Lecturing Performance Appraisal Criteria: Staff and Student Differences

Abstract

T HE assessment of academic staff teaching performance is an area of considerable concern and debate. The questions revolve around what should be assessed and by whom. In this study. the ratings of academic staff and tertiary students in a new institution were compared on 21 criteria of lecturing. Analysis of variance demonstrated that the academics placed significantly greater importance than students on a range of performance criteria (e.g. non-sexist language. independent learning, challenging the world View).with the students placing greater importance on one criterion--pace of the presentation. Separate factor analyses of the ratings by staff and students demonstrated differences in the schematic models of these two groups. They agree that the criteria are important, but portray different pictures of the ways in which the criteria combine to produce the understanding of what is a good lecture.The findings of this study contribute to the questions on the assessment of academic staff performance. This study demonstrates that staff and students differ significantly in their interpretations of what is to be measured in the assessment of a good lecture. These findings raise questions regarding the use of student and staff ratings in performance appraisal.Since the late 1980s, there has been a movement within Australian higher education towards a formal system of academic staff appraisal. The then Education Minister, John Dawkins (1988), set out in his policy statement on higher education a requirement of tertiary institutions to initiate systematic procedures for summative staff appraisal to facilitate the rewarding of excellence, assist decision making about tenure and promotion, and ensure accountability of academic staff

Students’ likes and dislikes regarding student-activating and lecture-based educational settings: Consequences for students’ perceptions of the learning environment, student learning and performance

“…Given the current results, a complementary vision of activating teaching methods and lectures tends to be appropriate and effective, as advocated by the results of the present study, or as suggested by the findings of Chisholm, Dehoney, and Poirier (1996), Michel (2001), Richardson and Birge (1995), and Woo and Kimmick (2000). In fact, from the students' perspective, the active nature of the teaching methods is not the primary feature that constitutes good teaching, but rather the criteria: pace of instruction and clarity (Fisher, Alder, & Avasalu, 1998). Interestingly, another often observed routine to explain negative results of the promising constructivist theory and its applications is to attribute these results to students' adaptation difficulties in the transition from traditional lectures to activating, independent learning/teaching settings (Novak, Shah, Candidate, Wilson, Lawson, & Salzman, 2006;Salamonson & Lantz, 2005;Vermetten, Vermunt, & Lodewijks, 2002).…”

“…These were 'build skills of self-learning', 'promote student interest in independent learning' and 'create an atmosphere for discussion'. These differences in perceptions of staff and students are mirrored by Fisher, Alder, and Avasalu (1998), Liow, Betts, and Kok Leong Lit (1993) and Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse (1999) and could cause unexpected learning outcomes for students. Delucchi's (2000) results suggest that students who rate their instructor high in likeability reward that instructor with high ratings in overall teaching ability.…”

Beyond Student Evaluation of Teaching: Identifying and addressing academic staff development needs

“…Another possible interpretation is that students and staff hold quite different understandings of what good teaching is, with staff focusing on challenging students and developing independent learners, while students focus on more immediate or instrumental concerns about instruction (Fisher et al, 1998). Similarly, Clarke (1998) concluded that students' perceptions of what helps or hinders their learning are more congruent with a transmission model of teaching than a constructivist model and Crawford (1992) interpreted staff and students' different ways of understanding according to Perry's (1970) levels of intellectual and ethical development.…”

“…Similarly, Clarke (1998) concluded that students' perceptions of what helps or hinders their learning are more congruent with a transmission model of teaching than a constructivist model and Crawford (1992) interpreted staff and students' different ways of understanding according to Perry's (1970) levels of intellectual and ethical development. Fisher et al (1998) suggest that these differences may be due to the different roles played by each group-students as consumers and staff as providers of education, their experience in higher education, or their perceptions of the purpose and goals of higher education.…”

The Learning Experience of Students in Middlesex University Business School (MUBS): Why do they enjoy some modules/lectures and dislike others?

“…Furthermore, if Saroyan and Snell's framework is somewhat teacher-centred, Fisher et al (1998) provide a more balanced treatment. Twenty-one lecturing criteria were used as shown below (Note: the criteria are reorganised by the author into four aspects):…”