The Impact of Student Evaluative Feedback on the Perception of the Teaching Faculty at Andrews University

Transcription

1 Andrews University Digital Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 1982 The Impact of Student Evaluative Feedback on the Perception of the Teaching Faculty at Andrews University Edmund Siagian Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Christian Denominations and Sects Commons, and the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons Recommended Citation Siagian, Edmund, "The Impact of Student Evaluative Feedback on the Perception of the Teaching Faculty at Andrews University" (1982). Dissertations. Paper 698. This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Andrews University. For more information, please contact repository@andrews.edu.

2 Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation.

3 INFORM ATION TO U SERS This reproduction was made trom a copy ot a document sent to us tor mtcrotilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality ot the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the tuality ot the material submitted. The following explanation of technuiues is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. The sign or "target for pages apparently lacking t'rom the document photographed is Missing Pagets). If it was possible to obtain the missing nagetsl or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 1. When an image on the tilm is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. It copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. c. When a map. drawing or chart, etc.. is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of "sectioning the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, w'ctiomng is continued again beginning below the first row and continuing on intil complete. -t. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted nto your xerographic cup.. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. '. Some pages in any document may nave indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZeeO Road Ann Ar&or. Ml 48106

4

5 S ia g ia n, Edm und THE IMPACT OF STUDENT EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK ON THE PERCEPTION OF THE TEACHING FACULTY AT ANDREWS UNIVERSITY Andrews University Ed.D University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106

6

7 PLEASE NOTE: in all c a s e s this material h a s b een filmed in the best p o ssib le way from the available copy. Problems en cou n tered with this d ocu m en t have b een identified here with a ch eck m ark v _ 1. G lossy p h otograp h s or p a g e s 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print 3. Photographs with dark b a ck g ro u n d 4. Illustrations are p oor c o p y 5. P a g es with black marks, not original cop y. 6. Print sh ow s through a s there is text on both s id e s of page 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several p a g e s 8. Print e x c e e d s m argin requirem ents ^ S. Tightly bound c o p y with print lost in sp in e 10. Computer printout p a g e s with indistinct print 11. P a g e (s) lacking w hen material received, and not available from sch o o l or author. 12. P a g e (s) seem to b e missing in num bering only a s text follows. 13. Two p ages n u m b e r e d. Text follow s. 14. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s 15. Other University Microfilms International

8

9 Andrews U n iv e rs ity School of G raduate S tu d ie s THE IMPACT OF STUDENT EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK ON THE PERCEPTION OF THE TEACHING FACULTY AT ANDREWS UNIVERSITY A D i s s e r t a ti o n P re s e n te d in P a r t i a l F u l f i l l m e n t of th e R equirem ents fo r th e Degree Doctor of E d u c a tio n by Edmund S ia g ia n December

10 THE IHPACT OF STUDENT EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK ON THE PERCEPTION OF THE TEACHING FACULTY AT ANDREWS UNIVERSITY A d is s e r t a t io n p rese n ted in p a r t i a l f u lf illm e n t o f th e req u irem en ts fo r th e d egree D octor o f E ducation by Edmund S ia g ia n APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE: Chairman: Edward A. S tr e e te r Date Approved ' - E l i v<~*fu y ' Com m ittee Member: Jerom e D. Thayer - /.. Vu'- -A. / Committee^Me^nbei^ "Gary L. D ick son Com m ittee Member: - H an s-jo rgen Holman E x tern a l Exam iner: Dwain L. Ford / 4. / f ' l l C l, g-~< A Dean, S ch ool o f G raduate S tu d ie s

11 ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF STUDENT EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK ON THE PERCEPTION OF THE TEACHING FACULTY AT ANDREWS UNIVERSITY by Edmund S ia g ia n Chairman: Edward A. S t r e e t e r

12 ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH D o c to ral D i s s e r t a ti o n Andrews U n iv e rs ity D epartm ent of E d u ca tio n T i t le : THE IMPACT OF STUDENT EVALUATIVE FEEDBACK ON THE PER CEPTION OF THE TEACHING FACULTY AT ANDREWS UNIVERSITY Name of R esearch er: Edmund S ia g ia n Name and d eg ree of f a c u lty a d v ise r: Edward A. S t r e e t e r, Ed.D. Date com pleted: December 1982 Problem E d u c a tio n a l re s e a rc h e rs have l i t t l e consensus of o p in io n re g a rd in g th e u s e fu ln e s s of s t u d e n t e v a lu a tio n s and much le s s of th e use of s tu d e n t e v a lu a tiv e feedback as a means of im proving te a c h e r s ' perform ance. However, because a movement of e d u c a tio n a l a c c o u n ta b ility p erv ad es i n s t i t u t i o n s of h ig h e r le a rn in g and a d m in is tr a to rs d e s i r e to keep s tu d e n ts co n te n t, many sch o o l a d m in is tr a to r s p e r i o d i c a l l y a s s e s s th e perform ance of t h e i r teaching f a c u lty by s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n. T his stu d y i n v e s t i g a t e s th e im pact of s tu d e n t e v a lu a tiv e feedback on th e p e r c e p tio n of th e te a c h in g f a c u lty a t Andrews U n iv e rs ity, w ith th e hope t h a t th e fin d in g s may help reso lv e i i

13 w hether s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n is h e lp fu l for improvement of teac h in g q u a lity th ro u g h th e t e a c h e r s ' change of p e rc e p tio n. Method Two so u rces of d a ta were used: (1) T each ers were e v a lu a te d by s tu d e n ts as p a r t of th e i n s t i t u t i o n 's te a c h in g - e v a lu a tio n program. The r e s u l t s, which were o b ta in e d from th e I n s t i t u t i o n a l R esearch O f f ic e, serv ed as feedback to t e a c h e r s as w e ll as fo r c o r r e l a t i o n a l s tu d ie s. (2) The f u l l tim e teach in g f a c u lty of th e U n iv e r s ity were randomly d iv id e d in to six groups to m eet th e re q u ire m e n t of th e stu d y d e sig n. S e l f - r a t i n g re sp o n se s re g ard in g t h e i r teach in g perform ance were g a th e r e d from th e te a c h e r s o v er a p e rio d of s ix months. One hundred and fo u r te e n te a c h e r s p a r t i c i p a t e d a p e r c e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n. Two s t a t i s t i c a l methods were used fo r an aly zin g th e d a ta : step w ise m u ltip le r e g r e s s io n and z e ro -o rd e r c o r r e l a t i o n. The f iv e h y p o th eses were t e s t e d fo r th e ir in crem en tal, c o r r e l a t i o n, and c o r r e l a t i o n d if f e r e n c e s. P indings At th e.05 l e v e l, four of f iv e n u ll h y p o th eses in th e s tu d y were su p p o rted. The s tu d y re v e a le d t h a t s tu d e n t- e v a lu a tiv e feedback did n o t have any s i g n i f i c a n t im pact on th e p e rc e p tio n of AU's te a c h e rs re g a rd in g t h e i r teach in g perform ance, both s h o rt-te rm and lo n g -term. N e ith e r were th e t h r e e a re a s to which th e t h i r t e e n item s (v a ria b le s ) belong s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from one an o th er. T here was a ls o no i i i

