Project Background Project Committee Project Endorsements

*Requires the Adobe
Reader plugin for
your browser,
available free from

Step 2: Determining the Faculty Role Model Parameter Values

Step 2 consists of establishing the relative importance of each role to the institution. For example, how much importance is assigned to teaching vs. community service, research, and other roles defined in Step 1?

Fine Arts and Humanities Department members begin the process for Step 2

Humanities Dept. Photo

The CTE Department Members Work Together to Determine Faculty Role Model Parameters
with the Assistance of Evaluation Committee Co-Chair, Linda Uhlenkott.



The following is the Evaluation Committee's letter to Department Chairs
with regard to beginning Step 2. This step is due to be complete by November 30.

November 2, 2007

Dear Department Chairs:

On behalf of all of our Evaluation committee members, we would like to thank all of you for your initiative and leadership in completing the required information for Forms 1A and 1B. Each department has completed their Activities List and many have identified which faculty roles they believe should be evaluated. The roles that seem to be evolving in the GBC Evaluation process are as follows: Teaching, Creative Scholarly Activities, Institutional Service, Program Management, and Community Service.

We have placed activities from Form 1A into Form 1B. Before we move to Step 2, department members must solidify the Form 1B list. In order to complete this task, we will be e-mailing Form 1B to all departments for approval and/or revision.

Our committee is ready to undertake Step 2, Setting Faculty Role Model Parameter Values. The objective of Step 2 is to begin the process of defining the value structure on which the evaluation system will ultimately be based. Prior to meeting with your department, we are asking that each Department Head review the process for Step 2.

Step 2 – Form 2A: Individual Faculty - List the above roles on Form 2A that were identified by your department. Indicate the minimum and maximum percentage values or weights you believe should be placed on each role.

Step 2 – Form 2B: Discuss the outcome of the individual minimum and maximum percentage values with all department members. As a department, work together to reach a consensus among faculty on the departmental minimum and maximum weight for each role. In completing this form, make sure the values entered balance -- that is, each maximum value, when added to the remaining minimum values should total 100% or less.

Example of a Dynamic Faculty Role Model

Minimum Weight (%)
Faculty Role
Maximum Weight (%)
Service to the Institution
Program Management
Community Service

We are asking that the information for Step 2 be e-mailed to Lynette Macfarlan by November 30th. If you need assistance, your designated Evaluation Committee member will assist you with the completion of Step 2.

If you have any questions, please call or e-mail Lynette Macfarlan or Linda Uhlenkott. Your effort, time and patience, as we proceed through each step in the process, are greatly appreciated.


Evaluation Committee Members


The Faculty Evaluation Process at GBC is based on the work of Dr. Raoul Arreola, specifically Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System: A Guide to Designing, Building, and Operating Large-Scale Faculty Evaluation Systems, 3rd Edition, ISBN: 978-1-933371-11-5, copyright ©2007, Anker Publishing Company, Inc., 563 Main Street, P.O. Box 249, Bolton, MA 01740-0249. Forms used on this website are taken from that guide with the permission of the author and may not be further reproduced without his permission.