Abstract

Faculty performance evaluation is an important element of assessment for departments and universities. A quantitative score is often needed for faculty annual evaluation, but its determination is often subjective, and it is hard to incorporate the versatile contributions of individual faculty members. Here, we propose a quantitative and objective faculty performance evaluation method. We established a well-structured quantitative evaluation system which scores faculty performance in key activities using expectation-based formula on key measures and then incorporates personalized flexible weights to integrate them into three area scores in teaching, research, and service as well as an overall score. It was implemented in a programed excel form, making it convenient to both faculty and evaluators and has generated very positive outcomes such as higher faculty satisfactory and improved productivity as indicated by associated increases in publications and new research grants etc. In conclusion, the quantitative faculty evaluation system provides more objective and transparent annual evaluation and a basis for making merit raise and award decisions. In addition, it can be readily adapted to evolving goals and needs of a department as well as different needs and cultures of different departments.

References

1.
Arah
,
O. A.
,
Hoekstra
,
J. B.
,
Bos
,
A. P.
, and
Lombarts
,
K. M.
,
2011
, “
New Tools for Systematic Evaluation of Teaching Qualities of Medical Faculty: Results of an Ongoing Multi-Center Survey
,”
PloS One
,
6
(
10
), p.
e25983
.10.1371/journal.pone.0025983
2.
Turpen
,
C.
,
Henderson
,
C.
, and
Dancy
,
M.
,
2012
, “
Faculty Perspectives About Instructor and Institutional Assessments  of Teaching Effectiveness
,”
AIP Conf. Proc.
,
1413
(
1
), pp.
371
374
.10.1063/1.3680072
3.
Han
,
H. C.
,
1989
, “
Linear Increase Law of Optimum Age of Scientific Creativity
,”
Scientometrics
,
15
(
3–4
), pp.
309
312
.10.1007/BF02017206
4.
Lee
,
S.
, and
Bozeman
,
B.
,
2005
, “
The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity
,”
Soc. Stud. Sci.
,
35
(
5
), pp.
673
702
.10.1177/0306312705052359
5.
Lee
,
Y. N.
,
Walsh
,
J. P.
, and
Wang
,
J.
,
2015
, “
Creativity in Scientific Teams: Unpacking Novelty and Impact
,”
Res. Policy
,
44
(
3
), pp.
684
697
.10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.007
6.
Sahel
,
J. A.
,
2011
, “
Quality Versus Quantity: Assessing Individual Research Performance
,”
Sci. Transl. Med.
,
3
(
84
), p.
84cm13
.10.1126/scitranslmed.3002249
7.
Webber
,
K. L.
,
2011
, “
Measuring Faculty Productivity
,”
University Rankings
,
J. C.
Shin
,
R. K.
Toutkoushian
, and
U.
Teichler
, eds.,
Springer
,
New York
, pp.
105
122
.
8.
Wiegers
,
S. E.
,
Houser
,
S. R.
,
Pearson
,
H. E.
,
Untalan
,
A.
,
Cheung
,
J. Y.
,
Fisher
,
S. G.
,
Kaiser
,
L. R.
, and
Feldman
,
A. M.
,
2015
, “
A Metric-Based System for Evaluating the Productivity of Preclinical Faculty at an Academic Medical Center in the Era of Clinical and Translational Science
,”
Clin. Transl. Sci.
,
8
(
4
), pp.
357
361
.10.1111/cts.12269
9.
Hardre
,
P.
, and
Cox
,
M.
,
2009
, “
Evaluating Faculty Work: Expectations and Standards of Faculty Performance in Research Universities
,”
Res. Paper Educ.
,
24
(
4
), pp.
383
419
.10.1080/02671520802348590
10.
Bland
,
C. J.
,
Wersal
,
L.
,
VanLoy
,
W.
, and
Jacott
,
W.
,
2002
, “
