Research in Higher Education

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 377–413 | Cite as

The department-wide approach to improving faculty instruction in higher education: A qualitative evaluation

  • Nira Hativa


This study applies qualitative methods to evaluate a model for the improvement of university teaching. According to this model, a departmental instruction specialist comprehensively treats issues concerning the quality of instruction within the department. This specialist gets to personally know all faculty members in need of teaching improvement and initiates preventive measures prior to the development of severe problems in instruction. Two years of implementation in the Physics Department at Tel Aviv University have shown an increase in quality of instruction and in faculty motivation and attitudes toward both instruction and students, suggesting that this approach has potential for department-wide teaching improvement. This article illustrates the complexities of the processes underlying teaching improvement, the longitudinal effort required to comprehensively improve instruction, and the reasons for failure and success in these efforts.


High Education Faculty Member Preventive Measure Instruction Specialist Qualitative Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrami, P. C., and d'Apollonia, S. (1990). The dimensionality of ratings and their use in personnel decisions. In M. Theall and J. Franklin (eds.),New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 43: Student Rating of Instruction: Issues for Improving Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Aleamoni, L. M. (1978). The usefulness of student evaluations in improving college teaching. Instructional Science 7: 95–105.Google Scholar
  3. Aleamoni, L. M. (1990). Faculty development research in colleges, universities, and professional schools: The challenge.Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 3: 193–195.Google Scholar
  4. Berman, P., Intilli, J-A., and Weiler, D. (1987).Exploring Faculty Development in California Higher Education. California Postsecondary Education Commission.Google Scholar
  5. Brickner, R., and Chacharn, E. (1992). What does it take to survive? Organizational factors affecting long term continuation of a complex instructional innovation. In Bashi and Sarr (eds.),School and Improvement. Jerusalem: Van Lir Institute Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Cashin, W. E. (1990) Students do rate different academic fields differently. In M. Theall and J. Franklin (eds.),Student Ratings of Instruction: Issues for Improving Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Cashin, W. E. and Downey, R. G. (1992). Using global student rating items for summative evaluation.Journal of Educational Psychology 84(4), 563–572.Google Scholar
  8. Centra, J. A. (1976).Faculty Development Practices in U.S. Colleges and Universities. PR-76-30. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  9. Centra, J. A. (1978). Faculty development at higher education.Teacher's College Record 80: 188–201.Google Scholar
  10. Centra, J. A. (1986, April).New Directions for Research on Student Ratings of Instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: A meta-analysis of findings.Research in Higher Education 13: 321–341.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies.Review of Educational Research 51: 281–309.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, P. A. (1990). Bringing research into practice. In M. Theall and Franklin (eds.), Student Ratings of Instruction: Issues for Improving Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Denzin, N. K. (1978).The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Dunkin, M. J., and Barnes, J. (1986). Research on teaching in higher education. In M. C. Wittrock (ed.),Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd edition). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, pp. 754–777.Google Scholar
  16. Elton, L. (1987).Teaching in Higher Education: Appraisal and Training. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  17. Erickson, G. R., and Erickson, B. L. (1979). Improving college teaching: An evaluation of a teaching consultation procedure.Journal of Higher Education 50: 670–683.Google Scholar
  18. Feldman, K. A. (1976). The superior college teacher from the students' view.Research in Higher Education 5: 243–288.Google Scholar
  19. Feldman, K. A. (1978). Course characteristics and college students' ratings of their teachers: What we know and what we don't.Research in Higher Education 9: 199–242.Google Scholar
  20. Feldman, K. A. (1988). Effective college teaching from the students' and faculty's view: Matched or mismatched priorities?Research in Higher Education 28: 291–344.Google Scholar
  21. Footlick, J. K., Wingert, J., and Leonard, E. A. (1990). Decade of the student.Newsweek 116(24), December 10, pp. 50–51.Google Scholar
  22. Fullan, M. F. (1982).The Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  23. Glaser, E. M., and Backer, T. E. (1972). A clinical approach to program evaluation.Evaluation (Fall), pp. 54–60.Google Scholar
  24. Hativa, N. (1983). What makes mathematics lessons easy to follow, understand, and remember.The College Mathematics Journal 14: 398–406.Google Scholar
  25. Hativa, N. (1984). Good teaching of mathematics as perceived by undergraduate students.International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology 15: 605–615.Google Scholar
