SIGCSE Because We Teach...

Preliminary Notes toward a SIGCSE on Faculty Evaluation

A Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) Session at SIGCSE 2004

Henry M. Walker, Discussion Facilitator

These notes support a BoF session at SIGCSE 2004. Those who cannot attend this session but who want to puruse this topic should contact the BoF organizer at chair@sigcse.org.

Background

• Anecdotal information suggests that computing faculty sometimes feel misunderstood or confused regarding expectations for evaluation and scholarship. Faculty in other disciplines may not realize:

  • basic characteristics of the discipline of computing
  • the significance of presenting papers at conferences
  • the scholarship that leads to grant proposals for NSF and other sources
  • the level of peer-review and the competitiveness of conference presentations and grants
  • the advantages of conference presentations versus journals and other print media

• Anecdotal data also suggests that administrators and college councils may be vague regarding appropriate expectations, opportunities, and constraints for computing faculty.

  • Work on External Review Committees suggests that considerable education of colleagues often is needed.
  • Administrators and college councils may view statements from individuals or small departments as being self-serving.

• The position of computer science education may be particularly misunderstood.

  • Careful educational research is not just teaching one's current courses.
  • Careful evaluation is more than saying "Students felt good about this experiment".

• Example: I regularly am asked by deans and faculty members to comment on appropriate expectations and accomplishments.

  • as SIGCSE 2000 Program Chair or SIGCSE 2001 Symposium Chair
  • as SIGCSE Chair
  • as external reviewer of a department
  • as consultant to a college
  • as "expert" or person with grey hair who lives more than 50 miles from a school

• Caution: While I firmly believe some factors (e.g., rate of new material added to the discipline) create special stresses in computing, it is not clear that emphasizing these is always productive.

  • Many outside of computing talk about their need to remain abreast of new developments.
  • Faculty in all disciplines should revise their courses regularly.
  • Faculty in all disciplines must handle grading tasks.
  • Computing faculty may seem to be whining if they dwell on the demands of the discipline.
  • Potential supports outside the department may feel alienated by such statements.

Resources

• The Computing Research Association has a helpful document on scholarship on its Web site:

  • "Best Practices Memo, Evaluating Computer Scientists and Engineers For Promotion and Tenure" by David Patterson, Lawrence Snyder, and Jeffrey Ullman, at http://www.cra.org/reports/tenure_review.html, approved by the CRA Board of Directors, August 1999

• Other professional and departmental statements may be available.

Is there Interest in Forming a New SIGCSE Committee?

1. How widespread is this concern regarding appropriate factors for promotion, tenure, and salary increases?

2. How much of this issue is local -- beyond any sphere of influence of SIGCSE or other organizations?

3. Is there a role for a SIGCSE committee in this general area?

If a group decides this might be worth pursuing, then:

1. What elements should be part of the charge to a committee?

2. What materials/resources already exist and potentially available for reference?

3. Who might be interested in moving this discussion forward?

4. What, if any, are the next steps?

This document is available on the World Wide Web as

http://www.grinnell.edu/~sigcse/sigcse-committees/faculty-evaluation.xhtml

created February 25, 2004 last revised February 29, 2004 by Henry M. Walker