Faculty Teaching Performance: Perceptions of a Multi-Source Method for Evaluation

Article Sidebar

cover image
PDF
Published: Jun 17, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.18145
Keywords:
college, university teaching evaluation, teaching effectiveness, formative evaluation, teaching development

Main Article Content

Adrian Renea Lyde
Illinois State University Department of Health Sciences
David C Grieshaber
Illinois State University Department of Health Sciences
George Byrns
Illinois State University Department of Health Sciences

Abstract

Evaluating college and university faculty teaching performance is necessary for multiple reasons, including assurance of student learning and informing administrative decision making. A holistic system of evaluating university teaching is needed due to several factors, including limitations of student evaluations and the complexity of assessing teaching performance. University faculty members were interviewed to determine their perceptions of the multi-source method of evaluating (MME) teaching performance after a revision of policies and procedures was approved. The MME is comprised of three primary data sources: student evaluations, instructor reflections describing attributes of their own teaching such as the teaching philosophy, and a formative external review. While the faculty perceived the MME as a useful tool, they believe it operates primarily to produce a summative product than work as a formative process, which counters the goal of the MME policy. A formative process would be supported by addressing several factors, including timing, accountability, and mentoring.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Lyde, A. R., Grieshaber, D. C., & Byrns, G. (2016). Faculty Teaching Performance: Perceptions of a Multi-Source Method for Evaluation. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i3.18145
Issue
Vol. 16 No. 3 (2016): Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Section
Articles
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
     
  2. Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

  3. In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Author Biographies

Adrian Renea Lyde, Illinois State University Department of Health Sciences

Assistant Professor of Health Education School Health Teacher Education Coordinator

David C Grieshaber, Illinois State University Department of Health Sciences

Associate Professor and Assessment Coordinator, Safety Associate Director, Center for Mathematics, Science, and Technology

George Byrns, Illinois State University Department of Health Sciences

Professor and Program Director, Environmental Health

References

Arreola, R. A. (2000). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Balam, E. M. & Shannon, D. M. (2010). Student ratings of college teaching: A comparison of faculty and their students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 209-221.

Cashin, W. E. (1992). Using global student rating items for summative evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 563-572.

Cashin, W. E. (1990). Student ratings of teaching: Recommendations for use (Rep. No. IDEA Paper No. 22). Kansas State University: Center for Faculty Evaluation & Development.

Chickering, A. W. & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever (Rep. No. AAHE Bulletin). American Association for Higher Education.

Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education (Rep. No. 39). American Association for Higher Education Bulletin.

Clegg, S. (2003). Problematising ourselves: Continuing professional development in higher education. International Journal for Academic Development, 8, 37-50.

Clemens, P. L., Pfitzer, T. F., Simmons, R. J., Dwyer, S., Frost, J., & Olson, E. (2005). The RAC matrix: A universal tool or a toolkit?” Journal of System Safety, 41, 14-19.

Clinton, R. J. (1930). Qualities college students desire in college instructors. School and Society, 32, 702.

Costin, F., Greenwald, A. G., & Menges, R. J. (1971). Student ratings of college teaching: Reliability, validity, and usefulness. Review of Educational Research, 41, 511-535.

d'Apollonia, S. & Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52, 1198-1208.

Dunn, K. E. & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14, 1-11.

Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (361-376). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Greenwald, A. G. (1997). Validity concerns and usefulness of student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52, 1182-1186.

Greenwald, A. G. & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52, 1209-1217.

Gustad, J. W. (1961). Policies and practices in faculty evaluation. Educational Record, 42, 194211.

Hoyt, D. P. & Pallett, W. H. (1999). Appraising teaching effectiveness: Beyond student ratings (Rep. No. IDEA Paper No. 36). Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.

Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodology, and meaning. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, (209- 219). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Kell, C. & Annetts, S. (2009). Peer review of teaching embedded practice or policy-holding complacency? Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 46, 61-70.

Kreber, C. & Cranton, P. A. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 476-495.

Lyde, A. (1999). A qualitative analysis of college females in abusive dating relationships (unpublished master’s thesis). Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

Marsh, H. W. (1984). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 707-757.

Marsh, H. W. & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility.” American Psychologist, 52: 1187-1197.

McCarthy, M. A., Niederjohn, D. M., & Bosack, T. N. (2011). Embedded assessment: A measure of student learning and teaching effectiveness. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 78-82.

McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52, 1218-1225.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction 2008. Attributes of Effective Formative Assessment Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Pan, D., Tan, G. S. H., Ragupathi, K., Booluck, K., Roop, R., & Ip, Y. K. (2009). Profiling teacher/teaching using descriptors derived from qualitative feedback: Formative and summative applications. Research in Higher Education, 50, 73-100.

Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Raths, J. & Preskill, H. (1982). Research synthesis on summative evaluation of teaching. Educational Leadership, 39, 310-313.

Saphier, J., Haley-Speca, M. A., & Gower, R. (2008). The skillful teacher: Building your teaching skills (6th ed.). Acton, MA: Research for Better Teaching, Inc.

Seldin, P. (1993). Successful use of teaching portfolios. Boston, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Seldin, P., Miller, J., & Seldin, C. A. (2010). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Sproule, R. (2000). Student evaluation of teaching: A methodological critique of conventional practices. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1-23

Van Maanen, J. (1979). Qualitative methodology. Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage Publications.

Van Note Chism, N. (1999). Peer review of teaching: A sourcebook. Boston, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Young, S. & Shaw, D. G. (1999). Profiles of effective college and university teacher. The Journal of Higher Education, 70, 670-686.