RESOURCES FOR DRC/URC and CRCs

Workshops on Holistic Review of Faculty for D/URCs and CRCs Fall 2023 Schedule

• Wednesday, August 23: 12:00 – 1:50 p.m.
• Friday, August 25: 12:00 – 1:50 p.m.
• Thursday, September 7: 2:00- 4:00 p.m. Location: Cone Center 208
• Monday, September 11: 1:00- 3:05 p.m. Location: Friday 117

SIGN UP HERE: https://forms.gle/J87PqGKLdLo1ncgr5

Powerpoint used in Fall 2023 Best Practices in Holistic Faculty Review Workshop, presented by: Yvette Huet – ADVANCE Faculty Affairs and Diversity Office; Sarah Edwards – Associate Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs and Deputy General Counsel and Holly Middleton – Associate Director of Engaged Scholarship

RESOURCES FOR D/URCs and CRCs

COVID AND REVIEWING FACULTY

MONASH UNIVERSITY: GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING ACHIEVEMENT RELATIVE TO OPPORTUNITY FOR DECISION MAKERS (Must be logged in using charlotte.edu credentials to access this)

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE PANDEMIC IMPACT STATEMENT THAT FACULTY CAN COMPLETE TO BE INCLUDED IN THEIR ANNUAL REVIEWS

Resources to Check your Biases

Numerous resources from The Georgia Institute of Technology regarding Biases in Evaluation Processes. Resources are categorized as follows: Cultural Biases, Professional Climate, Organizational Changes and Evaluation Procedure

PROJECT IMPLICIT:

• Project Implicit is a non-profit organization and international collaborative network of researchers investigating implicit social cognition – thoughts and feelings outside of conscious awareness and control. Project Implicit is the product of a team of scientists whose research produced new ways of understanding attitudes, stereotypes and other hidden biases that influence perception, judgment, and action.
• Project Implicit translates that academic research into practical applications for addressing diversity, improving decision-making, and increasing the likelihood that practices are aligned with personal and organizational values.
• Project Implicit will allow you to determine your conscious and unconscious preferences for over 90 different topics ranging from pets to political issues, ethnic groups to sports teams, and entertainers to styles of music. At the same time, you will be assisting psychological research on thoughts and feelings.
• Sessions require 10-15 minutes to complete. Each time you begin a session you will be randomly assigned to a topic. Try one or do them all! At the end of the session, you will get some information about the study and a summary of your results. We hope that you will find the experience interesting and informative.

OUTSMARTING HUMAN MINDS:

Outsmarting Human Minds shines light on our implicit biases. Explore the mind’s blindspots with our episodes and tests, and apply insights from the science to make better decisions in life and at work

References Related to Bias in Evaluations

• Sexism, racism, prejudice, and bias: a literature review and synthesis of research surrounding student evaluations of courses and teaching Troy Heffernan (2021)
• Evaluating Student Evaluations of Teaching: A Review of Measurement and Equity Bias in SETs and Recommendations for Ethical Reform. Rebecca J. Kreitzer, Jennie Sweet‐Cushman (2021)
• The Overlooked Minefield: Any institutional efforts to retain BIPOC women faculty members can be nullified when teaching obstacles are allowed to run rampant, argues Chavella T. Pittman.
• Antonio, Anthony “Faculty of Color Reconsidered: Reassessing Contributions to Scholarship” The Journal of Higher Education, Vol 73, No. 5 (September/October 2002)

• “Rising Above Cognitive Errors: Guidelines for Search, Tenure Review and Other Evaluation Committees” by Joann Moody)
• Too Nice to Land a Job – This article in Inside Higher Ed details research that shows that women faculty who are described in letters of recommendation as being “caring,” “compassionate” or other communal words find their chances of being hired are hurt more than are men’s chances. The National Science Foundation funded the research, which was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
• Availability of cookies during an academic course session affects evaluation of teaching. There is some doubt as to whether teaching evaluation instruments accurately measure the quality of course content, teaching and knowledge transfer. This paper investigates whether the provision of chocolate cookies as a content‐unrelated intervention influences SET results. Spoiler Alert: Yes, cookies improve evaluations
• Gender Bias in TA Evals We know about gender bias in student ratings of professors. A new study finds the same, troubling trend in evaluations of teaching assistants.

Gender Bias in Recommendation/Tenure and Promotion Letters

Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? Rachel L Roper

The H‐Index in Medicine and Science: Does It Favor H‐im or H‐er? Successes and Hurdles for Women Faculty. Rachel L Roper

The Gender Bias Calculator was inspired by this AWIS blog post on gender biases in recommendation letters. The blog post and the scientific paper it is based on also explain why gender bias is important

List of Resources Discussing Student Evaluations and the RPT Process, Particularly as they Pertain to Women and URM Faculty

• Boring et al. (2016) Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness ScienceOpen Research (DOI: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AETBZC.v1)
• Anderson, K., & Miller, E. D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. PS: Political Science and Politics, 30(2), 216-219. –
• Basow, S.A. (1995). Student evaluations of college professors: When gender matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 656-665. –
• Cramer, K.M. & Alexitch, L.R. (2000). Student evaluations of college professors: identifying sources of bias. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 30(2), 143-64. –
• Hamermesh, D. S. & Parker, A. M. (2005). Beauty in the classroom:Instructors’ pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity. Economics of Education Review, vol. 24, issue 4, pages 369-376
• Marsh, H.W., & Dunkin, M. J. (1992). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Vol. 8. New York: Agathon Press. –
• MacNell, L., Driscoll, A. & Hunt, A.N. (2015) What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching. Innov High Educ, 40 (291). doi:10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4
• Reid, Landon D. The Role of Perceived Race and Gender in the Evaluation of College Teaching on RateMyProfessors.com. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2010, 3 (No. 3) pp. 137-152.
• Smith, G & Anderson, KJ. Students’ Ratings of Professors: The Teaching Style Contingency for Latino/a Professors. Journal of Latinos and Education. Vol. 4, Issue 2, 2005.
• Storage D, Horne Z, Cimpian A, & Leslie S-J (2016) The Frequency of “Brilliant” and “Genius” in Teaching Evaluations Predicts the Representation of Women and African Americans across Fields. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0150194. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0150194
• Travis Russ, Cheri Simonds & Stephen Hunt. (2002). Coming Out in the Classroom … An Occupational Hazard?: The Influence of Sexual Orientation on Teacher Credibility and Perceived Student Learning. Communication Education 51(3), 311-324. DOI: 10.1080/03634520216516
• Wachtel, H.K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-211.
• Weinberg, B. A., Fleisher, B. M., & Hashimoto, M. (2007). Evaluating methods for evaluating instruction: The case of higher education (NBER Working Paper No. 12844). Retrieved August 5, 2013, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12844