A study of the perceptions of Belmont University faculty about the evaluation of their teaching

This study was undertaken In order to investigate faculty attitudes toward student, administrative, peer and self-evaluation of their instruction by examining the attitudes of higher education faculty at one institution in which the four types of instructional evaluation were in use. The study sought to reveal their perceptions on each type and to compare their perceptions of how each type of evaluation was used versus how each evaluation type should be used in the ideal. The investigation involved a survey of 131 full-time instructors at Belmont University, Nashville, Tennessee, which had an evaluation system in place that encompassed the four most widely used types of evaluaton—student, administrative, peer and self-evaluations. None of the Belmont instructor population surveyed devoted more than one-third of their time to administrative duties. Ninety-two surveys were returned, 89 of which were usable, providing an overall response rate of 67.9 percent. Major findings of the study revealed that:

1. Belmont faculty were slightly more dissatisfied than satisfied with the way evaluation was conducted, citing inconsistency in execution of three of the four types of evaluation, and overemphasis on the fourth type, student evaluation. Dissatisfaction also stemmed from misgivings about the objectivity and reliability of student and peer evaluations. Nonetheless, Belmont faculty believed that all four types of evaluation should be conducted.

2. Belmont University faculty indicated that they were not certain if student, administrative and peer evaluation led to instructional improvement, doubted that student, administrative, peer and self-evaluations led to improved programs/majors, and questioned the efficacy of every type of evaluation in making administrative decisions save administrative evaluation.

3. Discrepancies existed between how Belmont faculty perceived evaluation was used versus how they believed it should be used, and in the perceived disposition of information gleaned from the four types of evaluation.

4. Most Belmont faculty responses were consistent with the extant literature, except in the perception that administrative evaluation was objective, in the perception that administrative evaluation would foster instructional improvement, and in the perception that peer evaluation was fair, objective, reliable, and effective in improving teaching, improving programs/majors and in making administrative decisions.