14 c o r r e l a t i o n found between th e s e l f - r a t i n g of th e te a c h e r s and th e s t u d e n t ra tin g, except fo r one v a r ia b le ( I n te g r a te C h r i s t i a n co n cep ts in to th e c o u rse content). However, i t was found t h a t two of th e dem ographic v a r ia b le s (sex and tenure) o c c a s io n a lly played a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t in e x p la in in g th e v a ria n c e in te a c h e r s ' s e l f - r a t i n g sco res. Conclus ion The fin d in g s s u g g e s t t h a t th e p o p u la tio n under stu d y e i t h e r d oes n o t re g a rd s t u d e n t e v a lu a tio n a c c u ra te or im p o rta n t or is u n w illin g to adm it or change t h e i r h a b its, a t t i t u d e, and p h ilo so p h y of teac h in g. The f a c u l t y members were n o t a f f e c te d by th e s t u d e n t- e v a lu a tiv e feedback.

15 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of C o n t e n t s...v i i L i s t of T a b l e s...ix A ck n o w led g m en t...x i i C h apter I. INTRODUCTION...1 G eneral B a c k g r o u n d...1 E d u c a tio n a l a c c o u n ta b ility The ro le of te a c h e rs Methods of te a c h e r e v a lu a tio n R e s e a rc h e rs ' o p in io n s on s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n of te a c h e r s S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n a t Andrews U n i v e r s i t y...8 P r a c t i c e s and developm ents S tu d e n ts ' r e c e n t co n cern s O b je c tiv e s of s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n of teach in g a t Andrews U n iv e rs ity R a tio n a le fo r f a c u lty e v a lu a tio n a t Andrews Unive r s i t y S ta te m e n t of th e P r o b l e m...14 P urpose of th e S t u d y...14 H ypotheses of th e S t u d y...16 D e f i n i t i o n of T e r m s...17 L im ita tio n s of th e S t u d y...18 A s s u m p t i o n s...19 S ig n i f ic a n c e of th e S t u d y...19 E th i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s...20 O rg a n iz a tio n of th e S t u d y...21 I I. THE REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE I n t r o d u c t i o n...22 R e la tio n s h ip of th e S tudy to E x is tin g P r a c ti c e.. 24 T e a c h e rs ' S elf-a sse ssm e n t and S e lf-r a tin g P urpose of te a c h e r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n F in d in g s on te a c h e r s ' s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n R a tio n a le fo r S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n of T ea ch ers Commonly C ite d Reasons fo r S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n.. 29 Im provement of f a c u lty perform ance B e n e f it to s tu d e n ts U s e fu ln e s s to a d m in is tr a tio n R e l i a b i l i t y and V a lid ity S t u d i e s...33 v i i

16 R e l i a b i l i t y s tu d ie s V a l i d i t y s tu d ie s E f f e c t s of Feedback on T eacher B ehavior and Pe rform anc e P ro b a b le R easons fo r th e V a ria n c e s in Teaching E v a lu a tio n S t u d i e s...49 S umma r y I I I. METHODuLOGY I n t r o d u c t i o n Type of R e s e a r c h...54 P o p u la tio n and S a m p l e...55 R e se a rc h I n s t r u m e n t s...57 P ro c e d u re s fo r C o lle c tin g D a t a...60 R eco rd in g th e D a t a...66 S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s S umma r y...75 IV. REPORTING AND ANALYZING OF D A T A P r e s e n t a t i o n of th e D ata F i n d i n g s...77 R e p o rt No. 1: E f f e c t of feed b ack and s tu d e n t e v a lu a t io n R e p o rt No. 2: E f f e c t of feed b ack on Group A and Group C R e p o rt No. 3: E f f e c t of feed b ack based on c o r r e l a t i o n s tu d ie s R e p o rt No. 4: Long-term e f f e c t of feedback R e p o rt No. 5: S h o rt-te rm v ersu s lo n g -term R e p o rt No. 6: Demographic d a ta A n a ly se s of R e s u lts fo r T e s tin g th e H ypotheses. 115 R e s ta te m e n t of th e h y p o th eses N u ll H y p o th esis 1 N u ll H y p o th esis 2 N u ll H y p o th esis 3 N u ll H y p o th esis 4 N u ll H y p o th esis 5 S umma r y V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS S u m m a ry In tr o d u c tio n Review of r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e Summary of p u rpose Summary of m ethodology Summary of fin d in g s C o n c l u s i o n s R e c o m m e n d a tio n s A P P E N D IC E S BIBLIOGRAPHY v i i i

17 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 T e a c h e rs by Group and S e x Summary of T e a c h e rs ' R e t u r n s The N o n -P a r tic ip a tin g T e a c h e r s R espondents by S e x R espondents by A g e - g r o u p s R espondents by Y ears of T eaching E x p erie n ce a t a C o lle g e or U n iv e r s ity Level R espondents by Teaching L e v e l R espondents by Employment S t a t u s E quating th e T e a c h e rs ' and S tu d e n ts Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s E f f e c t of Feedback on T e a c h e rs ' P e rc e p tio n (S hort- Term) Summary of th e S i g n i f i c a n t E f f e c t of Feedback on t h e T e a c h e rs' P e rc e p tio n ( S h o r t - T e r m ) E f f e c t of S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n on T eacher P e rc e p tio n (Short-Term) Summary of th e S i g n i f i c a n t E f f e c t of S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n on th e T e a c h e rs ' P e rc e p tio n (S hort- T e rm) «86 14 E f f e c t of Feedback on th e T e a c h e rs ' P e rc e p tio n A f t e r C o n tro llin g fo r P r e t e s t and S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n (Based on Group A and Group C) Summary of th e S i g n i f i c a n t E f f e c t of Feedback on th e T e a c h e rs ' P e rc e p tio n, Using Group A and Gr oup C C o r r e la t io n and S co res of S tu d e n t R ating and T e a c h e rs ' In te rm e d ia te (Short-Term) S e lf-r a tin g S co re Means fo r Groups A to F C o r r e la t io n C o e f f ic i e n t s Between th e S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n and th e T e a c h e rs ' Long-Term (P o s tte s t) S e lf-r a tin g S co re Means R egarding T heir Teaching P e r f o r m a n c e a Z e ro -C o rre la tio n s Between S tu d e n t R atin g s and T e a c h e rs ' S e lf-r a tin g S core Means fo r A ll Groups ( S i n g l y ) b Z e ro -C o rre la tio n s Between S tu d e n t R atin g s and T e a c h e rs ' S e lf-r a tin g S core Means fo r A ll Groups (C o m b in e d ) C o r r e la t io n of S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n Score Means w ith S hort-t erm (In te rm e d ia te T est) and Long-Term (P o s tte s t) T each er S e lf - E v a lu a tio n S core Means a Com parison Between th e Z e ro -C o rre la tio n s of th e S tu d e n t and T eacher R atin g S co re Means fo r th e S hort-t erm and Long-Term R e s u l t s ix

