Research in Higher Education

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 215–222 | Cite as

Effect of sex, class standing, and academic performance on perceived importance of teacher behaviors

  • Hubert S. Feild
  • William H. Holley
  • Achilles A. Armenakis
Article
  • 62 Downloads

Abstract

An implicit assumption made in most teaching evaluation instruments is that teaching behaviors are equally important to students. Using specific teacher behaviors which have appeared in a number of teaching assessment devices, the importance of teacher behaviors questionnaire (ITB) was constructed to measure students' perceptions of the importance of selected teacher behaviors. Data collected from 105 college students were utilized in the present study for the following purposes: (a) to determine if there are differences among students' ratings of teaching behaviors in terms of importance and (b) to determine if the ratings of importance given to selected teacher behaviors vary according to students' sex, class standing, or academic performance. Results of the study indicated that there were significant differences in perceived importance of selected teacher behaviors. Furthermore, it was found that ratings of some of these behaviors tended to vary across sex groups. Implications for utilizing importance information as a weighting component in teaching evaluations are discussed.

Key words

teacher evaluation teacher behaviors 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aleamoni, L.M., and Spencer, R.E. (1973). The Illinois course evaluation questionnaire: A description of its development and a report of some of its results. Ed. Psychol. Meas. 33: 669–684.Google Scholar
  2. Costin, F., Greenough, W.T., and Menges, R.J. (1971). Student ratings of college teaching: Reliability, validity, and usefulness. Rev. Ed. Res. 41: 511–535.Google Scholar
  3. Deshpande, A.S., Webb, S.C., and Marks, E. (1970). Student perceptions of engineering instructor behaviors and their relationships to the evaluation of instructors and courses. Amer Ed. Res. J. 7: 289–305.Google Scholar
  4. Fishbein, M., and Raven, B.H. (1962). The AB scales: An operational definition of belief and attitudes. Human Relations 15: 35–44.Google Scholar
  5. Hays, W. (1973). “Statistics for the Social Sciences” New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  6. Rosen, P. (Ed.) (1973). “Assessment of Teachers.” Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  7. Schoenfeldt, L.F. (1972). Technical report to accompany the University of Georgia faculty-course evaluation form. Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  8. Tuckman, B.W. (1973). Satisfaction scale. In (Rosen, P., ed.) “Assessment of Teachers.” Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  9. Wilson, R.C., Gaff, J.G., and Bavry, J.L. (1970). Manual of information, Faculty Characteristics Questionnaire (Experimental Form I). Berkeley: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education.Google Scholar
  10. Winer, B.J. (1971). “Statistical Principles in Experimental Design.” New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Wollack, S., Wijting, J.P., Goodale, J.G., and Smith, P.C. (1970). Weighting agreement responses by item scale values. J. Appl. Psychol. 54: 174–175.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© APS Publications, Inc 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hubert S. Feild
    • 1
  • William H. Holley
    • 1
  • Achilles A. Armenakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ManagementAuburn UniversityAuburn

Personalised recommendations