Literaturnachweis - Detailanzeige
| Autor/inn/en | Huynh, Cam-Loi; Hladkyj, Steve |
|---|---|
| Titel | Opinions of Administrators and Faculty on the Purposes, Control and Process of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Pilot Study. |
| Quelle | (2000), (58 Seiten)
PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei |
| Sprache | englisch |
| Dokumenttyp | gedruckt; online; Monographie |
| Schlagwörter | Accountability; Administrator Attitudes; College Faculty; Educational Quality; Educational Researchers; Evaluation Methods; Foreign Countries; Higher Education; Performance Based Assessment; Tables (Data); Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Evaluation; Canada |
| Abstract | This study investigated the opinions of college faculty and administrators regarding the purpose, control, and process of performance evaluation, hypothesizing that job orientations and expectations would influence their opinions--that administrators would favor an economic model emphasizing authoritative and quantitative measures; teachers would favor an information model emphasizing networking relationships; and researchers would favor a hybrid approach. Questionnaires sent to three Canadian universities and completed by administrators, professors, instructors, and researchers yielded 116 usable replies. The questionnaire's 54 items focused on: purposes of performance evaluation; control and process of performance evaluation; standards; validity of performance indicators; overall opinions on the issues of purposes, control, and process, as well as satisfaction with existing performance evaluation systems; and demographics. Results indicated that job orientation and expectations of respondents influenced their views on purposes, control sources, and implementation procedures of performance evaluation. Administrators favored an economic model; teachers favored an information model; and researchers favored a hybrid approach. Respondents believed evaluation should be annual for nontenured faculty and every two to three years for tenured faculty. There was substantial agreement among respondents about the appropriate list of performance indicators. Data tables and diagrams of rank-ordered means are appended. (Contains 19 references.) (SM) |
| Erfasst von | ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC |
Literaturbeschaffung und Bestandsnachweise in Bibliotheken prüfen
Permalink als QR-Code
Inhalt auf sozialen Plattformen teilen (nur vorhanden, wenn Javascript eingeschaltet ist)
Teile diese Seite:
