustad JW (1961). Policies and practices in faculty evaluation. Educational Record, 42: 194-211.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Jesarati A, Rahmat N, Erdi SG, Babazadeh H, Hajnazary Y, and Jesarati A (2013). An investigation of performance evaluation index from the perspective of Islamic Azad University of Tabriz faculty members in 2012. European Journal of Experimental Biology, 3(4): 165-172.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Jumia’an I, Alelaimat A, and Younis N (2018). The evaluation of performance of faculty staff at the Hashemite University as perceived by their students. The Social Sciences, 13(8): 1382-1389.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Laska L (2016). Monitoring and evaluating the performance of teachers through the process of observation in the classroom. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(2): 369-377. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejms.v1i2.p369-377   [Google Scholar]
  11. Licata CM (1986). Post-tenure faculty evaluation: Threat or opportunity?. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, Association for the Study of Higher Education: Publications Department, Washington, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Luguador JM (2015). Outcome-based faculty performance evaluation in research. Scholars Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(3C): 816-819.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Lyde AR, Grieshaber DC, and Byrns G (2016). Faculty teaching performance: Perceptions of a multi-source method for evaluation. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3): 82-94. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.18145   [Google Scholar]
  14. McCarthy MA, Niederjohn DM, and Bosack TN (2011). Embedded assessment: A measure of student learning and teaching effectiveness. Teaching of Psychology, 38(2): 78-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311401590   [Google Scholar]
  15. McKeachie WJ (1987). Can evaluating instruction improve teaching?. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1987(31): 3-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219873103   [Google Scholar]
  16. McKeachie WJ (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. The American Psychologist, 52(11): 1218-1225. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.52.11.1218   [Google Scholar]
  17. McManus S (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Council of Chief State School Officers, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Washington, D.C., USA.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Miller RI (1987). Evaluating faculty for promotion and tenure. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Mohammadi A, Arabshahi KS, Mojtahedzadeh R, Jalili M, and Valian HK (2015). A model for evaluation of faculty members’ activities based on meta-evaluation of a 5-year experience in medical school. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences: The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 20(6): 563-570. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-1995.165958   [Google Scholar] PMid:26600831 PMCid:PMC4621650
  20. Moomaw WE (1977). Practices and problems in evaluating instruction. New Directions for Higher Education, 1977(17): 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.36919771708   [Google Scholar]
  21. Raths J and Preskill H (1982). Research synthesis on summative evaluation of teaching. Educational Leadership, 39(4): 310-313.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Seldin P (1984). Changing practices in faculty evaluation. Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers, San Francisco, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  23. Sproule R (2000). Student evaluation of teaching: Methodological critique. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(50): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n50.2000   [Google Scholar]
  24. White LJ (1995). Efforts by departments of economics to assess teaching effectiveness: Results of an informal survey. The Journal of Economic Education, 26(1): 81-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.1995.10844858   [Google Scholar]
  25. Young S and Shaw DG (1999). Profiles of effective college and university teacher. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(6): 670-686. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1999.11780803   [Google Scholar]