Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The assessment of teaching in higher education: A critical retrospect and a proposal

Part 1: A critical retrospect

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evaluation of college and university teaching is considered in the context of growing demands for accountability of educational institutions and particular roles of faculty in achieving goals for which these institutions are believed to be accountable. In the first of two papers,* three contemporary aprroaches to evaluation of teaching in higher education are critically reviewed. All three of these approaches-assessment of learning outcomes, assessment of teacher characteristics and analysis of pedagogical behaviors-are found to be defective on logical, theoretical and empirical grounds. A common thread of deficiency is the absence of a coherent theoretical framework for analysis of teaching and phenomena associated with teaching. Specific defecs are analyzed in each of the three approaches as well as in the ubiquitous methodology of rating of teaching performance. In analysis of evaluation by assessment of learning outcomes, teaching is shown to be neither necessary nor sufficient to subsequent learning outcomes. Assessment of teacher characteristics fails to identify those characteristics peculiarly indigenous to teaching as a generic activity. Analysis of pedagogical behaviors fails to distinguish critical teaching acts from more general teacher characteristics interpretable in terms of teacher personality. Furthermore, no adequate basis is provided for normative interpretation of data pertaining to pedagogical behaviors. The use of rating scales to provide data about teacher characteristics or pedagogical behavior rests on assumed rather than demonstrated validity of results. Evidence of validity or meaningfulness is replaced by evidence of consistency which is often spurious. The first paper concludes with an outline of requirements for a more constructive approach to the task of teacher evaluation. In a second paper, an outline of a theory of teaching is sketched which conforms to these requirements. Realization of this theoretical structure in teaching assessment report forms is described. Tentative conclusions from trial use of forms-in-development and recommendations for additional data sources are discussed in terms of their potential contribution to improvement in teaching.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Educational Research Association (1952). Report of the Committee on the Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness,Review of Educational Research 22: 238–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. C. and Hunka, S. M. (1963). “Teacher Evaluation: Some Problems and a Proposal”.Harvard Educational Review, 33: 74–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C. (1970) “Control of Student Mediating Processes during Verbal Learning and Instruction”.Review of Educational Research, 40: 349–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C. (1959). “Learning in Discussions: A Resume of the Authoritarian-Democratic Studies.”Harvard Educational Review, 29: 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Commission of Instructional Theory (1968). “Criteria for Assessing the Formal Properties of Theories of Instruction”. In Gordon, I. J., ed.,Criteria for Theories of Instruction, pp. 16–24. Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bantock, G. H. (1961). “Educational Research: A Critique.”Harvard Educational Review, 21: 264–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1963). “Needed: A Theory of Instruction.”Educational Leadership, 20: 523–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. (1959). “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.Psychological Bulletin, 56: 81–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1963). “Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching.” In Gage, N. L., ed.,Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 171–246. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N. R. (1920).Physics: The Elements Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centra, John A. (1973). “Do Student Ratings of Teachers Improve Instruction?”Change 5, (April) pp. 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. M. and Brawer, F. B. (1969). “Measuring Faculty Performance,”ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Junior Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. M., Trent, J., W. and Rose, C. (1973). “Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education.” In: Travers, R. M. W., ed.,Second Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 1041–1052. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C. H. (1964).A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M. and Tversky, A. (1970).Mathematical Psychology: An Elementary Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costin, F., Greenough, W. T. and Menges, R. J. (1971). “Student Ratings of College Teaching: Reliability, Validity, and Usefulness.”Review of Educational Research, 41: 511–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1970).Essentials of Psychological Testing. 3rd edn. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1955). “Processes Affecting Scores on “Understanding of Others” and “Assumed Similarity.”Psychological Bulletin, 52: 177–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. “Proposals Leading to Analytic Treatment of Social Perception Scores.” In: Tagiari, R. and Petrello, L., eds.,Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior, pp.353–370. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford U.P.

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1971). “Test Validation.” In: Thorndike, R. L., ed.,Educational Measurement, pp. 443–507. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. (1972).Fundamentals of Attitude Measurement. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubin, Robert, and Taveggia, T. (1969).The Teaching-Learning Paradox. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebel, R. L. (1951). “Estimation of the Reliability of Ratings.”Psycho-metrika, 16: 407–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eble, K. E. (1972).Professors as Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eble, K. E. (1970).The Recognition and Evaluation of Teaching. Salt Lake City, Utah: Project to Improve College Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Educational Testing Service. (1971).Student Instructional Response Schedule. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, Barbara and Dow, Kwong Lee. (1971).The Assessment of University Teaching. London: Society for Research into Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. C. (1954). “The Critical Incidents Technique.”Psychological Bulletin. 51: 144–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gage, N. L. (1963). “Paradigms for Research on Teaching.” In: Gage, N. L., ed.,Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp 94–141. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. E. (1969). “The Teaching Model and Evaluation of Teaching Performance.”Journal of Higher Education, 40: 636–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, T. F. (1971).The Activities of Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1954).Psychometric Methods. 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., Taaffe, G. and Wilson, R. C. (1962). “Ratings Should Be Scrutinized.”Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22: 439–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, K. B. (1965). A Theoretical Model for Teaching.School Review, 73: 384–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, M., Wilson, R. C. and Dienst, E. R. (1971).Evaluating University Teaching. Berkeley, California: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, M. S., Allen, G. A. and Estes, W. K. (1968) “Learning of Two-Choice, Differential Reward Problems with Informational Constraints on Pay off Combinations”.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 5: 260–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallos, D. (1973). “On Educational Scientific Research.”Report from the Institute of Education, University of Lund. No. 36 (April).

