Abstract
This paper presents a case study of implementation of a new system of faculty teaching evaluation at a graduate school of business in Thailand. The research employed a non-experimental, longitudinal case study design in the analysis of student course evaluation data gathered over a period of 21 terms during a seven-year period. The report describes the design of the performance and reward system and its role in the college’s quality improvement program. Quantitative data analysis focused on results related to both instructor performance and faculty turnover. The data suggest statistically significant improvement in levels of instructor effectiveness and faculty turnover in the college over the seven-year period. While the research is subject to the contextual limitations of case studies, it also demonstrates the possibilities and problems of employing performance and reward in higher education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In subsequent years a Thai language M.M. program serving about 600 students was opened at a separate campus, as well as a Ph.D. program on the campus of the international program.
It was anticipated that in future years government universities would be moved out of the traditional funding and governance structure. Therefore, the administration saw the opening of the GSB as an opportunity for the university to gain experience managing the institution outside the government system.
The author was initially a consultant hired to conduct the quality audit. Subsequently, s/he assumed the roles of Executive Director and Chief Academic Officer of the GSB during the seven-year period of this study.
For example, a faculty member who left the college due to her husband’s job relocation was not counted as turnover for the purposes of this analysis which sought to highlight team solidarity.
For the baseline term (i.e., January 2001), data on the number of students was missing from the CEQ data set.
Actually, the true baseline would have been the second semester of 2000 before any of the new quality initiatives had been put into place. However, the college was so disorganized at that point that the academic office could not even manage to distribute the printed CEQs to classes.
The GSB Director referred to here succeeded the founding Director who was forced to resign in 2003. The first Director supported the quality improvement effort up to a point, and then played a passive role, neither supporting nor directly opposing it. His successor gave unequivocal support to the implementation of the strategies described in this report.
References
Aleamoni, L. (1999). Student ratings myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(2), 153–166.
Altbach, P., & Umakoshi, T. (2004). Asian universities: Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Arreola, R. A. (1984). Evaluation of faculty performance: Key issues. In P. Seldin (Ed.), Changing practices in faculty evaluation: A critical assessment and recommendations for improvement (pp. 79–85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1999). Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.
Bridges, E. (1986). The incompetent teacher: The challenge and the response. Philadelphia: Falmer.
Creswell, J. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Greenwald, A. G., & Gilmore, G. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1209–1217.
GSB. (2000). Academic quality audit report. Unpublished report presented to the Board of Trustees. Bangkok, Thailand: School of Business.
Hallinger, P., & Bridges, E. (2007). Preparing managers for action. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hallinger, P., & Lu, J. (In press). Implementing problem-based learning in higher education in Asia: Challenges, strategies and effects. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management.
Harrison, P. D., Ryan, J. M., & Moore, P. (1996). College students’ self-insight and common implicit theories of rating of teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 775–782.
Heck, R. H., Thomas, S. L., & Tabata, L. N. (2010). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS. New York: Routledge Academic.
Holmes, H., & Tangtongtavy, S. (1996). Working with Thais: A guide to managing in Thailand. Bangkok: White Lotus.
Jones, D. A. (2009, Dec. 18). Teacher evaluation. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved online July 30, 2010 from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Teacher-Evaluations/19400/.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lawler, J. (2008). Strategic human resource management. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lyon, P., & Hendry, G. (2002). The use of the course experience questionnaire as monitoring evaluation tool in a problem-based medical programme. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), 339–352.
Marsh, H. W. (1981). The use of path analysis to estimate teacher and course effects on student ratings of instrument effectiveness. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 47–60.
McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student ratings: the validity of use. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1218–1225.
McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited. Educational Researcher, 5, 11–16.
Meyer, J., Scott, R., & Deal, T. (1983). Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure: Explaining the structure of educational organizations. In J. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Rituals and rationality (pp. 45–67). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Park, S. H., & Luo, Y. (2001). Guanxi and organizational dynamics: organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 455–477.
Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (1995). Taking teaching seriously: Meeting the challenge of instructional improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED396615).
Redmond, M. (1994, Jan. 9). The unselfishness of not being there. The Nation.
Rifkin, T. (1995). The status and scope of faculty evaluation. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED385315).
Scriven, M. (1988). The validity of student ratings. Instructional Evaluation, 92(2), 5–18.
Scriven, M. (1995). Student ratings offer useful input to teacher evaluations. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED39824).
Seldin, P., & Angelo, T. A. (1997). Assessing and evaluating faculty: When will we ever learn? (To use what we know). Proceedings of the AAHE 1997 Conference on Assessment and Quality Assessing Impact: Evidence and Action.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Walker, A., Bridges, E., & Chan, B. (1996). Wisdom gained, wisdom given: Instituting PBL in a Chinese culture. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 12–31.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Assistant Professor Lu Jiafang and Research Assistant Li Fang in conducting the data analysis for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hallinger, P. Using faculty evaluation to improve teaching quality: A longitudinal case study of higher education in Southeast Asia. Educ Asse Eval Acc 22, 253–274 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9108-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9108-9