On this page, I provide a listing of my annual faculty performance reviews. I provide links to the reviews and brief reflections on the outcomes. For some background, Lamar University “Faculty Annual Review” is conducted on the so-called form “F2.08.” In contrast to ACU, the Lamar reviews are based upon the calendar year, e.g. the 2017 review was a review of the Spring 2017 semester and the Fall 2017 semester. Consequently, my initial annual review in 2015 only included my work for the Fall 2015 semester. Reviews assess performance in Teaching, Research\/Scholarship, and Service by scoring each on a scale of 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5 (exemplary).<\/p>\n
While there are never shortages of areas where I can improve, I am grateful that all of my performance evaluations to date have been satisfactory. If I am being honest, performance evaluations are one of my least favorite aspects of my job. Nevertheless, I recognize the importance of them; and, in truth, I do appreciate having them. Aside from specific suggestions, practice in receiving criticism is, if not something I like, something I need.<\/p>\n
One of the reasons performance evaluations have been challenging for me personally is that until 2019-2020, I had a different evaluator in each year of my career:<\/p>\n
With literally no continuity in the first four years, it was difficult to anticipate how best to present my work for a positive review. On the positive side, having to tell my story anew, as it were, every year<\/em>, forced me to reflect on the broader narrative of my faculty career in a way I might not otherwise have done. While time-consuming, I do think it has been healthy for me in terms of my personal growth and self-evaluation.<\/p>\n My 2016 evaluation was a learning experience for me. Dr. Richard Lumpkin, a chemistry professor serving as interim Physics Chair, stepped down after the Fall 2016 semester and was unable to perform our 2016 evaluations. In his stead, the interim Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences performed the evaluations. While the overall score qualified as “satisfactory,” upon reading his assessments, it was immediately clear that he had not carefully considered my report. For example, in his assessment of my research activities, he recommends, “As he develops his individual research platform I expect that he…start presenting at national conferences…” despite my fairly regular invited presentations at international<\/em> conferences. Furthermore, after discussion with my colleagues in the department, it was clear that despite having the most active and highest-profile research program in the department, I had been given one of the lowest research performance scores in the department. I submitted a request for clarification<\/a> and participated in a face-to-face discussion with the interim Dean. With no permanent department chair to advocate for me and without the security of tenure, I decided against a formal appeal.<\/p>\n Letting go of the 2016 evaluation was difficult. I truly believe the evaluation was an unfair and inaccurate assessment of my performance. Given how hard I had worked, I was frankly tempted to quit and find other employment. Discouraging as it was, the situation became an opportunity to reflect on what had drawn me to the faculty in the first place. I realized that even with the frustration I did truly love teaching and working alongside students in research. I tried to focus on these positives and channel the negativity to additional motivation. As is the nature of growing experiences, it was by no means perfect or always graceful. In hindsight, I believe the disappointment did lead to growth. The following semester was profoundly formative, e.g. yielding my first dedicated research student through the McNair scholars program and the opportunity to serve as STAR Deputy Spokesperson. I developed more confidence in my career choice. I believe I also needed to shed some unnecessary reliance on the approval of those whose opinions I cannot control. This lesson became particularly important ahead of my service as Deputy Spokesperson. While not my favorite–certainly not my best–moment, looking back, I am grateful for the early opportunity for maturation and refocusing.<\/p>\n <<< Satisfying Dept Criteria<\/a> \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Integration of Faith and Learning >>><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On this page, I provide a listing of my annual faculty performance reviews. I provide links to the reviews and brief reflections on the outcomes. For some background, Lamar University “Faculty Annual Review” is conducted on the so-called form “F2.08.” … Continue reading 2016 Evaluation<\/h3>\n