A NOVEL TEACHER EVALUATION MODEL 3
Branching Paths: A Novel Teacher Evaluation Model for Faculty Development
According to Theall (2017), “Faculty evaluation and development cannot be considered
separately ... evaluation without development is punitive, and development without evaluation is
guesswork” (p. 91). As the practices that constitute modern programmatic faculty development
have evolved from their humble beginnings to become a commonplace feature of university life
(Lewis, 1996), a variety of tactics to evaluate the proficiency of teaching faculty for development
purposes have likewise become commonplace. These include measures as diverse as peer
observations, the development of teaching portfolios, and student evaluations.
One such measure, the student evaluation of teacher (SET), has been virtually
ubiquitous since at least the 1990s (Wilson, 1998). Though records of SET-like instruments can
be traced to work at Purdue University in the 1920s (Remmers & Brandenburg, 1927), most
modern histories of faculty development suggest that their rise to widespread popularity went
hand-in-hand with the birth of modern faculty development programs in the 1970s, when
universities began to adopt them in response to student protest movements criticizing
mainstream university curricula and approaches to instruction (Gaff & Simpson, 1994; Lewis,
1996; McKeachie, 1996). By the mid-2000s, researchers had begun to characterize SETs in
terms like “…the predominant measure of university teacher performance […] worldwide”
(Pounder, 2007, p. 178). Today, SETs play an important role in teacher assessment and faculty
development at most universities (Davis, 2009). Recent SET research practically takes the
presence of some form of this assessment on most campuses as a given. Spooren et al.
(2017), for instance, merely note that that SETs can be found at “almost every institution of
higher education throughout the world” (p. 130). Similarly, Darwin (2012) refers to teacher
evaluation as an established orthodoxy, labeling it a “venerated,” “axiomatic” institutiona l
practice (p. 733).
Moreover, SETs do not only help universities direct their faculty development efforts.
They have also come to occupy a place of considerable institutional importance for their role in
Commented [AF14]: The paper's title is bolded and
centered above the first body paragraph. There should
be no "Introduction" header.
Commented [AF15]: Here, we've borrowed a quote
from an external source, so we need to provide the
location of the quote in the document (in this case, the
page number) in the parenthetical.
Commented [AF16]: By contrast, here, we've merely
paraphrased an idea from the external source. Thus,
no location or page number is required.
Commented [AF17]: Spell out abbreviations the first
time you use them, except in cases where the
abbreviations are very well- known (e.g., "CIA").
Commented [AF18]: For sources with two authors, use
an ampersand (&) between the authors' names rather
than the word "and."
Commented [AF19]: When listing multiple citations in
the same parenthetical, list them alphabetically and
separate them with semicolons.