  26. Hativa, N. (1985). A study of the organization and clarity of mathematics lessons.International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology 16: 89–99.Google Scholar
  27. Hativa, N. (1986). Training teachers in the use of effective strategies via the videotape and the microcomputer.International Journal of Instructional Media 13: 35–47.Google Scholar
  28. Hativa, N. (1993a). Attitudes towards instruction of faculty in mathematics and the physical sciences: Discipline- and situation-specific teaching patterns.International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 24(4): 579–593.Google Scholar
  29. Hativa, N. (1993b). Student ratings A non-comparative interpretation.Instructional Evaluation and Faculty Development 13(2): 1–4.Google Scholar
  30. Hativa, N., and Raviv, A. (1993). Using a single score for summative teacher evaluation by students.Research in Higher Education 34(5): 625–646.Google Scholar
  31. Klein, M. (1977).Why the Professors Can't Teach? Mathematics and the Dilemma of University Education. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lewis, K. G. (1988). Individual consultation: Its importance to faculty development programs. In E. C. Wadsworth (ed.),Professional and Organizational Development in Higher Education. A Handbook for New Practitioners. The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, Inc., pp. 75–80.Google Scholar
  33. L'Hommedieu, R., Menges, R. J., and Brinko, K. T. (1988).The Effects of Student Ratings Feedback to College Teachers: A Meta-analysis and Review of Research. Evanston, IL: Center for the Teaching Professions, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  34. Marsh, H. W. (1984). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility.Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 707–754.Google Scholar
  35. Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research.International Journal of Educational Research 11: 253–388.Google Scholar
  36. Marsh, H. W., and Roche, L. (1993). The use of students' evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness.American Educational Research Journal 30: 217–251.Google Scholar
  37. McKeachie, W. (1987). Can evaluating instruction improve teaching?New Directions for Teaching and Learning 31: 3–7.Google Scholar
  38. McKeachie, W. (1990, April).Research on College Teaching: The Historical Background. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.Google Scholar
  39. Melnik, M. A., and Sheehan, D. S. (1976). Clinical supervision elements: The clinic to improve university teaching.Journal of Research and Development in Education 9(2): 67–76.Google Scholar
  40. Morrison, D. E. (1993, April).Exploring the Practice of Instructional Consultation Through a Typology of Programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  41. Moses, I. (1986). Using organisational theory in the promotion of evaluation—a case study.Higher Education 15: 619–639.Google Scholar
  42. Ory, J., and Parker, S. (1989). A survey, of assessment activities at large research universities.Research in Higher Education 30: 373–383.Google Scholar
  43. Patton, M. Q. (1980).Qualitative Evaluation Methods. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Payne, D. A., and Hobbs, A. M. (1979). The effects of college course evaluation feedback on instructor and student perceptions of instructional climate and effectiveness.Higher Education 8: 525–533.Google Scholar
  45. Saroyan, A., and Donald, J. D. (1992, April).Assessing the Quality of Teaching in Canadian Universities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  46. Seldin, P. (1989). How colleges evaluate professors.AHHE Bulletin 41: 3–7.Google Scholar
  47. Showers, B., Joyce, B., and Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis.Educational Leadership 45(3): 77–87.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, G. (1992). Responsibility for staff development.Studies in Higher Education 17: 27–41.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, M. L. (1987). Publishing qualitative research.American Educational Research Journal 24: 173–183.Google Scholar
  50. Stanford Observer (1991). Teaching initiative gets teeth.Stanford Observer, Mar.–April, pp. 1, 8.Google Scholar
  51. Stein, M. K., and Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement.Teaching and Teacher Education 4: 171–187.Google Scholar
  52. Stevens, J. J., and Aleamoni, L. M. (1985). The use of evaluative feedback for instructional improvement: A longitudinal perspective.Instructional Science 13: 285–304.Google Scholar
  53. Theall, M., and Franklin, J. (1991). Using student ratings for teaching improvement. In M. Theall and J. Franklin (eds.),Effective Practices for Improving Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 48, pp. 83–98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  54. Vest, C. M. (1991, November).A Letter to MIT Graduates. Boston: MIT.Google Scholar
  55. Willis, G. (1978).Qualitative Evaluation: Concepts and Cases in Curriculum Criticism. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  56. Wilson, R. C. (1986). Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants.Journal of Higher Education 57(2): 196–211.Google Scholar
  57. Wright, D. L. (1988). Program types and prototypes. In E. C. Wadsworth (ed.),Professional and Organizational Development in Higher Education. A Handbook for New Practitioners, pp. 13–17. The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. Stillwater OK: New Forums Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nira Hativa
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations