Georgia Southern University

Faculty Search Procedures

 Framework for Assessing a Candidate's "Fit" with University's Mission-Related Desired Attributes

Instructions: The model below was developed to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of candidate qualifications during recruitment—specifically, how well each candidate “fits” with Georgia Southern’s mission. The framework consists of a rubric displaying each of eight desired attributes of Georgia Southern faculty. For each attribute, search committees frame either a behavioral contextual question or a situational contextual question to elicit the candidate’s level of understanding of and commitment to the desired attribute. Behavioral contextual questions are questions that are framed around a candidate’s prior experience. If a candidate does not have any relevant experience, a situational contextual question is asked. Situational contextual questions propose a hypothetical situation and ask how the candidate would respond. Follow-up the candidate’s response by asking for concrete examples of past behavior which illustrate how the candidate responded in a similar situation.

In developing these interview questions, search committees should be cognizant of best practices within their respective disciplines. Additionally, search committees need to discuss and reach agreement upon what constitutes a strong, moderate, or unacceptable fit for each attribute relative to their discipline. For example, in Chemistry, what type of response constitutes a strong fit with the “commitment to professional service within the University and beyond?” Beyond this discussion, search committees may also consider whether the desired attributes should be weighted. For instance, again in Chemistry, should the “commitment to excellence in teaching and learning” be weighted more heavily than the “commitment to professional service within the University and beyond?” Both of these discussions occur before candidate interview questions are finalized. Once committee members have agreed upon the substance of the rubric, it should be recorded using this framework with a copy placed in the search chair’s administrative search file.

As each candidate is interviewed, search committee members complete their assessment using the previously agreed upon rubric. Following the interviews, committee members discuss their ratings of each candidate’s responses and reach a consensus as to whether the response models a strong, moderate, or unacceptable fit for each attribute. If a weighting system is used, these scores can then be weighted accordingly to derive a composite score for each candidate.

Keep in mind, that this assessment instrument is only one measure of a candidate’s overall ability to perform satisfactorily in the job. For instance, search committees will also need to consider a candidate’s performance in teaching a class while they are on campus for the interview. If a candidate performs poorly in the classroom, the candidate’s level of commitment to excellence in teaching and learning may not be worth much. For those candidate’s who perform satisfactorily in other evaluative measures, however, this framework offers an opportunity to add another dimension to the overall candidate evaluation.

Note:
The Provost Office is very interested in any feedback related to implementation of this framework. In particular, search committees are encouraged to share their rubrics with the Associate to the Provost for Faculty Development (candaceg@georgiasouthern.edu or P.O. Box 8022). Any comments and/or suggestions may also be sent to the Associate to the Provost for Faculty Development.

All Georgia Southern faculty should exhibit the following characteristics. In addition to specific criteria set for each discipline, the University will seek to recruit new faculty with these attributes in mind.



Mission-Related Desired Attributes

 

Strong “Fit”

 

Moderate “Fit”

 

Unacceptable “Fit”

Commitment to excellence in teaching and learning

(e.g., Behavioral Contextual Question: Tell us about a time when you excelled as a teacher. What did you learn from your teaching?

Situational Contextual Question: If you are assigned to teach a large introductory course, how will you ensure that all students are engaged in learning?)

 

Thoughts for consideration

To help search committees explore the full meaning behind this first mission-related desired attribute, we have contextualized the attribute as Boyer’s scholarship of teaching and learning (Boyer, 1990).

“Teaching is the highest form of understanding. As a scholarly enterprise, teaching begins with what the teacher knows… Teaching is also a dynamic endeavor involving all the analogies, metaphors, and images that build bridges between the teacher’s understanding and the student’s learning. Pedagogical procedures must be carefully planned, continuously examined, and relate directly to the subject taught” (Boyer, 1990, pp. 23-24).

How does your discipline approach pedagogy creatively to engage students in learning? How does your discipline use pedagogy to encourage lifelong student learning? How does your discipline use pedagogy to convey knowledge to students in a manner that will ensure and increase students’ understanding? How can teachers learn from the pedagogical approaches in your discipline? Does the candidate’s teaching reflect ongoing investigation into ways to improve his/her teaching?