  • Keller, L., Cole, M., Burke, C. J. and Estes, W. K. (1965). “Reward and Information Values of Trial Outcomes in Paired-Associate Learning”.Psychological Monographs, 79 (Whole No. 605).

  • Komisar, B. P. (1968). “Teaching: Act and Enterprise.”Studies in Philosophy and Education, 6: 168–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaForge, R. (1965). “Components of reliability.”Psycho-metrika, 30: 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leicht, K. L. and Rumery, R. E. (1973).Role of Teacher Structuring and Student Structuring of Learning Materials in Student Learning. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research, Final Report, Project No. 001692, Grant DEG-5-41-0054 (50B).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, C. F., Lansky, L. M. and Andrews, C. (1971). “Student Evaluations of Teacher Behaviors as Estimations of Real-Ideal Discrepancies: A Critique of Teacher Rating Methods.”Journal of Educational Psychology. 62: 104–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R. K. (1939). “Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created “Social Climates.”Journal of Social Psychology, 10: 271–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccia, E. S. (1965). “Instruction as Influence toward Rule-Governed Behavior.” In McDonald, J. B. and Leeper, R. R., eds.,Theories of Instruction, pp. 88–99. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y. and Mann, W. (1971). “Student Ratings of Teacher Effectiveness: Validity Studies.”American Educational Research Journal, 8: 435–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, J. D., and Popham, W. J. (1973). “The Assessment of Teacher Competence.” In Travers, R. M. W., ed.,Second Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 218–244. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Richard I. (1972).Evaluating Faculty Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosier, C. I. (1947). “A Critical Examination of the Concepts of Face Validity”.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 7: 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naftulin, Donald H., Ware, John E. Jr. and Donnelly, Frank A. (1973). “The Doctor Fox Lecture: A Paradigm of Educational Seduction.”Journal of Medical Education, 48: 630–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, M. S. (1971). “Evaluation of Teaching Competence by Three Groups of Educators.”Journal of Experimental Education. 40: 77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parlett, Malcolm, and Hamilton, David. (1972).Evaluation as Illumination: A New Approach to the Study of Innovatory Programs. Occasional Paper No. 9, Center for Research in Educational Sciences, University of Edinburgh. (October).

  • Peters, R. S. (1960).The Concept of Motivation. London: Routledge; New York: Humanities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham, James. (1973).Evaluating Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagan, G. M. (1965). “Toward a More Justifiable Theory for the Evaluation of Teachers and Teaching.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University.

  • Remmers, H. H. (1963). “Rating Methods in Research on Teaching.” In: Gage, N. L., ed.,Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 329–378. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, Miriam and Rodin, B. (1972). “Student Evaluations of Teachers.”Science, 177: 1164–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronan, W. W. (1971).Development of an Instrument of Evaluate College Classroom Effectiveness. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research, Final Report, Project No. 1-D-045.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, Barak and Furst, N. (1973). “The Use of Direct Observation to Study Teaching.” In Travers, R. M. W., ed.,Second Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 122–183. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothkopf, E. Z. (1970) “The Concept of Mathemagenic Activities”.Review of Educational Research, pp. 325–336.

  • Rotter, J. B. (1954).Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowntree, Derek. (1974).What Is Educational Technology? (Monograph No. 1. The Open University Institute of Educational Technology) Milton Keynes.

  • Ryans, D. G. (1960).Characteristics of Teachers: A Research Study. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarbin, T. R., Taft, R., and Bailey, D. C. (1960).Clinical Inference and Cognitive Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, L. and Siegel, L. C. (1967). “A Multivariate Paradigm for Educational Research.”Psychological Bulletin. 68: 306–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. O. (1960). “A Concept of Teaching.”Teachers College Record, 61: 229–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. O., Meux, M., Nuthall, G. and Precians, R. (1967).A Study of the Strategies of Teaching. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois, Bureau of Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, J. C. (1961). “Analysis of Unreplicated Three-Way Classifications, with Applications to Rater Bias and Trait Independence.”Psycho-metrika, 26: 205–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P. and Zinnes, J. L. (1963). “Basic Measurement Theory.” In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R. and Galanter, E., eds.,Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. Vol. I. pp. 1–76. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, H. A. (1951). “Experimental Research toward a Theory of Instruction.”Journal of Educational Research, 45: 89–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travers, R. M. W. (1966). “Towards Taking the Fun out of Building a Theory of Instruction.”Teachers College Record, 68: 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L. R. (1962) “Factor Analysis of Relevance Judgments: An Approach to Content Validity.” In Dressel, P. L., Chrmn.,Proceedings of the Invitational Conference on Testing Problems, Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. W. (1958). “The Evaluation of Teaching.” In Cooper, R. M., ed.The Two Ends of the Log. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walle, A. (1972). Beyond Teaching Methods: Educational Encounters in Need of a Theory.”Journal of Management Studies. (October), pp. 274–90.

  • White, R. K. and Lippitt, R. (1960).Autocracy and Democracy: An Experimental Inquiry. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA

    Henry C. Johnson Jr.

  2. Illinois State University, Illinois, USA

    Dent M. Rhodes & Robert E. Rumery

Authors
  1. Henry C. Johnson Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dent M. Rhodes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert E. Rumery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, H.C., Rhodes, D.M. & Rumery, R.E. The assessment of teaching in higher education: A critical retrospect and a proposal. High Educ 4, 173–199 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01569168

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01569168

Keywords

Search

Navigation