Staff Self‐Appraisal at the Departmental Level: A Case Study

Thompson, Harry; Deer, Christine E.; Fitzgerald, Julie; Kensell, Harry; Low, Brian; Porter, Robin

doi:10.1080/0729436900090104

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Teaching appraisal in higher education has used information from: (a) students, (b) colleagues, (c) expert/ trained raters, and (d) self-reports (Marsh, 1986;Moses, 1986;Thompson, Deer, Fitzgerald, Kensell, Low, & Porter, 1990). By far the most widely used method has been student appraisal (Cruse, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lecturing Performance Appraisal Criteria: Staff and Student Differences

Fisher

Alder

Avasalu

1998

Australian Journal of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These errors are considered to have the potential to adversely affect the value of self-ratings. However, self-appraisal is considered to be less problematic when used by individuals to predict their future performance for developmental purposes (Campbell & Lee, 1988, Thompson et al, 1990) rather than assessing their past performances.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lecturing Performance Appraisal Criteria: Staff and Student Differences

Fisher

Alder

Avasalu

1998

Australian Journal of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The crucial point that needs to be stressed is that staff appraisal must be linked to staff development if it is to have positive organisational effects. This was certainly the view of the British Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers who recommend (Thompson, Deer, Fitzgerald, Hensell, Low, & Porter, 1990, p. 39):…”

Section: Appraisal Of Acadaic Staffmentioning

confidence: 97%

Teaching and Learning in the University: New Directions for Australian Higher Education

Kennedy

1995

Higher Education Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to outline recent changes to higher education in Australia and assess the implications of those changes for teaching and learning in universities. Three main changes have been identifgd:The meta-policy context that has transfmned a binaty system of higher education into a unified national system of universities. This has given nSe to the concept of the comprehensive university accompanied by an economic rationalist approach to the funding of higher education. Issues identifid are the relativities to be accorded to teaching and research in the new universities and the push for more efficient modes of teaching. Institutional changes that have influenced the traditional character of universities. These changes include the politicisation of Vice-Chancellors whose peak body is turw recognised by the government as the single voice of the university sector, the changing student composition of universities as a result of government policies relating to overseas students and students who have been traditiunally underpresented in universities and the introduction of academic staff appraisal. An assessment is made of this broad range of changes on teaching and learning. 3. Chaiging concep& of teaching are discussed with a particular emphasis on the work of Shulmun and its implications fot teaching in the university.

show abstract

Staff Self‐Appraisal at the Departmental Level: A Case Study

Cited by 2 publications

References 10 publications

Lecturing Performance Appraisal Criteria: Staff and Student Differences

Lecturing Performance Appraisal Criteria: Staff and Student Differences

Teaching and Learning in the University: New Directions for Australian Higher Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About