18 20b Com parison Between th e Z e r o -C o rre la tio n s of th e S tu d e n t and Teacher R a tin g S core Means fo r th e S hort-t erm and Long-Term R e s u l t s A Summary of th e Sequence of S tre n g th s fo r th e F iv e Demographic Item s to E n te r th e R e g re ssio n A n a ly s is fo r each Item : F -v a lu e When E n tere d (Short-Term) The Im pact of th e Demographic Item s A f te r C o n tro l l i n g fo r S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n and th e P re se n c e of P r e t e s t (Short-Term) The Im pact of th e Demographic Item s A fte r C o n tro l l i n g f o r S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n and th e P re se n c e of P r e t e s t (L o n g -T e rm ) Summary of th e S hort-t erm E f f e c t of Feedback on T e a c h e rs ' P e rc e p tio n A f t e r C o n tro llin g fo r th e P re s e n c e of S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n and P re s e n c e of P r e t e s t (Based on Groups A, C, D, and F) A Summary of th e C o r r e l a t i o n s Between th e S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n Score Means and th e T e a c h e rs' S e l f - R atin g Score Means f o r Both In te rm e d ia te T e s t (Short-Term) and P o s t t e s t (L o n g -T e rm ) A Summary of th e D if f e r e n c e s Between th e S hort-t erm and Long-Term C o r r e la t io n s of th e S tu d e n t E v alu a t i o n Mean Scores and th e T e a c h e rs ' S e lf-r a tin g Mean S c o r e s a A Summary of th e E f f e c t of Feedback on th e M ethods, C ourse C ontent, and P e rs o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e T each ers ( S h o r t - T e r m ) b A Summary of th e E f f e c t ot Feedback on th e M ethods, C ourse C ontent, and P e rs o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e T each ers (Long-Term) A Com parison of th e Im pact of th e Demographic D ata fo r Both th e S hort-t erm and Long-Term E f f e c t A f t e r C o n tro llin g fo r th e P rese n ce of P r e t e s t and S tu d e n t E v a l u a t i o n...123

19 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The w r i t e r w ishes to acknowledge and ex p ress s p e c ia l a p p r e c ia tio n and thanks to Dr. Edward A. S t r e e t e r, P ro fe s s o r of E d u catio n al A d m in is tr a tio n and S u p e rv isio n, a d v is e r and chairm an of t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n com m ittee, fo r h is g u idance, d i r e c tio n, encouragem ent, and k in d n ess. A very s p e c ia l thanks i s ex ten d ed to Dr. Jerom e D. Thayer, p ro fe s s o r of R esearch and S t a t i s t i c a l M ethodology and member of th e d i s s e r t a t i o n com m ittee, who s p e n t many h o u rs w ith th e w r i t e r w orking on th e problem s of m ethodology, an a ly se s, and r e p o r tin g, and who by h i s d e v o tio n to teac h in g made a p p lie d s t a t i s t i c a l p ro c ed u re s u n d e rsta n d a b le and me a n in g fu l. Deep a p p r e c i a t i o n is a ls o ex tended to Dr. B an s-jo rg en Holman, P ro fe s s o r of Music and member of th e d i s s e r t a t i o n com m ittee, fo r h is s c h o la r ly c r i t i c i s m and s u g g e s tio n s, e s p e c ia lly in re g a rd to c o n te n t and s ty le of w ritin g. S p e c ia l thanks go a ls o to Dr. Gary L. D ickson, A sso c ia te P ro fe s s o r of E d u ca tio n a l P sychology and C o u n selin g, th e w r i t e r 's co g n a te a d v is e r and member of th e d i s s e r t a t i o n com m ittee, fo r being so kind and h e lp fu l in p ro v id in g su g g e s tio n s and h i n t s, e s p e c ia lly during th e e a r l i e r and l a t t e r p a r t of th e stu d y. G ra te fu l acknowledgment must a ls o be e x p re sse d to Dr. R ichard W. Schwarz (Vice P r e s id e n t for Academic Administra tio n ) for h is w illin g n e s s to p erm it th e w r i t e r to x i

20 undertake th e s tu d y in t h i s U n iv e r s ity, as w e ll as fo r h is su g g e s tio n s and a d v ic e a t th e b eg in n in g of th e study. A very s p e c ia l a p p r e c ia tio n is a ls o due to R. W illiam Cash, d i r e c t o r of I n s t i t u t i o n a l R esearch O f f ic e fo r th e U n iv e rs ity, fo r h is h e lp fu ln e s s, c o o p e ra tio n, and k in d n ess shown to th e w r i t e r, e s p e c ia lly d u rin g th e d a t a - c o l l e c t i n g s tage. G ra te fu l words of a p p r e c ia tio n a re a ls o extended to L orena B id w ell and h er team of c o n s u lta n ts a t th e U n i v e r s it y 's Academic Computing C e n te r f o r th e i r c o n s ta n t te c h n ic a l a s s i s t a n c e th roughout th e ty p in g of th e stu d y m a t e r i a l s. S in c e re words of a p p r e c ia tio n a r e a l s o o ff e r e d to Mrs. Jo y c e Jo n e s, who e d ite d f a i t h f u l l y th e work of th e re s e a rc h e r, and who o fte n went beyond th e c a l l of duty to make i t p o s s ib le fo r t h i s s tu d y to be com pleted w ith in th e s p e c if ie d tim e. A s p e c ia l token of lo v e and a p p r e c i a t i o n must a ls o go to E ile e n t h e w r i t e r 's d ep endable, c a r in g, and devoted w ife, and to Elwood, Charmaine, and A rle n e t h r e e growing and a c tiv e c h i l d r e n who m issed th e i r f a t h e r 's com panionship a l o t, u n com plainingly. F in a l ly, g r a t i t u d e and p r a i s e a r e o ff e re d to th e Almighty God, S u s ta in e r, P ro v id e r, and p r o t e c t o r, and th e f e a r of Whom i s " th e beginning of wisdom". x i i

