The Self-Study Department Heads' Questionnaire showed that fifty of the fifty-six respondents conduct periodic reviews of every faculty member in accordance with NCSU policy. The results of this survey have already led to reforms, and all department heads will conduct such reviews henceforth. In addition, fifty-five of the fifty-six department heads believe that the review process is effective.

The Self-Study Survey of Faculty, however, shows that a significant part (50 percent) of the faculty believe that NCSU's evaluation policies are not effective. This is the case whether the data are stratified by academic rank, college, gender, or race. Specific reasons given for this belief center not so much on the evaluation process itself but on the perception that a disproportionately greater weight in evaluation is given to research performance versus teaching.

Recommendation 8.47: NCSU should increase the emphasis on teaching and advising, extension and public service, and service within the University in decisions pertaining to tenure, promotion, and salary adjustments.

One way to address the perception that teaching innovation is undervalued is to increase the availability of inducements to produce teaching scholarship. Based on the research accomplishments of the faculty it seem logical that when the inducements exist, faculty find ways to produce the scholarship. In fact, much can be learned from studying the inducements which were put in place to encourage development of research accomplishments. The same kinds of things should be considered for teaching.

Recommendation 8.48: NCSU should develop and implement a program designed to encourage innovation and enhancements in classroom instruction and teaching-related scholarship.

Performance Evaluation Criteria

Although the department heads nearly unanimously believe that NCSU review procedures are effective, less than half believe that the evaluations are based on a clear, written statement of the performance criteria (Department Heads' Questionnaire). Twenty-five of the fifty-six respondents indicated that the criteria are not clear. As might be anticipated, on the Self-Study Survey of Faculty a significant percentage of the faculty also expressed concerns about the criteria employed.

Faculty responses to item 13-J on the Self-Study Survey of Faculty reveal the following: About 50 percent of NCSU's faculty believe that the criteria against which performance in teaching, extension, and University service are measured are not clear; and about 25 percent feel that the criteria against which performance in research is measured are not clear. The criteria were more often clear to senior faculty (full professors) than to junior faculty.

Distribution of Evaluation Criteria

Recommendation 8.49: NCSU should ensure that all current and new (future) faculty receive a personal copy of the NCSU Faculty Handbook and its addenda.

NCSU policy also calls for the senior faculty and department head of each department to jointly establish a written policy outlining the criteria and standards to be used in tenure and promotion decisions in that department, and to provide these details to all affected individuals (Faculty Handbook, 1992 addendum). Some University departments have in place detailed procedures for implementing their departmental policies. Good examples are the procedures used by the Departments of Accounting, Food Science, and Forestry. Interestingly, however, it is not clear whether the developed departmental policies and procedures have been distributed to the affected faculty. The general concern among faculty and department heads over the matter of clarity of the criteria for evaluation would suggest that this communication is not taking place. This point is supported by survey data stratified by college, which indicate that the needed criteria have not been developed, or if developed have not been effectively distributed.

Recommendation 8.50: NCSU should ensure that each department documents the preparation, distribution, and periodic review (with affected faculty) of criteria and procedures used to assess performance in teaching, research, extension, and University service.

Recommendation 8.51: NCSU should continue the progress of departments in meeting all of the imperatives outlined in the Faculty section of the Criteria for Accreditation.

Use of Evaluation Results

Recommendation 8.52: NCSU colleges and schools should demonstrate that the results of periodic faculty evaluations are used to improve faculty performance and to enhance the University's academic programs.

It is clear, however, that NCSU does have in place at least two long-standing vehicles for generating feedback useful for improving the education program, namely exit interviews of graduating seniors in most departments and end-of-semester student evaluations of courses. Some faculty have suggested that the use of this feedback tends to favor faculty who, for various reasons, are popular with the students. Many would prefer a teaching-evaluation plan involving periodic surveys of recent graduates who have had the opportunity to assess the quality of their instruction in the light of its contribution to their performance in the workplace. Although this approach would probably afford a good assessment of the quality and usefulness of course instruction over time, the responses would not be timely enough to be useful in making yearly salary adjustments, or even early promotion and tenure decisions. As trends emerge over time, however, such surveys would no doubt assist department heads in identifying faculty members who excel in the classroom and those who need improvement. Other proposed methods of evaluating teaching that would afford opportunities for feedback include class visits by the department head and faculty peers, and peer review of course syllabi and other materials. Both methods would also allow an assessment of improvements in teaching performance as a consequence of the feedback [4.4.10.4].

An increasing number of departments (two examples are the Department of Accounting and the Department of Textile Engineering, Chemistry, and Science) require each faculty member to submit an annual written plan of work either following their annual review meeting with the department head or in conjunction with that meeting. This plan is used as a starting point for the performance evaluation for the ensuing academic year, and also serves as part of the professional-development plan for young faculty. The plan consists of the faculty member's distribution of effort in teaching, research, service, and other duties, and lists specific goals in each category with a clear statement of the relationship of these goals to the mission of the home college and the University. The faculty member uses the agreed-upon plan to establish performance criteria by which he or she evaluates performance in a year-end report that outlines accomplishments for the year. The system allows room for mutually agreed-upon modifications in the original plan.

Recommendation 8.53: NCSU should encourage individual faculty to develop dynamic professional plans that clarify their goals relative to institutional mission and that form a significant basis for evaluation.

To assist in the development of young (non-tenured) faculty, a number of departments match the young faculty with mentors (senior faculty). The mentor provides friendly peer assessment of the young faculty member's teaching and scholarly activities and suggests ways to make improvements. Mentoring has been an effective way of enhancing the performance of young faculty.