Evaluating Faculty Performance: A Systematically Designed and Assessed Approach
,”
Acad. Med.: J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll.
,
77
(
1
), pp.
15
30
.10.1097/00001888-200201000-00006
11.
Lee
,
J. A.
,
Castella
,
D. M.
, and
Middleton
,
S. G.
,
1997
, “
Faculty Perceptions of Academe's Evaluation System
,”
J. Eng. Educ.
,
86
(
3
), pp.
263
267
.10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00293.x
12.
UTSA
,
2017
, “
Handbook of Operation. Chapter 2, Section 2-11
,”
University_of_Teaxs_at_San_Antonio
,
San_Antonio, TX
, accessed Apr. 17, 2020, http://www.utsa.edu/hop/chapter2/2-11.html 
13.
UNL
,
2018
, “
Faculty Workload and Evaluation Task Force Final Report
,”
College of Engineering, University of Nebraska Lincoln
, accessed Apr. 17, 2020, https://engineering.unl.edu/downloads/communications/Faculty%20Workload%20and%20Evaluation%20PDF.pdf
14.
TAMU
,
2011
, “
Faculty Evaluation Criteria (PPE)
,”
College of Engineering, Texas A&M University
,
College Station, TX
, accessed Apr. 17, 2020, https://www.tamiu.edu/coas/documents/GeneralPPEfor2011Work.pdf
15.
UW
,
2018
, “
Faculty Evaluation Rubrics
,”
Center for Institutional Change, University of Washington
,
Seattle, WA
, accessed Apr. 17, 2020, https://advance.washington.edu/resources/docs/rubrics.pdf
16.
OhioU
,
2009
, “
Ohio University College of Business Faculty Performance Evaluation: Faculty Evaluation Criteria
,”
Ohio University
,
Athens, OH
, accessed Apr. 17, 2020, http://aspnet.cob.ohio.edu/isms/upload/documents/32_634656961502193192_Appendix_A_2012.docx
17.
Weistroffer
,
H. R.
,
Spinelli
,
M. A.
,
Canavos
,
G. C.
, and
Fuhs
,
F. P.
,
2001
, “
A Merit Pay Allocation Model for College Faculty Based on Performance Quality and Quantity
,”
Econ. Educ. Rev.
,
20
(
1
), pp.
41
49
.10.1016/S0272-7757(99)00037-0
18.
Hayes
,
C.
,
Zugrai
,
A.
,
Rao
,
M.
, and
Han
,
H. C.
,
2019
, “
Survey on Current Practices in Faculty Evaluations. Report of the Task Force on Best Practices for Reviewing and Evaluating Faculty
,” ASME MEDH Executive Committee, Report. 
19.
Hiltner
,
A. A.
, and
Loyland
,
M. O.
,
1998
, “
The Effectiveness of Annual Faculty Evaluations: Accounting Faculty Perceptions
,”
J. Educ. Bus.
,
73
(
6
), pp.
370
375
.10.1080/08832329809603837
20.
Feder
,
T.
,
2020
, “
Reevaluating Teacher Evaluations in Higher Education
,”
Phys. Today
,
73
(
1
), pp.
24
27
.10.1063/PT.3.4386
21.
Han
,
H. C.
, ed.,
2017
, “
Department of Mechanical Engineering 2016 Annual Report
,”
University of Texas at San Antonio
,
San Antonio, TX
.
22.
Han
,
H. C.
, ed.,
2018
, “
Department of Mechanical Engineering 2017 Annual Report
,”
University of Texas at San Antonio
,
San Antonio, TX
.
23.
Han
,
H. C.
, ed.,
2019
, “
Department of Mechanical Engineering 2018 Annual Report
,”
University of Texas at San Antonio
,
San Antonio, TX
.
24.
Tachibana
,
C.
,
2017
, “
New Tools for Measuring Academic Performance
,”
Science
,
355
(
6325
), pp.
651
654
.10.1126/science.opms.r1700173
25.
Jabbehdari
,
S.
, and
Walsh
,
J. P.
,
2017
, “
Authorship Norms and Project Structures in Science
,”
Sci. Technol. Hum. Values
,
42
(
5
), pp.
872
900
.10.1177/0162243917697192
26.
Mentzelopoulos
,
S. D.
, and
Zakynthinos
,
S. G.
,
2017
, “
Research Integrity, Academic Promotion, and Attribution of Authorship and Nonauthor Contributions
,”
JAMA
,
318
(
13
), pp.
1221
1222
.10.1001/jama.2017.11790
You do not currently have access to this content.