Content area
Full Text
A major challenge faced by today's faculty developers is how to move beyond the perpetual use of simplistic program evaluation practices and adopt an approach that empowers faculty developers and administrators to implement a mission-based, result-oriented program evaluation model. This article reveals the five most common elements contributing to the perpetuation of satisfaction and participation data to then illustrate a research-based five-step approach able to address these limitations in order to establish a mission-driven curricular framework for establishing and sustaining quality evaluation practices.
For decades faculty development practitioners have struggled to move beyond the perpetual use of superficial evaluation practices aimed at gathering participation, satisfaction, and self-reported data (Kucsera & Svinicki, 2010). The faculty development literature is filled with examples of interventions and evaluation measures; however, little regard is given to factors causing the perpetuation of simplistic evaluation and ways to support the establishment of quality evaluation. This article addresses the foundational elements contributing to the ongoing use of superficial evaluation and offers a five-step approach to set the groundwork for quality evaluation.
Five Foundational Elements Perpetuating Superficial Faculty Development Evaluation
A review of contemporary program evaluation literature reveals an array of factors associated with inadequate program evaluation from which five fundamental elements emerge: 1) misguiding evaluation mindsets, 2) fuzzy goals and short-aimed missions, 3) weak infrastructures, 4) ill-conceptualized curricular structures, and 5) ill-conceived evaluation frameworks (Guskey, 2000; Killion, 2008; Lambur, 2008; Posavac & Carey, 2003). Nationwide studies investigating ongoing faculty development evaluation practices corroborate these findings (Hines 2009/ 2011a; Woodward, 2013; Van Note Chism & Szabó, 1997). The following section discusses these five elements and gives insight into areas in need of restructuring in order to set the groundwork for quality evaluation.
Misguiding Evaluation Mindsets
Because beliefs inform our actions, the primary determinant of evaluation quality is the evaluator's mental model of evaluation (Lambur, 2008). Evaluation mindsets are strongly influenced by the evaluator's disciplinary background, past evaluation experiences, and administrative accountability (Guskey, 2000; Lambur, 2008; Posavac & Carey, 2003). Each of these factors can lead to limiting attitudes, assumptions, and conceptions regarding evaluation.
Disciplinary background. Faculty developers come from various disciplines with minimal training in academic development resulting in a heavy reliance on disciplinary knowledge (Van Note Chism, 2011). When charged with...