21 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION G e n eral Background E d u c a tio n a l a c c o u n ta b ility In th e 1960s and 1970s in th e U nited S ta te s, e d u c a tio n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s of h ig h e r le a rn in g were co n fro n ted w ith in c re a sin g demands fo r i n s t r u c t i o n a l improvement. P o s s ib ly trig g e re d by " S p u tn ik and th e im p lic a tio n t h a t the S o v ie t Union had g ained s u p e r i o r i t y in sp ac e e x p lo r a tio n as a r e s u l t of s u p e r io r ity in s c ie n c e i n s t r u c t i o n, s tu d e n ts and p a r e n ts a lik e put p r e s s u r e on American c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s to " c a tc h u p." As m entioned by Neumann (1970, p. 13), "relevancy" was th e catchw ord of th e 19 60s, while " a c c o u n ta b ility " was th e m ajor co ncern of th e 19 70s and 1980s. In a d d itio n, w ith h ig h i n f l a t i o n and in c re a s in g c o s t of l i v in g, s tu d e n ts were i n s i s t i n g on "com petent i n s t r u c t i o n fo r t h e i r investm ent" (Kronk & Shipka, 1980, p. 5). C ontinuing in to th e 1980s, i n s t i t u t i o n s of h ig h er le a rn in g ex p erien ced i n t e r n a l as w e ll as e x te r n a l p re s s u re s 1

22 2 from s tu d e n ts and p a r e n ts demanding i n s t r u c t o r s and a d m i n i s tr a t o r s to p ro v id e or improve system s of a c c o u n t a b i l it y and allo w in g s tu d e n t in v o lv em en t in a more d i r e c t and p u rp o se fu l way. S tu d e n t co n cern s were ex p ressed in th e form of both n o n - v io le n t and m i l i t a n t campus d e m o n stra tio n s, b rin g in g to th e fo re demands for "im provem ent," "more in v o lv em en t," " g r e a t e r commitment," and "more p a r ti c ip a to r y democracy" (Mahfouz, 1978, p. 1 ). According to M cconnell (1971), th e fo llo w in g f a c t o r s w ere in stru m en tal in p ro v id in g p re s s u r e upon i n s t i t u t i o n s of h ig h e r le a rn in g fo r g r e a t e r a c c o u n t a b i l it y in th e q u a l i t y of e d u c a tio n: 1. Turm oil and d i s r u p t i o n on campus due to d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n 2. P o l i t i c a l a c ti o n by s tu d e n ts and fa c u lty 3. H igher tax es and t u i t i o n 4. Severe sh rin k a g e of governm ent and in d iv i dual income th ro u g h i n f l a t i o n 5. Growing d i s t r u s t of h ig h e r e d u c a tio n among th e p u b lic a t la r g e (p. 446) I t was th e r e f o r e not s u r p r is in g t h a t th e a d m in is tr a tio n of c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s a tte m p te d to enhance le a rn in g p ro c e d u re s. As a r e s u l t, th e e v a lu a tio n of th e fa c u lty by s tu d e n ts re g a rd in g t h e i r te ac h in g q u a l i t y became a p a r t of a c c o u n t a b i l it y system s on c o lle g e and u n i v e r s i t y campuses. A l c i a t o r e and A l c ia to r e (1979) p o in te d o u t t h a t w ith supply of and demand fo r c o lle g e fa c u lty

23 reaching a b alan c e in th e 19 70s, h ig h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s had become more concerned w ith th e problem of q u a l i t y th an q u a n tity. Numerous s tu d ie s ap p e are d aimed a t d e f in in g e x c e lle n c e in te a c h in g, and more s t u d e n t in p u t was sought in a s s e ss in g th e com petence of f a c u lty members. The r o le o f te a c h e rs In i n s t i t u t i o n s of h ig h e r le a r n in g, i t is reco g n ized th a t te a c h e r s perform v ario u s r o l e s. D re sse l (1976, p. 332) su g g ested s e v e r a l of th ese: (1) i n s t r u c t i n g u n d erg rad u a te s; (2) i n s t r u c t i n g g ra d u ates; (3) d ir e c t in g c o u rse and cu rricu lu m developm ents; (4) p re p a rin g i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a te r ia ls ; (5) e v a lu a tin g and g ra d in g s tu d e n t p ro g ress; (6) ad v isin g s tu d e n ts ; (7) doing re s e a rc h ; (8) prom oting c r e a t i v i t y ; (9) p a r t i c i p a t i n g in s c h o la r ly a c t i v i t i e s of a pure or p r a c t i c a l n atu re ; (10) p ro v id in g p r o f e s s io n a l s e r v ic e s, b o th i n t e r n a ll y and e x te r n a lly ; and (11) p a r t i c i p a t i n g in governance. Muse (1979) summarized i t a l l when he s a id t h a t most c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s ex p ect t h a t fa c u lty members perform s a t i s f a c t o r i l y in th re e g e n e ra l areas: (1) e f f e c t i v e teach in g ; (2) s c h o la rly a c t i v i t y ; and (3) s e r v ic e to the i n s t i t u t i o n (p. 4 3 ). However, to s tu d e n ts and p a r e n ts, teach in g is c o n s id e re d t h e most im p o rtan t f u n c tio n of th e te a c h e r. A ll o th e r f u n c tio n s, a c t i v i t i e s, s e r v ic e s, and ro le s of th e te a c h e r sh o u ld rev o lv e around th e te a c h in g work (Eble, 1970,

24 4 p. 5). The te a c h e r 's commitment to teac h in g e f f e c ti v e n e s s, p ro p e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s, and e f f i c i e n c y of methods should be r e f l e c t e d in th e q u a l i t y of te a c h in g. A ccording to A l c ia to r e and A lc ia to r e (1979), s tu d e n ts m ost commonly c i t e d th e s e q u a l i t i e s in th e "b est" te a c h e r th ey had: (1) i n t e r e s t in s tu d e n ts ; (2) good p e r s o n a lity ; (3) i n t e r e s t in s u b j e c t m a tte r; (4) a b i l i t y to make s u b j e c t i n t e r e s t i n g ; and (5) o b j e c t i v i t y in p re s e n tin g s u b j e c t m a tte r and in d e a lin g w ith s tu d e n ts (p. 9 4). I t would seem t h a t forms and norms of m easurem ent or e v a lu a tio n should be e s t a b l i s h e d by th e i n s t i t u t i o n i f i t i s to ex p lain i t s a c c o u n ta b ility. Methods of te a c n e r e v a lu a tio n T here is no s in g le "fo o lp ro o f" way to e v a lu a te teac h in g (C entra, 1979, p. 3). Each so u rce of in fo rm a tio n or approach has i t s l i m i t a t i o n s. But i t does n o t fo llo w t h a t teac h in g c a n n o t be e v a lu a te d. In f a c t, th e re a re many ways o f e v a lu a tin g teach in g. Kulik and McKeachie (1975, pp ) su g g e ste d t h a t th e "m ost common and ideal" so u rc e s of in fo rm a tio n about th e q u a l i t y of fa c u lty teaching a re th e fo llo w in g : 1. D ire c t m easurem ent of th e perform ance of s tu d e n ts 2. The o p in io n of c o lle a g u e s and a d m in is tr a to r s 3. S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n 4. C lassroom v i s i t a t i o n by e x p e rts or com m ittees

25 5 5. S tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n In a l a t e r s tu d y, McKeachie (1979) added t h a t s tu d e n t r a tin g s w ere found to be u s e fu l for: (1) improving teac h in g ; (2) p ro v id in g d a ta r e le v a n t to judgm ent about teach in g e f f e c tiv e n e s s ; (3) aid in g s t u d e n t c o u rse and i n s t r u c t o r ; and (4) s tim u la tin g s t u d e n t th o u g h ts about e d u c atio n. N e v e rth e le s s, he em phasized t h a t s t u d e n t ra tin g should n o t be u sed as a s in g le m easure o f e v a lu a tin g teac h in g. R esearchers^ o p in io n s on s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n of te a c h e rs A lthough r e s e a r c h e r s and w r i t e r s such as B ryant (1967), Schoben (19 67), Nochimson (1970), K e r lin g e r (1971), Rodin and Rodin (1972), and 3 lack b u rn and C lark (1975) q u e s tio n e d th e u s e f u ln e s s of s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n s, s t i l l o th e r s c o n s id e re d s t u d e n t e v a lu a tio n as r e p r e s e n tin g an im p o rta n t method fo r d a t a a c q u i s i t i o n in th e judging of f a c u lty com petence or e f f e c ti v e n e s s ( e. g., M orton, 1961; Renner, 19 67; W erdell, 19 67; Schw artz, 19 68; S lobin & N ich o ls, 19 69; G aff & W ilson, 1970; M ille r, 1972; Ford, 1977; Raskin & P la n te, 1979; and C en tra, 1971, 1979). As m entioned in th e previous p a ra g ra p h, re s e a rc h e rs such as 3 ry a n t, Schoben, Nochimson, K e r lin g e r, Rodin and Rodin, and 31ackburn and C lark q u e s tio n e d th e v a l i d i t y of s y s te m a tic s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n s. T heir main argum ents were as fo llo w s:

26 6 1. S tu d e n ts ca n n o t a c c u ra te ly a s s e s s teach in g e f f e c ti v e n e s s (B ryant, 1967, pp ). 2. In s tru m e n ts a re n o t r e l i a b l e (Rodin & Rodin, 1972, pp ). 3. E v a lu a tio n of te a c h e r s is beyond th e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f s tu d e n ts (Schoben, 1967, pp ). 4. S tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n w i l l c r e a te an atm osphere of i l l w i l l and s u s p ic io n (Nochimson, 1970, pp. 6-7 ). 5. S tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n undermines p ro f e s s io n a l autonomy and v i o l a t e s academic freedom (K e rlin g e r, 19 71, pp ). 6. T h ere is no e v id e n c e t h a t in fo rm a tio n which s tu d e n ts p ro v id e in te a c h e r e v a lu a tio n a c tu a l ly does help te a c h e r s im prove th e ir e f f e c ti v e n e s s u n le s s th e re is a f a c u lty developm ent program or o th e r fo llo w -u p programs a v a ila b le (Kulik & McKeachie, 1975). 7. S tu d ie s of te a c h e r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s and th e ir r e la t io n s h i p to s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n s (as w ell as to a d m i n i s tr a t o r s and c o lle a g u e e v a lu a tio n s) show a very low c o r r e l a t i o n (B lackburn & C la rk, 19 75). 8. S tu d e n t e v a lu tio n s d i c t a t e b eh av io r; th e t h r e a t t h a t e v a lu a t io n s w i l l be u sed to deny p rom otion o r tenure lead s one to assume some te a c h e rs w i l l y ie ld to the tem p tatio n of m erely p le a s in g th e ir judges (Raskin & P la n te, 1979, pp ). However, such o b s e r v a tio n s and o p in io n s a re not

27 7 n e c e s s a rily c o n c lu s iv e. M ille r (197 4, p. 30) proposed t h a t " i f wilt is fo rc e d to choose th e most s i g n i f i c a n t component of e v a lu a tin g classroom teac h in g, i t would be s t u d e n t e v a lu a tio n." O th e rs were in c lin e d to s h a re such an o p in io n because of th e r a tio n a le t h a t " s tu d e n ts a re th e consum ers of teaching" (Johnson, 1967, p. 29 0). F u rth e r, Howe (1967) c o r r e c tl y p o in te d o u t t h a t... s tu d e n ts do pay fo r i n s t r u c t i o n ; they a re n o t a n e c e ssa ry e v i l to be t o l e r a t e d as a p a r t of th e e d u c a tio n a l endeavor, but a re th e pu rp o se of i t. The o p in io n s of th o se who e a t th e pudding c e r t a i n l y ought to be c o n sid e re d if we wish to know how th e pudding t a s t e s, (p. 260) O th er r e s e a r c h e r s in fa v o r of in clu d in g s t u d e n t e v a lu a tio n s as an im p o rta n t form o f e v a lu a tin g f a c u lty perform ance o f f e r e d th e fo llow ing re a s o n s or comments: 1. They (s tu d e n t ev a lu a tio n s) a re th e " b e s t e x i s t i n g way to improve th e te a c h in g -le a rn in g ex perience" (N atio n al S tu d e n t A ssocia tio n, w r itte n b y W e rd e l, 19 67, p. 5). 2. Those who " r e a l l y know th e i n s t r u c t o r b e s t a re h is s tu d e n ts.... They a re th e o n ly ones who know w hether he has been e f fe c tiv e " (Renner, 19 67, p. 12). 3. They (s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n s ) a re n e c e ssa ry in p o in tin g o u t th e stro n g and weak p o in ts of th e i n s t r u c t o r (Morton, 19 61, p. 122). 4. S tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n s are th e "means of l e t t i n g th e cooks know how th e g u e s ts respond to th e food" (Slobin & N ich o ls, 19 69, p. 244).

