Supervising Individual Student Research Description and Purpose Duties of faculty in higher education frequently include supervision of individual student research and supervision of student programs. This is a bona fide teaching function and therefore, subject to evaluation. One-on-one teaching and advising is not limited to graduate students. Undergraduates may also be involved in directed/independent study or work with individual faculty. The goals may differ somewhat, but the evidence of guidance and instruction are similar to graduate situations and can also be evaluated by peers. Usually the guidance and instruction associated with individual student research is loosely structured rather than based in a course or classroom. The faculty member's involvement is usually tailored to the particular needs of individual students and the research activities specific to the line of study. Supervision may include instruction on, and discussion, critiques and evaluations of, written work, laboratory work and/or oral presentations. The term “Faculty Advisor” is frequently used to designate the role of the faculty in such supervisory situations. The Faculty Advisor is charged with guiding the student through concentrated study and research toward the completion of a degree or a research project. In the course of advising graduate students, a Faculty Advisor may perform some or all of the supervisory functions listed above. These functions are identifiable and can provide the evidence needed by faculty peers to evaluate, formatively or summatively, though summative evaluations are the more likely outcome. What information needs to be collected about supervision of student research? Participation of faculty in a graduate program, with stated structure, duration, requirements, and culmination in the awarding of a graduate degree Individual statement of teaching philosophy in the context of advising students' research Description of specific research projects on which the faculty member has served as advisor. These projects may range from research papers to formally conducted experiments and surveys to examples of practical manifestations of the research subject (as may be the case in arts and humanities). Outlines and time schedules that lay out a structure within which the advising of research is to proceed. This may be an informal syllabus or a log recorded by the faculty advisor during the process of advising. Statement of education and research goals that are implicit in the particular advising situation, or are clearly noted in the above-mentioned outline. Spelling out goals is an explicit way of expressing the focus of research and guidance. Written critiques generated by the faculty advisor in regard to the research being supervised Titles of formal student theses for which the faculty has served as advisor Some of the above evidence may appear in annual faculty activity reports generated by the faculty member. What are the criteria for evaluation? The basic criterion for peer evaluation of supervision of individual research is a determination of how well the stated goals of education and research have been reached. Equally significant is the quality of the advising in terms of: Supervising structure Time spent in the advising capacity Critique by the advisor Completion and outcome of research Also to be considered are the number of supervised students and the number and scope of research projects. There may be no particular number that is required for a successful summative review. It is the advising duties carried out well and the rigor of standards applied in critique of students' work that is important in evaluation. Certainly the faculty member's extensive and regular participation in advising individual students adds to the breadth of factors to be considered. Finally, the reviewer should consider the advising effort in the overall context of the faculty member's duties as instructor and researcher. A look at the intensity of a faculty member's participation, the outlay of time, and the application of guidance all relate to the overall scope of faculty duties and may count significantly as a reflection of the multifaceted nature of the work performed by individual faculty members. The reviewer This can either be the mentor of a junior faculty member, another individual faculty peer, or a small committee of peer faculty formed for the purpose of reviewing the work of a colleague. The mentor's review may be either formative or summative. The intent of the formative review is to monitor progress and to offer feedback that might facilitate further development or improve the techniques and processes under review. Formative reviews may or may not be in written form and are characterized by an informal approach applied to work in progress. The intent of the summative review is to present an evaluation for record. This type of review draws definite conclusions and serves as a statement of evaluation.