Student Accountability for Objective Evaluations of Faculty

ABSTRACT Student Evaluation of Faculty (SEF) is an important component of the US educational system and an indispensable tool to keep track of the faculty’s role to make the institution’s academic practice more engaging, objective and effective. SEF also allows institutions to assess faculty performance, future career stability, advancement and promotion. Unfortunately, SEFs generally exempt students from any responsibility in their own academic outcome. The article presents an analysis of a study based on a modified version of the current SEF form utilised by the Bronx Community College. This modified form includes questions about a student’s responsibilities, to measure their accountability making the evaluation more objective using a descriptive research design method. Results confirmed that students must play an active part in the process by assuming their own responsibilities of regularly and timely attending class, increasing study time, utilising the resources of tutoring, faculty office hours, and extended recitation to improve their own outcome and produce a valid faculty evaluation.

Students Evaluation of Faculty

This study aimed to investigate how students evaluate their faculty and the effect of gender, expected grade, and college on students’ evaluation. The study sample consisted of 5291 students from Tafila Technical University Faculty evaluation scale was used to collect data. The results indicated that student evaluation of faculty was high (mean = 4.14, S.D. = 0.79) and there were statistically significant differences in students’ evaluation attributed to students’ gender, college and expected grade in the course.

Technology and Teacher Education

This study explored one primary question: To what extent do student perceptions of various forms of instructional technology tools predict instructional quality? Participants for the study were drawn from a teacher education program in a large Midwest public university. Data were collected using a web-based survey with a total of 121 responses used in the final analysis. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well Productivity Tools, Presentation Tools, Communication Tools, and World Wide Web Tools predict Student Evaluation of Faculty Instructional Quality. The overall significant results of the regression model and the subsequent significant results of the t-test for Presentation Tools and Productivity Tools is an indication that Presentation and Productivity tools can be used by faculty to facilitate student and faculty interaction, promote cooperation among students, promote active learning techniques, give prompt feedback, emphasize time on task, communicate high expectation and respect diverse talents and ways of learning.

Shared Expectations: Identifying Similarities And Differences Between Student And Faculty Teaching Values Based On Student Evaluation Of Faculty Classroom Performance

New faculty have an inordinate amount of resources, financial and other, invested in their doctoral degrees. Yet, the first few years can be overwhelming adapting to the plethora of academic life demands. One area of concern that all new faculty deal with is attempting to decode the various stakeholder groups (i.e., students, colleagues, personnel committee, administration, community and industry members, respective profession colleagues) expectations of the new faculty member and reconciling those with their own personal goals and aspirations. Knowing what each group considers important and highlighting similarities or differences allows new faculty to address stakeholder expectations to better position themselves for a successful and fulfilling career.This paper derives from a study that looked at the two groups (i.e., students and department colleagues) expectations who most closely affect the daily life of the new faculty member. Study respondents were ask to identify which teaching dimension each group valued most from a list of thirteen questions used by students in evaluating faculty members classroom performance. Students and faculty members concurred in their clear preference for the instructor knowing the material being presented and the instructor explaining the material in a clear and understandable manner, but differed in their view of the least important teaching dimension depicting a faculty members classroom performance. The faculty members surveyed concurred with the student ranking that the instructor increasing the students interest in the subject matter was the second least important teaching dimension depicting a faculty members classroom performance. This teaching dimension was only superceded by the faculty ranking that the amount of work required being appropriate for the number of credits offered and the student ranking that the instructor stimulating questions was the least important teaching dimension depicting a faculty members classroom performance.

Technology and Teacher Education

This study explored one primary question: To what extent do student perceptions of various forms of instructional technology tools predict instructional quality? Participants for the study were drawn from a teacher education program in a large Midwest public university. Data were collected using a web-based survey with a total of 121 responses used in the final analysis. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well Productivity Tools, Presentation Tools, Communication Tools, and World Wide Web Tools predict Student Evaluation of Faculty Instructional Quality. The overall significant results of the regression model and the subsequent significant results of the t-test for Presentation Tools and Productivity Tools is an indication that Presentation and Productivity tools can be used by faculty to facilitate student and faculty interaction, promote cooperation among students, promote active learning techniques, give prompt feedback, emphasize time on task, communicate high expectation and respect diverse talents and ways of learning.