Mission-Related Desired Attributes

 

Strong “Fit”

 

Moderate “Fit”

 

Unacceptable “Fit”

Promise of productive scholarship consistent with the teacher-scholar model

(e.g., Behavioral Contextual Question: Have you involved your students in your scholarship? How?

Situational Contextual Question: If one of your students came to you seeking an opportunity for a research experience, what would your response be?)

Thoughts for consideration
The second attribute is analogous to Boyer’s scholarships of discovery and integration. Here we examine the scholarship of discovery (Boyer, 1990).

“The commitment to knowledge for its own sake, to freedom of inquiry and to following, in a disciplined fashion, an investigation wherever it may lead” (Boyer, 1990, p. 17).

How is knowledge pursued in your discipline? Where is new scholarly investigation needed in your discipline? Consider also what the unit’s focus may be; is the unit known (or does the unit wish to be known) for a certain expertise within the discipline? Will the candidate’s area of research strengthen this focus and increase collaborative research opportunities?

 

Mission-Related Desired Attributes

 

Strong “Fit”

 

Moderate “Fit”

 

Unacceptable “Fit”

Promise of productive scholarship consistent with the teacher-scholar model

(e.g., Behavioral Contextual Question: What are your research findings? What do they mean within the context of the discipline?

Situational Contextual Question: What independent research investigations do you intend to follow? How do you believe it will fit within the context of the discipline?)

 

Thoughts for consideration
Productive scholarship can also include the scholarship of integration (Boyer, 1990).

“By integration, we mean making connections across disciplines, placing the specialties in larger context, illuminating data in a revealing way, often educating nonspecialists, too” (Boyer, 1990, p. 18).

How can research be interpreted to add new meaning within the discipline? What new insights can be gained through discipline research? Again, consider the unit’s focus; can the candidate’s research be connected to the unit’s focus to add meaning and understanding?

 

 

 

Mission-Related Desired Attributes

 

Strong “Fit”

 

Moderate “Fit”

 

Unacceptable “Fit”

Commitment to professional service within the University and beyond

(e.g., Behavioral Contextual Question: Can you cite an example of how you have applied your research to solve problems in the community and/or profession?

Situational Contextual Question: You have been asked to serve on a community committee because of your academic expertise. How would you respond? If you accept, what would be your level of involvement?)

Thoughts for consideration
The third mission-related desired attribute corresponds closely to Boyer’s scholarship of application (Boyer, 1990).

 “How can knowledge be responsibly applied to consequential problems? How can it be helpful to individuals as well as institutions? Can social problems themselves define an agenda for scholarly investigation?” (Boyer, 1990, p. 21).

How does your discipline serve the larger community? How does scholarship inform professional activities? Is your unit known for a particular service activity? How can the candidate’s service inform the candidate’s teaching and scholarship?

 

 

Mission-Related Desired Attributes

 

Strong “Fit”

 

Moderate “Fit”

 

Unacceptable “Fit”

Technological literacy and a commitment to using technology in teaching and scholarship

(e.g., Behavioral Contextual Question: Give us an example of a time when you employed technology in your teaching and/or scholarship.

Situational Contextual Question: You have been asked to teach a class entirely online. How would you prepare?)

 

Thoughts for consideration
How does your discipline rely on technology? What are the important tools and skills faculty and students must have? How are these developed in students? Are there new discipline-relevant technologies looming on the horizon which the discipline should be considering?

 What are the best practices (Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, 1998)? How will this candidate contribute to furthering the use of technology in your unit and discipline?

 

Mission-Related Desired Attributes

 

Strong “Fit”

 

Moderate “Fit”

 

Unacceptable “Fit”

Experience with, or interest in, working in diverse academic and professional communities

(e.g., Behavioral Contextual Question: Tell us about a time when you have worked with a diverse academic or professional community. What was your assessment of the experience?

Situational Contextual Question: How would you handle a diverse student group in your classroom?)

Thoughts for consideration
Research shows that underrepresented groups comprise less than 14% of faculty nationally (2002). The U.S. Department of Education forecasts that college enrollments will rise by 1.6 million students by 2015. Of that increase, 80% will be nonwhite and 50% will Hispanic. A diverse faculty will enhance the retention of a diverse student body by providing a climate on campus that is more friendly and familiar to students (Vicker & Royer, 2006).