28 8 5. T here e x i s t s a s u b s t a n t i a l ag reem ent among a d m in is tr a tiv e, fa c u lty, and s tu d e n t r a ti n g of te a c h e rs (C entra, 1971, p. 25), thus im plying th e r e l i a b i l i t y of s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n s. 6. " S tu d e n ts ( th e r e f o r e, th e ir e v a lu a tio n s ) a re alm o st i n f a l l i b l e in su p p ly in g raw d a ta ab o u t teach ers" (Ford, 1977, p. 11). S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n s a t Andrews U n iv e r s ity P r a c tic e s and developm ents S tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n s of f a c u lty teac h in g perform ance a t Andrews U n iv e rs ity a re n o t new. They have been c a r r ie d o u t i n t e r m i t te n tl y in d i f f e r e n t ways and w ith d i f f e r e n t in stru m en ts. Some te a c h e r s have fo llo w ed th e p r a c t i c e of asking s tu d e n ts to e v a lu a te th e ir teach in g perform ance. A u n iv e rs ity -w id e e v a lu a tio n survey was con d u cted in O th e rs follow ed in 19 71, 1972, 19 73, 19 77, and The l a t e s t s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n o f teac h in g, to which t h i s study is r e la t e d, was made durin g th e f a l l q u a r te r of While th e T h eo lo g ica l Seminary u n t i l 1973 had used a d i f f e r e n t survey in v en to ry, in a l l sch o o ls in th e u n i v e r s i t y used th e same in stru m e n t fo r th e s t u d e n t e v a lu a tio n of th e i n s t r u c t o r s (Schwarz & Dyresen, 1980). A ccording to Smoot (1978), p r e s i d e n t of Andrews U n iv e rs ity, a n o th er method of f a c u lty e v a lu a tio n has been developed r e c e n tly. This is a u se fu l and com prehensive

29 9 e v a lu a tio n program fo r f a c u lty t h a t p e r m its te a c h e rs to engage in s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n and r e q u ir e s d e p a rtm e n t chairm an and a d m i n i s tr a t o r s to pro ceed on a more form al e v a lu a tio n of each t e a c h e r w ith r e s p e c t to prom otion and te n u re d e c is io n s. T his program re q u ir e s a l l groups in th e academ ic community to become more c lo s e ly in v o lv ed in d ec id in g w hat c o n s t i t u t e s e f f e c t i v e te a c h in g and who is ach iev in g s u c c e s s. S tu d en ts^ re c e n t concerns D uring th e school y e a r, s tu d e n ts were co n cern ed t h a t th e e v a lu a tio n p r a c t i c e s on campus in th e p a s t had n o t been e f f e c ti v e because th e r e s u l t s were a v a ila b le only to th e in d iv id u a l te a c h e r involved. T h e re fo re, on the p a r t of th e s tu d e n ts of th e u n iv e r s ity and as a r e s u l t of th e ir en th u siasm and co n cern to see "im provem ents" taking p la c e in t h e perform ance of some w ith in th e te a c h in g fa c u lty group, in d iv id u a l fa c u lty members were e v a lu a te d through s tu d e n t in te rv ie w s and p o lls, and th e fin d in g s were expressed and p u b lis h e d openly in th e "Dr. J e k y l l and Mr. Hyde" columns of th e S tu d e n t Movement (th e o f f i c i a l S tu d en t A s s o c ia tio n p aper of Andrews U n iv e rsity ). The e d i t o r i a l columns and th e l e t t e r s - t o - t h e - e d i t o r colum ns were a lso fr e q u e n tly used by s tu d e n ts and te a c h e r s to p r e s e n t th e ir o p in io n s on th e methods and purposes of s t u d e n t e v a lu a tio n (vols , ). T h is s i t u a t i o n h elped to h asten c o m p le tio n of a newly

30 1 0 d esig n ed in s tru m e n t fo r f a c u lty e v a lu a tio n by s tu d e n ts - - a p r o j e c t u n d ertak en by the a d m in is tr a tio n {Vice P r e s i d e n t fo r Academic A d m in istratio n ) thro u g h an ad hoc Committee on S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n of T eaching Surveys and a sub-com m ittee of th e U n iv e r s ity Committee on I n s t r u c t i o n and R esearch to be used in p re fe re n c e to p u b l i c a t i o n of fa c u lty teac h in g p erform ance in c o l l e g i a t e p a p e rs. This new approach for f a c u lty e v a lu a tio n was a g re e a b le to both te a c h e r s and s tu d e n ts. I t was hoped t h a t by p ro v id in g for s tu d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n in e v a lu a tin g te a c h e r s and by su p p ly in g th e te a c h e r s w ith e v a lu a tiv e feed b ack, improvement of teac h in g would be ex p e rien ce d, le a r n in g p ro c e sse s enhanced, and s tu d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n in cre ased. O b je c tiv e s of s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n of teac h in g a t Andrews U n iv e rs ity F ollow ing th e recom m endations of th e ad hoc Committee on S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n of Teaching Surveys (1981), the p r in c ip a l o b j e c t i v e s fo r co n d u ctin g s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n s of teach in g a t Andrews U n iv e r s ity were: 1. To improve teac h in g q u a lity. 2. To g ive s tu d e n ts an o p p o rtu n ity to supply feedback on fa c u lty perform ance. 3. To p ro v id e g u id an ce for d epartm ental chairm en r e l a t i v e to teach in g a s s ig n ments. 4. To id e n tify a re a s of weakness and p ro v id e m o tiv a tio n for improvement. 5. To p ro v id e a d ia g n o s tic to o l t h a t m ight aid

31 1 1 in a u n iv e rs ity -w id e program d e sig n e d to prom ote te a c h e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s and in s tru c t i o n a l developm ent, (p. 3) I t may th e re fo re be assumed t h a t s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n of t h e f a c u lty a t Andrews U n iv e r s ity is m ainly fo rm ativ e, is d esig n ed to improve te a c h in g, and has l i t t l e summative p urpose. S tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n i s u s u a lly conducted to aid a d m in is tr a tiv e d e c is io n making which in v o lv e s pay in c re a s e s, prom otion, and ten u re. F orm ativ e e v a lu a tio n a ls o seems to be im p lied as th e main purpose of e v a lu a t io n in Smoot's (1978) comment t h a t " th e goal of f a c u l t y e v a lu a t io n should always be to m easure, r e a l i s t i c a l l y, what s u c c e s s th e in d iv id u a l te a c h e r is having in ach iev in g th e f u l l e s t p o t e n t i a l p o s s ib le to h is o r h er te a c h e r ro le" (p. 90). For th e fu tu re, acco rd in g to th e ad hoc Committee on S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n of Teaching Surveys, s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n of teac h in g surveys would be s y s te m a tic a lly r o ta te d and given once every th r e e q u a r te rs ; fo r example, F a l l 1981, Summer 1982, S p rin g 1983, W inter 1984, F a l l 1984, Summer 1985, e tc. (p. 3). R a tio n a le fo r f a c u l t y e v a lu a tio n a t Andrews U n iv e rs ity E ble (1972) su g g ested t h a t th e forem ost reaso n for th e e v a lu a tio n of te a c h e rs is a need to give te a c h in g " v i s i b i l i t y ", w hile 3rann and Emmet (1972) p o in ted o u t t h a t th e prim ary fu n c tio n of an e v a lu a tio n procedure of th e

32 12 teaching f a c u lty is " to winnow m e d io c rity and c u l t i v a t e e x c ellen ce " (p. 263). A lthough t h e r e a r e opposing view s re g a rd in g th e u s e fu ln e s s of e v a lu a tiv e feedback from s tu d e n t s to th e ir i n s t r u c t o r s, i t does n o t p re c lu d e th e s tu d y and re s e a rc h of such program s from an academ ic i n s t i t u t i o n. In f a c t, i t should spur on such s tu d ie s. Andrews U n iv e r s ity is a p r i v a t e, c h u r c h -re la te d i n s t i t u t i o n which em phasizes and p r a c t i c e s i n s t r u c t i o n par e x c e lle n c e and produces g ra d u a te s who a re m ainly "teach ers" and " p re a c h e rs," r e g a r d l e s s of th e ir p r o f e s s io n s or c a re e rs. As such, i t is predo m in an tly a " te a c h e r e d u c atio n i n s t i t u t i o n ", always s t r e s s i n g e x c e lle n c e in th e teaching q u a lity of i t s f a c u lty members (Ad hoc Committee R eport, 1981, p. 9 ). While re s e a rc h and o th e r s c h o la r ly endeavors a re a ls o em phasized, " q u a lity teach in g " is c o n s ta n tly em phasized in th e U n iv e r s ity F a c u lty Handbook and Working P o li c y, in v ario u s U n iv e r s ity b u l l e t i n s, as w e ll as in the F acu lty Member S e lf - A p p r a is a l forms and p ro c e d u re s. A lthough n o t m entioned as being r e l a t e d to every s t u d e n t e v a lu a tio n in th e p a s t y ears, acco rd in g to th e 1977 r e v i s i o n of the Working P o l i c y, p rom otion in academic rank is dependent, among o th e r c r i t e r i a, upon " e f f e c tiv e n e s s in th e classroom " and " p ro fe s s io n a l r e p u t a t i o n and d e v o tio n to th e task of teaching and re searc h " (p. 9 5). A ppointm ent to th e graduate

33 1 3 fa c u lty a ls o is d ependent upon " s i g n i f i c a n t corape tenc :e m teach in g a b i l i t y " and " d is tin g u is h e d te a c h in g ex p erien ce" {p. 109). As opposed to th e m easuring of th e q u a n tity and q u a lity of f a c u l t y s c h o la r ly a c t i v i t i e s, "good teaching" or " e x c e ll e n t teac h in g " a re much more d i f f i c u l t to a s s e ss. P ro fe s s io n a l re s e a rc h can u s u a lly be e v a lu a te d w ith a g r e a t amount of o b j e c t i v i t y th ro u g h p u b lis h e d m a t e r ia ls, b u t m easuring " e x c e l l e n t teaching" may be much more d i f f i c u l t. A lth o u g h i t i s n o t easy to d e f in e good teac h in g, e x c e l l e n t te a c h in g, or e f f e c t i v e te a c h in g, a t Andrews U n iv e rs ity such d e s c r i p ti v e term s o u g h t to be d e fin e d in term s of th e t e a c h e r 's g o a ls, d ep a rtm en tal g o a ls, th e goals of a p a r t i c u l a r p r o f e s s io n, th e goals of th e U n iv e rs ity, th e goals of th e S even th -d ay A d v e n tis t C hurch, t h e in d iv id u a l goals of s tu d e n ts, etc. U navoidably, w ith so many o v erla p p in g g o a ls, th e e v a lu a tio n of a te a c h e r 's e f f e c ti v e n e s s becomes a ted io u s c h a lle n g e, w ith obvious v arying r e s u l t s. However, w ith th e re c u rrin g claim s of i t s b e n e f its to th e s tu d e n ts, te a c h e rs, and a d m i n i s tr a t o r s in th e ir re s p e c tiv e n eed s, coupled w ith th e opposing view s from o th e rs, re s e a r c h on th e impact of s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n on th e fa c u lty and th e p u r s u it fo r q u a l i t y teac h in g should go on u n t i l a s a t i s f a c t o r y and a g reea b le p o in t is reached. I t ap p ears t h a t good teach in g may be e v a lu a te d to some e x t e n t on

34 1 4 th e b a s is of communicating a w orth w h ile p ro d u ct, in c lu d in g f a c t u a l knowledge, fundam ental p r i n c i p l e s, i n t e l l e c t u a l th in k in g, s k i l l s and com p eten cies needed in v a rio u s p r o f e s s io n a l f i e l d s, moral c o n c e p ts, e tc. S ta te m e n t of th e problem The 1981 re v is e d S tu d e n t E v a lu a tio n of T eaching in s tru m e n t was used a t th e c lo s e of th e 1981 f a l l q u a r t e r to e v a lu a te th e teac h in g f a c u lty of Andrews U n iv e rs ity. I t was a rran g e d t h a t each te a c h e r who was e v a lu a te d by the s tu d e n ts would re c e iv e a d e t a i l e d r e s u l t of th e e v a lu a tio n as feedback, and t h a t th e r e s u l t s would a ls o be made a v a il a b le to s tu d e n ts th ro u g h th e p ro p e r ch a n n e ls. However, no s tu d y has y e t been undertaken a t Andrews U n iv e rs ity to d e te rm in e w hether e v a lu a t io n feedback w i l l change th e p e rc e p tio n s of th e te a c h e r s re g ard in g t h e i r te a c h in g perform ance, thus h o p e fu lly im proving th e ir o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of teac h in g. In o t h e r w ords, w hether th e e f f o r t, tim e, and c o s t s p e n t in s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n a re w orthw hile or n o t have n o t been in v e s t i g a t e d nor s t a t i s t i c a l l y d eterm in ed, as i t is r e l a t e d to teach in g improvement. Purpose of th e S tudy I t was th e purpose of t h i s stu d y to in v e s tig a te th e im pact of s t u d e n t e v a lu a tio n feedback on th e p e r c e p tio n of th e te a c h e r s a t Andrews U n iv e r s ity re g ard in g th e ir te a c h in g perform ance. According to " tr a n s a c ti o n a l theory" (B a rtle y,

35 , p. 16), p e r c e p tio n is p ro g n o s tic. T his th e o ry g iv e s a c e n tr a l p la c e to th e purpose of d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of th e p e r c e iv e r and looks upon p e r c e p tio n as a guid e to a c tio n t h e a c ti o n being fo r th e f u r th e r a n c e of th e p u rposes of th e organism or in d iv id u a l. T h e re fo re, s in c e change or a c tio n is u s u a lly preceded by p e rc e p tio n, t h i s s tu d y hopes to f in d answ ers to th e fo llo w in g q u e s tio n s : 1. Does s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n feedback have an impact on th e te a c h e r s a t Andrews U n iv e r s ity so as to b rin g abo u t changes in th e t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p tio n of t h e i r perform ance? 2. Does th e r a tin g of t e a c h e r s ' perform ance by te a c h e r s and by s tu d e n ts have a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e la tio n? 3. Does s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n feedback have s h o rt-te r m or lo n g -term e f f e c t s, or both, on th e t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p tio n of th e ir teac h in g perform ance? 4. Does th e impact of feedback on th e p e r c e p tio n of th e f a c u lty d i f f e r in th e fo llo w in g a reas: (1) teaching methods, (2) co u rse c o n te n t, or (3) p e rso n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a t t i tu d e s? 5. Are younger te a c h e rs (in age) more l i k e l y than o ld e r te a c h e r s to change in th e p e r c e p tio n of th e ir teach in g perform ance as a r e s u l t of s tu d e n t ev a lu a tio n? 6. Are te a c h e r s w ith few er y e a rs of teach in g e x p e rie n c e a t th e u n iv e r s ity le v e l more li k e l y to be a f f e c te d in th e p e r c e p tio n of th e ir teach in g perform ance by s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n feedback?

36 Are te n u re d te a c h e rs more l i k e l y than n o n -ten u red te a c h e r s to change th e p e r c e p tio n of th e i r teac h in g pe rformance? 8. Are t e a c h e r s on th e u n d e rg ra d u a te l e v e l more in c lin e d to be a f f e c t e d in th e p e r c e p tio n of t h e i r teach in g perform ance by in fo rm a tio n o b ta in e d from s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n feedback than te a c h e r s a t th e g ra d u a te lev el? 9. Are male te a c h e rs or female te a c h e r s more in c lin e d to be a f f e c t e d by s t u d e n t e v a lu a tiv e feedback in t h e i r p e rc e p tio n reg ard in g th e ir te a c h in g perform ance? H ypotheses of th e Study Based on th e purpose of th e stu d y, th e follow ing hypotheses were g e n e ra te d and proposed: 1. T here is a s i g n i f i c a n t impact of s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n feed b ack on th e p e r c e p tio n of the te a c h e rs re g ard in g th e ir te a c h in g perform ance. 2. T here is a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between th e s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n of th e te a c h e r s and the te a c h e r s ' s e l f - ra tin g. 3. T here is a s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e between th e mean sco res of th e s h o rt-te rm and lo n g -term e f f e c t s of s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n feedback on th e p e r c e p tio n of th e te a c h e rs in th e ir teac h in g perform ance. 4. T here is a s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e in th e impact of s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n feedback on th e p e rc e p tio n of te a c h e r s '

37 17 teac h in g p erform ance and b eh av io r in th e th re e a re a s b eing s tu d ie d : teac h in g m ethods, co u rse c o n te n t, and p e rso n a l a t t i t u d e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s. 5. T here a re s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e s in th e im pact of s t u d e n t e v a lu a tio n feedback on th e p e r c e p tio n of th e f a c u l t y re g a rd in g th e ir te a c h in g perform ance, as m ight be cau sed by th e follo w in g f a c t o r s or v a r ia b le s : age, le n g th of te a c h in g e x p e rie n c e a t th e u n i v e r s i t y le v e l, te n u re, sex (gender), and th e l e v e l of teac h in g in th e i n s t i t u t i o n (u n d e rg rad u a te or g rad u ate). D e f i n it i o n of Terms S tu d e n t e v a lu a t io n : An a p p r a is a l of te a c h e r s by s tu d e n t s th ro u g h s ta n d a r d iz e d o r inform al in stru m e n ts which, when com pleted, e v a lu a te s th e perform ance of te a c h e rs, w ith p a r t i c u l a r re g ard to th e q u a l i t y of teach in g. F a c u lty e v a lu a tio n : A p ro c ess of p la c in g a v alu e upon th e q u a l i t y of th e p erform ance of f a c u lty in t h e i r te a c h in g, in t h e i r re s e a rc h, in t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s, and in t h e i r s e r v ic e to th e i n s t i t u t i o n t h a t employs them (Cooper, p. 13), by any method d ec id e d upon. S tu d e n t e v a lu a tiv e fe e d b a c k : The p ro c e s s by which a d m i n i s tr a t o r s p ro v id e te a c h e r s who have been e v a lu a te d by s tu d e n ts w ith th e r e s u l t s of t h e e v a lu a tio n in w r i t t e n an d/or v e rb a l form(s). S hor t/l o n g -te rm : For th e p u rposes of th is

38 18 stu d y, sh o rt-te rm r e f e r s to a week to ten d a y s' d u ra tio n ; a lo n g -te rm p erio d would n o t exceed six months or th e d u r a tio n of th e study. Teaching f a c u l t y : A ll of th e f u l l - t i m e f a c u lty members who d evote m ost o f th e ir tim e in teach in g and a d v is in g, w ith no or very l i t t l e a d m in is tr a tiv e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s. Im pact: The t o t a l e f f e c t or change p e rc e iv a b le b ro u g h t about on th e te a c h in g p e r c e p tio n and perform ance of t h e teac h er, as judged by th e te a c h e r s and th e s tu d e n ts, p o s i t i v e l y or n e g a tiv e ly. P e rc e p tio n : A ccording to one d e f i n i t i o n g iven by W e b ste r's d ic tio n a ry, "an immediate o r i n t u i t i v e c o g n itio n o r judgment; an i n s ig h t in re s p e c t of immediacy and f e e l i n g of c e r t a i n t y accompanying i t, and o f t e n im plying n ic e o b s e rv a tio n, or s u b tle d is c r im in a tio n." L im ita tio n s of th e S tudy This stu d y was lim i t e d by the v o lu n ta ry p a r t i c i p a t i o n of a l l te a c h e rs in clu d ed in th e s tu d y. S in c e th i s stu d y in v o lv ed a s e n s i t i v e is s u e, re q u irin g th e use of code numbers in th e response s h e e t, and th e in v o lv em en t in r e p e t i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s, a 100 p e r c e n t r e tu r n would n o t be ex p ected. The stu d y was a ls o lim ite d to th e school y e a r. S tu d e n ts who p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e e v a lu a tio n o f t h e i r te a c h e r s were th o se e n r o ll e d for th e f a l l q u a r te r The