Suchergebnisse

The quality of one's teaching is a major criterion for tenure and promotion at most universities, and concern exists regarding the potential effect of early morning classes on student teaching evaluations. A survey of students and faculty found that very different perceptions exist on this matter, and neither perception was accurate. Only 30% of faculty, compared to 60% of students, felt that time of day did not impact teaching evaluations. A within-instructor, within-semester, within-course, within-day design using actual evaluation data found that the time of day a class is taught has no effect on student evaluation of teaching. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Administrators use data from student evaluations of teachers (SETs) as input for making numerous decisions. However, many in the profession question the validity of SET information. This study examines the SET process from a cognitive perspective and investigates the relationship between student images of their teachers and characteristics of mindless SET completion. Questionnaire data from 127 students show significant correlations between SET scores and overall teacher evaluations, but only when images of the current and ideal teacher are not compatible. When images of the current and ideal teacher are compatible, correlations between SET and overall scores are not statistically significant.

About 3,200 undergraduate and 300 graduate students in the College of Business of a regional state university with more than 17,000 students located in the southeastern United States evaluated 126 business faculty. The results of a multiple regression based on 6,395 student evaluations show that 12 factors are predictors of overall teaching effectiveness, e.g., instructor presents material clearly, instructor answers students' questions, instructor treats students in a courteous and/or professional manner, and instructor appears to be well prepared for each class. These data suggest that students are fairly reasonable in considering important aspects of the learning process when they evaluate professors' overall teaching effectiveness. The results are discussed in light of the reward system at U.S. universities, the balance between teaching and research, and the changes in management education.

Hochschulen stehen zunehmend vor einem Legitimationsproblem bezüglich ihres Umgangs mit (öffentlich freigestellten) Ressourcen. Die Kritik bezieht sich hauptsächlich auf den Leistungsbereich Lehre, der als ineffektiv organisiert gilt und durch schlechte Studienbedingungen zu langen Studienzeiten und hohen Abbruchquoten beitragen. Vor diesem Hintergrund leistet der Artikel einen Beitrag zu der Frage nach den angemessenen Leistungsbeurteilungen von Universitäten. So werden im ersten Schritt zunächst die hochschulpolitischen Rahmenbedingungen beschrieben. Der zweite Schritt widmet sich den beiden Ansätzen der Evaluation und des Qualitätsmanagements, indem hier erörtert wird, ob es sich um ergänzende oder konkurrierende Konzepte für die Hochschulentwicklung handelt. Der dritte Schritt beleuchtet mit Blick auf die Hochschulforschung und das Hochschulmanagement die Anforderungen an die Praxis von 'Lehr-Evaluatoren'. Der Wandel der Hochschule von einer Institution zu einer Organisation bringt einen hohen Bedarf an Professionalisierung der mit dem Management und der Hochschulsteuerung befassten Mitglieder mit sich. Im Bereich der Lehrevaluation und des Qualitätsmanagements scheint dieser Professionalisierungsbedarf über den sachgemäßen Methodeneinsatz bei der Sammlung von steuerungsrelevanten Informationen hinauszugehen. So sind im Sinne einer Akzeptanzsteigerung auch kommunikative Kompetenzen des Evaluators gefragt, die es ihm erlauben, unterschiedliche Qualitätsvorstellungen und fachspezifische Problemlagen diskursiv zu ermitteln. (ICG2)

ABSTRACTThe evaluation of the effectiveness of faculty teaching is a difficult process. This paper presents the results of an experimental empirical investigation into the possibility of using a psycho‐linguistic measurement technique, the Semantic Differential, to measure faculty communication of terminology to students. This measurement could be used to supplement other teaching evaluation devices. The paper determines a set of "key concepts," derives a set of S.D. meanings from a Faculty to act as a standard, and measures student meanings at the beginning and end of an introductory course. These sets of meanings are then compared.

AbstractCurrent evaluation of higher education programmes is driven primarily by economic concerns, with a resulting imbalance towards the summative assessment of teaching and away from faculty development. These agendas are advanced through datafication, in which the transformation of social and material activity into digital data is producing a narrow, instrumental view of education. Taking a postdigital perspective on contemporary practices of evaluation outlined in higher education literature, we argue for an ecological view, in which evaluation must take account of those aspects of teaching, learning, and educational context, missing from digital data. We position quality as distributed across teacher, student, institution and context, arguing for the cross-fertilization of diverse kinds of data and non-datafied understandings, along with greater involvement of teachers and students in ways that enhance their agency, and develop their evaluative judgement of the quality of educational practices. We conclude that datafied practices can complement expert judgement when situated within a trusting, formative environment, and informed by an understanding of both pedagogy and technology, and clarity of educational purpose.