ACCENT JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS ECOLOGY & ENGINEERING
Peer Reviewed and Refereed Journal (International Journal) ISSN-2456-1037
Vol. 05,Special Issue 01
,
(ICOSD-2020) January 2020, Available Online:www.ajeee.co.in/index.php/AJEEE
1
FACAULTY APPRAISAL PERFORMANCE SYSTEM
Darshana nagar1, Lokendra thakur2, Umang Bhadoriya3 and Dr. Harish Patidar4
1,2,3Student Scholar, Computer Science Department, LNCT Indore (MP), 453331
4Head Of Department, Computer Science Department, LNCT Indore (MP),453331
Abstract- Performance appraisal of faculty member in a higher education is a serious challenge for management several qualitative factors are considers leading to targeted professional growth of an organization to evaluate performance such as acquiring higher education, research profile student evaluation, publication academic responsibilities etc.
Keywords: performance appraisal, performance appraisal of faculty members, academic quality, behaviorally anchored rating scales, performance Appraisal tool.
1. INTRODUCTION
Performance appraisal is a formal system that evaluates the quality of a teacher’s performance. An appraisal should not be viewed as an in itself, but rather as an and important process. In simple terms appraisal may be understood as the assessment of an individual performance being measured against such factors as job knowledge, quality and quantity of output, initiative leadership abilities, supervisor, practical details, cooperation, lecture details, versatility, publish details. Assessment should not be confirmed to past performance alone. Potentials of the teacher for future performance must also be assured.
2. PERFORMANCE RATING METHOD
To identify the criteria for performance appraisal of faculty members, the behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARS) will be used. This instrument allows an objective evaluation, it can be easily handled by inexperienced evaluators (such as students) and it can effortlessly differentiate between a good faculty member and a less than satisfactory one (Wiersma, U.J., Berg, P.T van den, Latham, G.P., 1992). The evaluation tool was elaborated according to the steps recommended in the literature (Patrai, 2000) A group of subject matter experts – faculty and students - was requested to write a set of factors (dimensions) that allows assessment of a faculty as specialist. The generated dimensions were put together, the redundant ones were eliminated and the list was debated once more with the request to create explanatory definitions for each of the dimensions. The procedure was repeated with two group of subject expert.
The list of dimensions, along with their definitions was attributed to a group of 30 specialists (faculty members and students) with the indication to provide one or two examples that described a behaviour of high, medium and inferior professional performance for each dimensions. After the examples were collected, they were synthesized in a list; the redundant and monotonous examples were removed. A list of the dimensions and their definitions and another list of examples of behaviours were given to a new group of experts (30 individuals). The items on the list were arranged randomly. The task of this group was to assign each behavioural example to the category or dimension it belongs to. Only the items (examples) with a reallocation success rate of 67% were kept.
3. STUDY CONCLUSION IMPLEMENTATION & LIMITATION
The present tool the behaviourally anchored rating scales or BARS satisfies a need in the education system; the need for having objective and professional methods of performance evaluation of faculty. Performance evaluation is a continuous and systematic process that helps the organization assesses its candidates through comparison to the accepted standards. For the evaluation to take place correctly there is a need for precise The evaluation criteria need to be correctly formulated with the accepted standards, clearly defined and easy to observe. Behaviourally anchored rating scales respect the constraints of an efficient evaluation tool. The 360- degrees feedback evaluation ensures objectivity in evaluation, by offering the assessed the possibility of adjusting their image of their own performance through others’ perspective. The utility of performance appraisal of personnel with a valid tool is obvious for both the employee – who identifies their strong points and the areas that require improving, and the managers (deans, rectors) who uncover the efficiency of their employees. The tool is also vital in planning professional trainings, improving future productivity, adjusting wage, establishing personnel distribution,
ACCENT JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS ECOLOGY & ENGINEERING
Peer Reviewed and Refereed Journal (International Journal) ISSN-2456-1037
Vol. 05,Special Issue 01
,
(ICOSD-2020) January 2020, Available Online:www.ajeee.co.in/index.php/AJEEE
2
highlighting the needs for training and development, etc. The novelty of this present study is the introduction of the students in the group of experts that determined the evaluation criteria of the performance appraisal of faculty members. With this in mind, it is vital to note the difference between the perspective of the students and that of the faculty members in what makes a good professor.
4. RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE STUDY RESEARCH AND LIMITATIONS
If we take into consideration the hypothesis that no study can be exhaustive, it is understandable and worth mentioning that this present study has its own limitations. The first limitation of the study takes into consideration the students that took part. The group of experts (the students and the faculty members) was not represented at a national level for the entirety of the universities’ profiles. The group of experts was built organically and it was based on the intentions of the group members to participate in the study. Therefore, there is a need for reexamination on a larger sample. Also, the selection of group members on a more rigorous criterion would also help (for example: relevant experience needed to define evaluation criteria of faculty members).
If we take into consideration the hypothesis that no study can be exhaustive, it is understandable and worth mentioning that this present study has its own limitations. The first limitation of the study takes into consideration the students that took part. The group of experts (the students and the faculty embers) was not represented at a national level for the entirety of the universities’ profiles. The group of experts was built organically and it was based on the intentions of the group members to participate in the study. Therefore, there is a need for reexamination on a larger sample. Also, the selection of group members on a more rigorous criterion would also help (for example: relevant experience needed to define evaluation criteria of faculty members). Regarding the recommendations for future research, an aspect worth considering is the expansion of the representative sample to a national level. Continuing on the same lines of a more complete method of performance appraisal, more faculty members should be introduced in the study, such as those in administrative services: individuals with high authority, deans, department heads, program developers, etc.
REFERENCES
1. P. Subba Rao, Personnel & Human Resource Management, Place: New Delhi, Himalaya Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
2. Dr. S. Jansirani and Mr. R. Hatrikrishnan, "A Stuon Performance Appraisal System at Wipro Infrastructure.
3. D.B. Bagul (Ph.D.), "Study of Employee’s.
