The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation

Millman, Jason; Darling‐Hammond, Linda

doi:10.4135/9781412986250

Cited by 68 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Por lo tanto, los resultados de la evaluación serían inútiles, así como los juicios que de ella se deriven. Millman (1981), refiriéndose a lo anterior, destaca que si el instrumento no ha sido adecuadamente construido con la ayuda de profesionales, la fiabilidad será muy baja. De igual forma, Craton y Smith (1990), concluyen que un instrumento bien desarrollado y procesado, puede brindar una fiabilidad interna muy alta.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Fiabilidad y validez en la evaluación docente universitaria

Álvarez¹,

Miranda²

2011

Act. Inv. en Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La revista está indexada en los directorios: LATINDEX, REDALYC, IRESIE, CLASE, DIALNET, DOAJ, E-REVIST@S, La revista está incluida en los sitios: REDIE, RINACE, OEI, MAESTROTECA, PREAL, HUASCARAN, CLASCO INTRODUCCIONLa universidad, como institución de enseñanza superior, asume un carácter complejo al tratar de buscar el equilibrio entre la investigación, la acción social y la docencia. Esta última es, quizá, la más compleja y la más debatida, porque es un elemento fundamental en el quehacer académico, al constituirse en el área de impacto social responsable de entregar, a

show abstract

Section: Discussionunclassified

Fiabilidad y validez en la evaluación docente universitaria

Álvarez¹,

Miranda²

2011

Act. Inv. en Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The finding of differential use of trait and behavior information in relation to the purpose of appraisal raises some concern about evaluation of teaching at the school level. Educators advocate that teacher evaluation ought to serve summative and formative functions at the same time (Darling-Hammond, Wise, & Peace, 1983;Millman, 1981), although the procedures of evaluation for one purpose seem inappropriate for the other (Denham, 1987). If, as the results show, information is utilized in relation to the purpose of appraisal, then from the perspective of human cognition as well appraisal for both summative and formative purpose at once may be difficult to perform.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information utilization in performance rating: Interactive effects of purpose and cue dimensionality

Kishor

1989

J Pers Eval Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students in higher education are increasingly required to provide evaluations on their instructors (Dunkin & Barnes, 1986;Marsh, 1984). Instructors may be evaluated for the purposes of feedback to the instructor or for tenure and promotion decisions. However, much controversy surrounds the reliability and validity of student evaluations of teaching (Centra, 1979), and there exist many problems in rating performance (Cooper, 1981). A current approach to attack problems in performance evaluation is to understand raters' cognition, and several information processing models of performance judgment have been derived from theories and research in cognitive and social cognitive psychology (Cooper, 1981; DeNisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984;Ilgen & Feldman, 1983;Landy & Farr, 1980). A variable commonly speculated to influence raters' cognition in these theoretical perspectives is the purpose of appraisal.Earlier studies reviewed by Landy and Farr (1980) indicated that the purpose of performance evaluation operates as a motivational variable, mainly because ratings required for administrative decisions were significantly less lenient than ratings done for other purposes. However, it is postulated that appraisal purpose may have effects beyond rater motivation. The purpose for which an appraisal is conducted may cue raters to search for, and utilize, certain types of information, thus serving a cognitive function (DeNisi et al., 1984;Ilgen & Feldman, 1983;Landy & Farr, 1980).One of the first studies revealing a cognitive effect of appraisal purpose on rating judgments was conducted by Zedeck and Cascio (1982). These researchers found that appraisal purpose affected how raters used information when they evaluated the performance of grocery cashiers. The group evaluating for merit pay raises weighted "skill in human relations" most heavily; the groups evaluating for development and retention purposes relied equally on "organizational ability and bagging skill." On the other hand, a weak effect of appraisal purpose on ratings was reported by McIntyre, Smith, and Hassett (1984). A sample of undergraduates rated videotaped lectures acted by drama students. Ratings on teaching effectiveness were required for I would like to thank Marshall Arlin for his critical review of the manuscript.

show abstract

“…Ces questionnaires, s'ils sont bien élaborés, peuvent effectivement devenir une source d'information nécessaire, mais pas forcément suffisante pour porter un jugement sur la qualité de la prestation des professeurs et des chargés de cours en classe. Par ailleurs, d'autres moyens, tels un questionnaire d'analyse du matériel d'enseignement, une grille d'observation en classe et le dossier de l'enseignement ou portfolio, peuvent être utilisés afin de compléter l'information fournie par les étudiants (Bernard, 1992;Seldin, 1991Seldin, , 1993French-Lazovik, 1981 ;Millman, 1981).…”

Section: Moyens D'évaluationunclassified

Les paradoxes de l'évaluation de l'enseignement universitaire

Bernard

Postiaux

Salcin

2002

rse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cet article tente d'approcher la complexité des processus d'évaluation de l'enseignement tels qu'ils sont vécus et ressentis dans les universités québécoises. Par une méthodologie à la fois quantitative et qualitative sont ici dégagées les grandes tendances de réponses d'une population de chargés de cours et de professeurs au sujet des buts, des moyens, des sources et des modalités de l'évaluation de l'enseignement. Les sujets s'entendent, sans distinction majeure de statut, sur les moyens et les modalités d'évaluation. En revanche, le profil de l'évaluateur idéal semble difficile à cerner. Les autrices relèvent de nombreux paradoxes dans les réponses des sujets interrogés, reflet probable de la complexité d'une question qui reste sensible dans le monde universitaire.This article attempts to investigate the complexity of the teaching evaluation process as experienced in Quebec universities. The authors use both a quantitative and a qualitative methodology to examine the major types of responses given by a population of lecturers and professors as related to objectives, means, sources, and modalities of evaluation of teaching. The findings suggest that the subjects, regardless of status, are in agreement as to the means and modalities of evaluation. However, the profile of the ideal evaluator is difficult to describe. Generally, the authors note a paradox in the responses of subjects interviewed. This is probably the reflection of the complexity of a question that is rather delicate in the university milieu.Este artículo trata de abordar la complejidad de los procesos de evaluación de la enseñanza, tales como ellos son vividos y sentidos en las universidades quebequenses. Utilizando una metodología a la vez cuantitativa y cualitativa, el presente estudio pone en relieve las grandes tendencias de las respuestas dadas por una muestra de profesores asistentes y de profesores regulares respecto de los objetivos, medios, fuentes y modalidades de la evaluación de la enseñanza. Se destaca en el estudio que los sujetos concuerdan, sin distinción mayor en lo que hace a su estatus institucional, sobre los medios y las modalidades de la evaluación. Sin embargo, el rol de la evaluación ideal parece difícil de definir. En forma general, los autores ponen en evidencia muchas paradojas en las respuestas de los encuestados, reflejo quizás de la complejidad de un sujeto delicado dentro del mundo universitario.Dieser Artikel bemüht sich um eine Bestandsaufnahme der sehr komplexen Beurteilungsmechanismen für Lehrveranstaltungen, wie sie an den verschiedenen Universitäten Québecs vorgefunden werden. Die sowohl quantitativ als auch qualitativ orientierte Methodik hat die gegenwärtigen Antwort-tendenzen freigelegt, die sich aus der Befragung der Kursbeauftragten und Professoren über Ziele, Mittel, Ressourcen und Modalitäte...

show abstract

The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation

Cited by 68 publications

References 0 publications

Fiabilidad y validez en la evaluación docente universitaria

Fiabilidad y validez en la evaluación docente universitaria

Information utilization in performance rating: Interactive effects of purpose and cue dimensionality

Les paradoxes de l'évaluation de l'enseignement universitaire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About