Evaluation
of Junior Faculty
The Faculty
Handbook charges Chairs with attending to "the needs
of the faculty" and encouraging their "scholarly
development @ wherever possible" (I.D.1.b. and f.). With
regard to junior faculty specifically, Chairs can be supportive
and helpful in several ways.
They should
make certain that candidates understand the entire evaluation
process and, in particular, the Faculty File and its importance.
They should inform junior members of the kinds of materials
concerning teaching, research, and service that faculty typically
place in their files. Junior faculty should know, for example,
that teaching dossiers, while not formally required, are commonly
compiled by faculty. The course syllabi, exams, class handouts,
etc., placed within them provide invaluable resources, beyond
the information provided by the CEF, for a peer review of
teaching. Chairs should also encourage junior faculty to place
ongoing, unpublished scholarship in their files so that senior
members may read them for developmental purposes, offer advice
where appropriate, and be able to respond to queries should
junior members wish to consult with them. Junior members should
also know that Holy Cross values service to the department,
the College, and the academic community. Service is often
not adequately represented by a
mere list of committees; candidates should thus include some
description of their service and, where appropriate, evaluations
of such work by colleagues.
Beyond
explaining the nature of the evaluation process and the Faculty
File, Chairs and other senior members of the department should
take a continuing interest in the development of junior faculty
members. They should encourage the writing of grant applications
and participation in professional conventions or other appropriate
public forums. They should advise junior members concerning
available options for research leaves. When junior members
apply for Holy Cross fellowships and research support, they
should submit the applications to their Chairs for developmental
comments.
It would
be especially valuable if Chairs held an annual meeting with
each junior member. To prepare for such a meeting, junior
members might be asked to assess the past year and plan for
the next in light of the objectives they set for themselves.
Junior faculty should not have to wait for formal evaluation
reports in order to have their accomplishments affirmed or
problems pointed out to them.
Well before
the time of formal review, junior faculty should be told to
update their files. Chairs should review the files with them
in order to make them aware of any materials that should be
added.
Chairs
should make certain that their departments follow the established
procedures sent out every year for consulting with SACs. There
should be a meeting held with the SAC for anyone getting a
report, and an analysis of that meeting, along with the senior
members' interpretation of it, should appear in the report.
Before the department prepares its report, the Chair and one
senior member selected by the junior member should meet with
the junior member to discuss the SAC's oral comments.
To supplement
the analysis of the SAC review a substantial peer review of
teaching should take place. This review would normally be
based upon the senior members' own analysis of the CEFs as
well as their analysis of materials such as syllabi, exams,
etc., and their own professional interactions with the junior
members. Probationary reports should be based upon a review
of all CEFs available since the last report was written. Tenure
reports are normally based upon a review of CEFs from the
previous three years, but any CEFs from the candidate's probationary
period may be reviewed if appropriate. In the case of promotion
to full professor, reports are normally based upon CEFs from
the candidate's previous six semesters of teaching.
Classroom
visitations by senior members are not encouraged, but if requested
by a junior member or otherwise felt to be necessary, they
should follow guidelines originally suggested by the Ad Hoc
Committee on Peer Evaluation. These guidelines are available
from the Dean's Office.
In all
cases involving tenure or promotion, the Chair shall solicit
the written opinions of all untenured senior and junior members
of the department who have been members of the department
for at least one year.
