While I believe that there are some good reasons for allowing faculty evaluation packets to be private, I have been very public about what I do in the classroom.  Also, for the first time this semester, I am requiring students to publish certain assignments in order to receive credit for them.  Therefore, I have decided to publish an introduction to my evaluation packet today and then one section of the evaluation on each of the next four days.

As always, I encourage individuals to make comments and to engage in dialogue about what I am doing.

Recently, I explained to a friend that the Faculty Evaluation Process both has no meaning and is extremely significant.  This very Buddhist approach to the process stems from two realities: a flawed process and a legitimate desire to provide quality to my students.

The most significant problem is that the process is designed in such a way that it is possible to get a high score for mediocre work.  For example, one can get credit for aligning assessments with the course syllabus even if those assessments are not well thought out or are poorly executed.  In such a case, there is not an effective way for the administrator or peer evaluator to communicate suggestions for improvement.

Another problem is that one can go through the motions of service or professional development without contributing or learning anything.  For example, I technically serve on the Schoolcraft College International Institute committee.  Yet I never attend any of their meetings.  In my packet, I do not list service on the committee but I do list some specific work I have done to advance the goals of the International Institute. Furthermore, attending a professional development opportunity does not insure that any professional development actually took place.  In the same way a student could attend every class and still fail a course, as a professor I can attend a conference and not be impacted by it.

However, the fact that someone could do a minimal amount of work and still get an equivalent or higher score than I might earn is not a concern of mine.  What I am concerned about is my own growth and development as a professor.  And the evaluation process gives me a unique opportunity to look at my teaching, service, and professional development.  This makes the evaluation process very significant.

One example of how the evaluation process helped me reflect concerned Etene Sacca-vajjena.  Approximately five years ago, I began a teaching blog.  Then I took a hiatus from writing.  And then, in January 2011, I began writing again.  While completing my evaluation packet, I took the time to re-read previous blogs and to reflect on my growth and change.

Another example of how the evaluation process assisted me happened by accident.  During the fall 2011 semester, I started an evaluation blog to simply record the types of service and professional development I was doing on a day to day basis.  Because it allowed me to connect a series of seemingly isolated incidents, this blog allowed me to better appreciate my work as a professor both in the ways I impact my students and the amount of time I take working on self improvement.

An extremely positive aspect of the evaluation process is that it is evaluative and not punitive.  This attitude has allowed me to comfortably modify the process to make it better reflect the work I do in a student centered classroom.   Although I might lose some points for relying on reflective essays rather than lists, I am going to get better feedback as a result.  And for me, the points are not as important as the feedback.

–Steven L. Berg, PhD

Photo Caption:  Christopher Tome, a student whom I mentored, presenting a session on “Are Faculty Rewarded for Engaging Students?” at the 2012 LAND Conference.