The Practical Utility of Measures of College Environments

Baird, Leonard L.

doi:10.3102/00346543044003307

Cited by 25 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Academic executives who do not require student ratings for evaluations of individual professors in the personnel process, but are concerned with the students' perceptions of the institution, may have the students react to the college scene as a whole (Baird, 1972). Questionnaires and rating scales concerning the total educational environment permit the student to react to the university experience and rate the quality of instruction, grading, advising, library and bookstore facilities, administrative procedure, campus climate, and other university services.…”

Section: Evaluation Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student evaluations and the university professor: Caveat professor

Cruse

1987

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research evaluating student ratingsofprofessorsrevealscontinuedcontroversy. Interpretations of student ratings of professors in terms of face validity are marred by halo affects, the apparent inability of even skilled raters to judge complex behaviors adequately, the salience of personality features in judging tasks, and a host of other variables. Research shows student ratings to be reliable, but design flaws for simple, first order, predictions usually omit the teacher as a cause. Interpretations of research are confusing because of justifications that indiscriminately involve nomological and applied models. Rating scale peculiarities, questionable validity, and scholastic homogeneity lead to diverse professional attitudes towards student opinions of professors, with a learner or consumer emphasis occupying the extremes. Several evaluation schemes are noted along with behaviors that tend to produce favorable student opinions.Interest in students evaluating professors in order to improve teaching has a long history and began early in American education (Boyce, 1915). The idea is based on the belief that students, because of their exposure to professors, should know best whether teaching is adequate and whether they are learning.The implementation of the idea is simplicity itself. A set of questions is constructed, questions that refer to the professor's clarity of speech, organization, involvement in student learning, presentation of different viewpoints, fairness in grading, work assignments, and other characteristics. The students are given these questions near the end of the semester, but before the final examination, and they anonymously rate the professor. The ratings are then analysed, related to some performance index, and the professor is, ipso facto, evaluated.The program is so simple, straightforward, and appealing that rating techniques have been developed and used at a number of colleges and universities (Centra, 1979). The ratings are used in selecting professors for salary increases, promotions, and tenure, and are sometimes published for the benefit of the students in course selection. Although student ratings are only one part of evaluation programs and separate fromchairperson evaluations, faculty peer ratings, informal student opinions, and other traditional methods of evaluations, they deserve special attention because of their widespread use and possible misinterpretatio m After three-quarters of a century, controversy still exists over interpretations and use of student ratings (Cohen, 1983;Dowell and Neal, 1983;Dunkin and Barnes, 1986;Murray, 1980). Diversity of opinion ranges from "Teacher evalu-

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student evaluations and the university professor: Caveat professor

Cruse

1987

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The research to date has generally been limited by a tendency to focus on the examination of environments by level but not across levels (Baird, 1974). The WEPS affords the researcher an opportunity not only to compare educational environments, but also to look a t the same environment from a variety of perspectives.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The public schools as a work environment

McIntire

Drummond

1975

Psychol. Schs.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

KP:OGH, B. K. and BI,:CKI.;IZ, L. D. 1I;arly detection of learning problems: Questions, cautions, and P~~A S L I N G , J. and STICRN, G. ICffect of the observer in t,he classroom. Journal of Educalioi~al Psy-P~ICCARTHY, J. M. and P,\n.\sKiworour,os, J. I3ehavior @terns of learning disabled, emotionally PIMM, J. B., QU.ZY, H. C. and W I~I~Y , J. S. Iliniensions of problem behavior in first grade children. SILBICRMAN, M. Behavioral expression of t,eachers' attihdes toward elementary students. Journal SPIVACK, G. and SWIFT, M. The classroom behavior of children: A critical review of teacher-admini-SPIVACK, G., SWIFT, M. and PRI(;\Z.ITT, J. Syndromes of disturbed classroom behavior: A behavioral Journal of Special Educatioti, 1971, 5, 269-292. VAN DIC G I S I~, J. P. ZiLlroductioti to nmllivariate a~~l y s i s .for the social sciences. San Francisco: W. H. 1tefleet.ion-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. o j Ahnormat Ps~cho~ogy, 1966, 72, 17-24. guidelines. chologq, 1969, 60, 351-354. disturbed, and average children. Esceplioml Childretr, 1969, 36, 69-74. Psychology i t i the Schools, 1966, Q, 153-157.This st,udy examined the percept.ions of elementary and secondary school teachers, and school board members, of the school as a work environment. The Work Ihvironment Preferences Scale, an instrument based on Weber's components of bureaucratic organizations, was administered to all the teachers and board members of a small Maine school district. Board members, then secondary t,eachers, preferred bureaucratic organization and principles. Implications for education are discussed.Increasing attention is being given by psychologists and educators to the influences of the educational environment on students and to methods of describing this environment and assessing its impact.The environment has a t least two major components: (a), the physical structure imposed on students by spatial arrangements of the building, the room, and the decor; and (b), the authority structure or relationships within and between students, faculty, and administration. The recent interest in open education, fanned by the work of Silberman (1970), is typical of recurring interest in the physical environment. In terms of the authority structure, much less public concern exists; however, educators have long demonstrated an awareness and interest in this variable. Weber (1947) was among the first to point out the bureaucratic organization of the schools and Dreeben (1973) provided an excellent review of subsequent consideration of both of these components. Trickett and Moos (1973) recently reviewed the research on assessment of environment and described the influence of the environment on human behavior and the importance of the interaction of the person and the environment in accounting for a significant amount of behavioral variance. They feel that much more research and knowledge is Requests for reprints should be sent to Walter G. McIntire, School of Human Development, Orono, Maine 04473.

show abstract

“…While model of Murray (1938), this position has made a strong impact. The data base for this theory was developed mainly within the context of studying the college environment (Astin, 1963a(Astin, , 1963bBaird, 1974;stern, 1960, 1963a). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Big school, small school: impact of the high school environment

Grabe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Practical Utility of Measures of College Environments

Cited by 25 publications

References 43 publications

Student evaluations and the university professor: Caveat professor

Student evaluations and the university professor: Caveat professor

The public schools as a work environment

Big school, small school: impact of the high school environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About