Evaluations of Kinesiology Faculty Revisited: Perspectives on the “Moving Goalposts” Problem From the Trenches

Faculty evaluations are among the most consequential yet challenging functions of academic departments. When effective, they provide feedback and guidance that help faculty, especially those at early- and midcareer stages, achieve professional excellence and thrive. Done poorly, they can become major sources of stress and occupational dissatisfaction. In this article, we revisit the issue of faculty evaluations in kinesiology, highlighting pragmatic difficulties faced by administrators and faculty. We present personal vignettes from four departments of kinesiology that differ in size, mission, culture, standards, and evaluation practices. These vignettes illustrate not only the range of challenges encountered across the field but also the diversity of approaches required to address them. Each vignette shares experiences and strategies developed in response to these challenges, offering practical insights for others. Collectively, they underscore the need for thoughtful evaluation processes that reflect the shifting landscape of higher education and the unique contexts of individual departments.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Kinesiology Review
Published
2025-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2025-0042
Primary Topic
Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluations of Kinesiology Faculty Revisited: Perspectives on the “Moving Goalposts” Problem From the Trenches

Brandon L. Alderman, Zachary Zenko, Elizabeth M. Mullin, Panteleimon Ekkekakis
Kinesiology Review
Evaluation of Teaching Practices
article

Evaluations of Kinesiology Faculty Revisited: Perspectives on the “Moving Goalposts” Problem From the Trenches

Brandon L. Alderman, Zachary Zenko, Elizabeth M. Mullin, Panteleimon Ekkekakis
article en

Abstract

Faculty evaluations are among the most consequential yet challenging functions of academic departments. When effective, they provide feedback and guidance that help faculty, especially those at early- and midcareer stages, achieve professional excellence and thrive. Done poorly, they can become major sources of stress and occupational dissatisfaction. In this article, we revisit the issue of faculty evaluations in kinesiology, highlighting pragmatic difficulties faced by administrators and faculty. We present personal vignettes from four departments of kinesiology that differ in size, mission, culture, standards, and evaluation practices. These vignettes illustrate not only the range of challenges encountered across the field but also the diversity of approaches required to address them. Each vignette shares experiences and strategies developed in response to these challenges, offering practical insights for others. Collectively, they underscore the need for thoughtful evaluation processes that reflect the shifting landscape of higher education and the unique contexts of individual departments.

Kinesiology ReviewVol. 14(4)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US), California State University, Bakersfield (US), Michigan State University (US), Springfield College (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Evaluation of Teaching Practices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Evaluations of Kinesiology Faculty Revisited: Perspectives on the “Moving Goalposts” Problem From the Trenches — Brandon L. Alderman, Zachary Zenko, et al. · Kinesiology Review (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS