Advertisement

Research in Higher Education

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 333–345 | Cite as

Behavioral dimensions associated with students' global ratings of college professors

  • Timothy J. Keaveny
  • Anthony F. McGann
Article

Abstract

Several studies suggest that competence in one's field is the principal determinant of students' global ratings of college professors. Other studies find the professor's empathy toward students and considerate and concerned treatment of students to be the principal determinants of overall ratings. This research finds the consideration-concern dimension to be the best single predictor of global ratings of professors. However, interactions of organization-competence and consideration-concern dimensions of performance were more highly related to overall ratings than either variable analyzed by itself.

Key words

performance appraisal instructor evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Campbell, J. P., Dunette, M. D., Arvey, R. D., and Hallervik, L. W. The development and evaluation of behaviorally based rating scales.Journal of Applied Psychology 1973,57 15–22.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., and Weick, K. E.Managerial behavior, performance and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.Google Scholar
  3. Coffman, W. E. Determining students' concepts of effective teaching from their ratings of instructors.Journal of Educational Psychology 1954,45 277–286.Google Scholar
  4. Crawford, P. L., and Bradshaw, H. L. Perception of characteristics of effective university teachers: A scaling analysis.Educational and Psychological Measurement 1968,28 1079–1085.Google Scholar
  5. Deshpande, A. S., Webb, S. C. and Marks, E. Student perceptions of engineering instructor behaviors and their relationships to the evaluation of instructors and courses.American Education Research Journal, 1970, 289–305.Google Scholar
  6. Dunnette, M. D.Personnel selection and placement. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1966.Google Scholar
  7. Granzin, K. L., and Painter, J. J. A new explanation for students' course evaluation tendencies.American Educational Research Journal 1073,10 115–124.Google Scholar
  8. Granzin, K. L., and Painter, J. J. A multivariate analysis of factors underlying student evaluations of college instructors.California Journal of Educational Research 1975,26 96–106.Google Scholar
  9. Guion, R.Personnel testing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.Google Scholar
  10. Harari, O., and Zedeck, S. Development of behaviorally anchored scales for the evaluation of faculty teaching.Journal of Applied Psychology 1973,58 261–265.Google Scholar
  11. Keaveny, T. J., and McGann, A. F. A comparison of behavioral expectation scales and graphic rating scales.Journal of Applied Psychology 1975,60 695–703.Google Scholar
  12. Kmenta, J.Elements of econometrics. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971.Google Scholar
  13. Lahat-Mandelbaum, B., and Kipnis, D. Leader behavior dimensions related to students' evaluation of teaching effectiveness.Journal of Applied Psychology 1973,58 250–253.Google Scholar
  14. McQuitty, L. L. Elementary linkage analysis for isolating orthogonal and oblique types and typal relevancies.Educational and Psychological Measurement 1957,17 207–229.Google Scholar
  15. Schein, E. H., and Hall, D. T. The student image of the teacher.The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 1967,3 205–337.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, P., and Kendall, L. M. Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales.Journal of Applied Psychology 1963,47 149–155.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© APS Publications, Inc. 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy J. Keaveny
    • 1
  • Anthony F. McGann
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Commerce and IndustryUniversity of WyomingLaramie

Personalised recommendations