What does diversity mean in your discipline? How diverse is the discipline? What about in your unit? Does the composition of the unit reflect broader trends in the discipline in terms of diversity? How will a candidate contribute to the unit’s diversity?

 

 

Mission-Related Desired Attributes

 

Strong “Fit”

 

Moderate “Fit”

 

Unacceptable “Fit”

Ability to contribute to a positive work environment in department, college, and University

(e.g., Behavioral Contextual Question: Describe for us an experience when you worked collaboratively with your colleagues. What was your assessment of the experience?

Situational Contextual Question: If asked to serve on a departmental committee about which you feel ambivalent, how would you respond? What would be your level of involvement?)

Thoughts for consideration
“Academic freedom…protects ideas and research, but it does not protect actions that unduly create hostile and abrasive relationships with colleagues” (Weeks, 1996). Lack of collegiality can impair effective working relationships to the point that it begins to impact a program’s curriculum and philosophy.

How does your unit define collegiality? What are the expectations for faculty in terms of collegiality? Will this candidate contribute to the unit’s overall collegiality? Will hiring this candidate increase the potential for intradepartmental and/or interdepartmental collaborations?

 

 

Mission-Related Desired Attributes

 

Strong “Fit”

 

Moderate “Fit”

 

Unacceptable “Fit”

Commitment to recruiting, advising, retaining, and mentoring qualified students

(e.g., Behavioral Contextual Question: From your perspective and experience, describe what excellent advisement looks like.

Situational Contextual Question: An excellent student in the major comes and tells you that he/she is very unhappy in his/her studies and is considering changing majors. How would you advise the student?)

Thoughts for consideration
Effective advisement:

1. provides information about university programs and institutional requirements that empowers students to develop a coherent and comprehensive academic plan of study;
2. serves as a link between students and the university community, referring students to campus resources which assist them in meeting their needs and goals; and
3. helps students understand the nature and purpose of higher education and develop self-direction in decision making (2006-2007 Faculty Handbook, pp. 48-49).

What does advisement look like in your program? What are the expectations for faculty in terms of advisement? Will this candidate bring quality advisement to the program?

Mission-Related Desired Attributes

 

Strong “Fit”

 

Moderate “Fit”

 

Unacceptable “Fit”

Understanding of, and commitment to, the strategic goals of the department, college, and University

(e.g., Behavioral Contextual Question: How have you contributed to the academic distinction in your present situation?

 Situational Contextual Question: You have been asked to serve on a task force to enhance the University’s academic distinction. What ideas would you share?

Thoughts for consideration
A university’s mission statement and strategic plan articulate the shared values and goals of an academic community. In a dynamic institution like Georgia Southern, these documents also represent a plan for improvement and growth. To achieve these objectives, it is critical that all faculty share these values and goals and can make positive contributions toward their advancement.

How does your program or unit fulfill the University’s mission and strategic goals? Will this candidate add to your unit’s ability to contribute to the University’s mission and strategic goals?

References:
Board of Regents of University System of Georgia. (1998) Principles of Good Practice for Electronic Programs and Courses. Retrieved May 16, 2006, http://alt.usg.edu/research/goodpractice-print.html.

Boyer, Ernest L. (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Georgia Southern University 2006-2007 Faculty Handbook, Provost Office, p. 28.

Vicker, L.A. and Royer, H.J. (2006) The Complete Academic Search Manual: A Systematic Approach to Successful and Inclusive Hiring. Sterling, VA.: Stylus. [behavioral questions]

Weeks, Kent M. (1996) CLI [College Legal Information, Inc.] Newsletter, Vol. 20, No 1 Summer. Retrieved May 16, 2006, http://www.collegelegal.com/lccolleg.htm.

Manager’s HR Toolkit, British Columbia Public Service Agency, Retrieved February 5, 2007. http://www.hrtoolkit.gov.bc.ca/staffing/staffing_steps/assess_methods/oral_interviews/situational.htm.  [situational questions]

Return to Search Procedures.