Abstract
The purpose of the study was to investigate faculty perceptions of student evaluative information collected by three methods: objective questionnaire items, open-ended questions, and group interviews. Faculty rated three simulated evaluation reports on their potential for accuracy, trustworthiness, usefulness, comprehensiveness, believability, interpretability, and value as information used for self-improvement and promotion purposes. Faculty, in general, regarded the evaluative information to be more credible, useful, and accurate for their own self-improvement than for promotion purposes. Faculty also desired more than one type of evaluative information regardless of the purpose of evaluation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References notes
Cohen, P. A. A meta-analysis of the relationship between student ratings of instruction and student achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979.
Illinois Course Evaluation System: Its rationale and description (ICES Newsletter No. 2). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Measurement and Research Division, Office of Instructional Resources, August 1977. (Mimeo)
Thompson, P., Brown, R. D., & Fergason, J. The impact of evaluation report styles on evaluation audiences. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April, 1979.
References
Brandenburg, D. C., Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. Considerations for an evaluation program of instructional quality,CEDR 1980,12 8–12.
Braskamp, L. A., Caulley, D. & Costin, F. Student ratings and instructor self-ratings and their relationship to student achievement.American Educational Research Journal 1979,16 295–306.
Braskamp, L. A., Ory, J. C. & Pieper, D. M. Student written comments: Dimensions of instructional quality.Journal of Educational Psychology, in press.
Brown, R. D., Braskamp, L. A. & Newman, D. L. Evaluator credibility and acceptance as a function of report styles: Do jargon and data make a difference?Evaluation Quarterly 1978,2 331–341.
Brown, R. D. & Newman, D. L. Perceived need for evaluation as an influence on evaluation's impact on decision making.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1980,2 67–70.
Centra, J. A. Determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.
Centra, J. A. How universities evaluate faculty performances: A survey of department heads (GREB No. 75-5 bc.) Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1977.
Doyle, K. O.,Student evaluation of instruction. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1975.
Feldman, K. A. Consistency and variability among college students in rating their teachers and courses: A review and analysis.Research in Higher Education 1977,6 223–274.
Ory, J. C., Braskamp, L. A. & Pieper, D. M. The congruency of student evaluative information collected by three methods.Journal of Educational Psychology 1980,72 181–185.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ory, J.C., Braskamp, L.A. Faculty perceptions of the quality and usefulness of three types of evaluative information. Res High Educ 15, 271–282 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00976421
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00976421