Comprehensive Review of Reappointment, Renewal, and Repeated Term Appointment
Summarizing and Interpreting Results
Summarizing results. The department chair determines whether and how survey results should be summarized. If the data were gathered electronically, Form Creator includes a feature which allows the results to be exported in a MS Excel file. If the data were collected via paper evaluation forms, or through interviews or focus groups, the summary will need to be prepared by hand. For closed-ended (multiple choice) items on paper forms, given the relatively small number of respondents in most reappointment/renewal/repeated term reviews, simple percentages are usually sufficient. It may also be helpful to collapse response categories (e.g., combining “Excellent” and “Very Good” responses into a single category, “Good” and “Fair” into a single category, etc.). Narrative responses to written or oral questions may simply be typed, or they may be coded and organized to reflect the main ideas conveyed by the respondents' comments.
Sharing results. As noted in the web resource on "Important Initial Considerations," the Faculty Manual provisions for reappointment and renewal reviews permit variation among departments with respect to the sharing of student evaluation results. In all cases, both the content of individual evaluations and any summary data should be held in strictest confidence, viewed only by those individuals directly involved in collecting and/or summarizing results and by those individuals who are authorized to see them as part of the agreed-upon review process. Since departments vary in their agreements concerning those who will have access to student evaluations in the course of faculty reviews, E&A recommends that the chair's summary of the consultation process informing his or her recommendation indicate which faculty member(s) reviewed the student evaluations.
Interpreting results. E&A recommends that the chair's letter indicate the total number of students who participated in the evaluation and, for written questionnaires, the response rate. This is particularly important if the returns constitute less than 60% of the original sample; in these cases, chairs should interpret the results with caution.
