Faculty Senate went back and forth at the Feb. 12 meeting debating the merits of the new proposed form for faculty evaluations, which provided a more narrative option for criticism.
The room was split. Eventually, they voted to pass a hybrid form of evaluation between the ones proposed by Faculty Senate Chair Randall Teal and the Faculty Affairs Committee. Both proposals featured a more narrative style of evaluations.
The decision did not come without an in-depth discussion about the pros and cons of an evaluation that was more narrative-based versus a more numerical-based form. Despite the fact that Teal said he had heard nothing but positive responses, multiple Faculty Senators said they had heard the opposite from their colleagues.
“I”m very, very wary about moving away from numbers,” said Faculty Sen. Patrick Hrdlicka of the College of Science. “I think it”s a big mistake, but OK.”
Many senators were concerned about the narrative style of evaluating faculty”s performances, because they said it is more broad and open for interpretation. Faculty Sen. Yun Chung of the College of Business and Economics said a numerical-based system provides clearer guidelines for people to rate faculty and a narrative-based version would create confusion.
“The major reason that people are not satisfied with the current form of faculty evaluation is because that the criteria for evaluation is not specific,” Chung said.
Others favored the narrative style over the numerical because they said a numbered scoring system was ineffective and was detrimental to morale. Faculty Sen. Kattlyn Wolf of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences said most faculty don”t believe the numbers they are ranked with in the numerical form mean anything. She said she doesn”t try to work harder to get a higher score, because it wouldn”t make a difference.
“Just the possibility that you may be recognized as eligible for a merit-based pay increase excites me versus the “I”m doing my job, I get a three,”” Wolf said.
Vice Chair of Faculty Senate Liz Brandt said because of how the numbered scale is designed, it can decrease morale. It is unheard of for someone to receive a five, the highest rank a faculty member can receive on the scale, she said.
Other senators agreed that a rating of three is a more common rank to be given, and even a rank of four is more rare and needed special justification by the person evaluating.
One question that arose was how the narrative evaluation would be linked to compensation. Teal said the new form was created with the intent to require further explanation for increasing compensation.
Faculty Senate agreed to run a narrative form as a pilot next year, since few faculty were able to use the new evaluation this year because it came out so late and many had already filled out the traditional, numerical version. Only about 55 faculty members used the pilot form this semester.
Erin Bamer can be reached at [email protected] or Twitter @ErinBamer