MINUTES OF THE FACULTY EVALUATION AND COMPENSATION

AD HOC COMMITTEE

MEETING DATE:  JANUARY 31, 2003

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The committee agreed to continue to work with and use Arreola’s model as modified for the particulars of Marshall University.

Copies of the faculty role worksheet statistical data for various programs, departments and colleges were received by the chair and distributed to committee members.  A brief discussion followed. It was agreed that a Graduate Assistant in the University’s Center for Teaching Excellence would assort by colleges the received information and collate the data.  Commonality will be looked for and noted. 

The committee addressed the subject of administrative activities as rightfully belonging in any faculty evaluation process.  The committee was in general agreement with this concept. 

A discussion was conducted regarding splitting the committee into small working groups. The compensation aspect of the committee’s work was placed on hold pending new information about faculty compensation at the state level. 

It was agreed to break into small groups to discuss such matters as, “The student rating in the role of Teaching Performance.” The plan was to ask for volunteers for each of the small groups at the time of the overall committee meeting. 

Finally the committee agreed not to suggest to the Academic community the so called “Best Practice Recommendations.”  Suggested Best Practice Recommendations include: That student written comments would not be used during annual faculty evaluation and that the role of peer review of class room teaching techniques would not be used unless the peer group has been trained for such an activity. These were recommendations made by Arreola during his workshop sessions. However, certain committee members felt that some departments or colleges now use these as part of the tenure/promotion process and to not use such a process would place a burden on the faculty.

NEXT MEETING:  FEBRUARY 14, 2003@ 1:00 pm.

John Singley, Committee Secretary