comparative study of faculty evaluation of teaching practice between chinese and u.s. institutions...
Post on 14-Apr-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 1/27
Front. Educ. China 2011, 6(2): 200–226
DOI 10.1007/s11516-011-0129-z
Received September 4, 2010
Qianyi CHEN ()
Office of Admissions and Financial Aid, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
E-mail: qic6@pitt.edu
John L. YEAGER School of Education, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
E-mail: jlyeager@pitt.edu
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER
Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching
Practice between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of
Higher Education
© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2011
Abstract Along with the “massification” of higher education in China since the
late 1990s, the issue of quality and excellence appeared at the top of China’s
higher education agenda. Since faculty evaluation of teaching is one of the major
approaches adopted by China’s higher education sector to pursue quality and
excellence, it is valuable to examine the effectiveness of faculty evaluation of
teaching practices adopted by the Chinese higher education institutions (HEIs).
Study of current literature reveals some similarities and differences between the
faculty evaluation of teaching policies and practices between Chinese and
American higher education sectors. This paper examines the specific practicesadopted by some top-tier Chinese HEIs and American elite colleges and
universities, summarizes and analyzes the major differences and similarities of
faculty evaluation of teaching practices between these two countries’ top-tier
HEIs, and discusses the applicability of the American models to the Chinese
setting of higher education. Finally, a set of best practices regarding faculty
evaluation of teaching are proposed for Chinese HEIs.
Keywords faculty evaluateon of teaching, Project 985 universities, student
ratings, peer evaluation, self-evaluation
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 2/27
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 3/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 202
available on institutional websites focusing on the practices and policies of
teaching evaluation in selected American and Chinese elite HEIs due to the
paucity of publicly available published information. Previous attempts to gather non-public information from many of these institutions through surveys had
provided low return rates. Therefore the authors believe that the websites of some
of the most respected institutions in their respective countries—although
incomplete in terms of information—would provide significant examples of best
practices followed by both countries. It is acknowledged that there exist other
exemplars of quality institutional instructional evaluation procedures for example
in America there are a number of types of institutions, public and private and
mission differentiated institutions such as research, comprehensive, and
community colleges.Following the examination of HEIs in these two countries is a comparison of
their evaluation of teaching practices based on information presented on the
website. Finally, based on available information, a set of best practices of
teaching evaluation is proposed.
The authors fully understand the limitations of the study but it is believed that
such an exploratory study is necessary in order to begin conversations focusing
on how to improve classroom instruction through an evaluation of faculty
instructional practices. The intent of this paper is to begin the development of a
baseline of multiple country specific studies that can serve as a framework for the systematic examination and development of effective instructional evaluation
processes, thereby eventually fostering the improvement of instructional quality.
Literature Review
A prerequisite to the construction of an effective teaching evaluation mechanism
is to understand what constitutes effective teaching. While there is not one single
list of agreed teaching qualities that has been developed to everyone’s
satisfaction, research studies dating from the early 20th century to the present
have arrived at a reasonably consistent set of findings about the characteristics of
good teaching (Seldin, 1999). Seldin (1997) itemized the characteristics of an
ideal effective teacher as follows:
• treats students with respect and caring;
• provides the relevance of information to be learned;
• uses active, hands-on student learning;
• varies his/her instructional modes;
• provides frequent feedback to students on their performance;
• offers real-world, practical examples;• draws inferences from models and uses analogies;
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 4/27
Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation 203
• provides clear expectations for assignments;
• creates a class environment which is comfortable for students;
• communicates at the level of his/her students;• presents himself/herself in class as “real people”;
• uses feedback from students and others to assess and improve his/her
teaching; and
• reflects on his/her own classroom performance in order to improve it.
In addition, Liu (2007) defined quality of teaching as measured by student
learning outcomes, the instructors’ understanding and mastery of the syllabi and
texts, instructors’ selection of the instructional content and pedagogy, and the
instructors’ communication with students. The quality of teaching in the higher
education context is not only decided by the instructor and his/her workingattitude, but also influenced by other factors such as the students’ backgrounds
and teaching context (Liu, 2007). In order to learn what policies and practices are
adopted by HEIs to measure teachers’ quality, Seldin (1998) conducted a
nation-wide survey in the U.S., which revealed several key sources of
information—students, the department chair, the academic dean, the professors’
self-evaluation, the evaluation committee, and colleagues. The study also
demonstrated that indicators such as alumni opinions, grade distribution,
long-term follow up of students, student examination performance, and
enrollment in elective courses were not as frequently used.
Based on Seldin’s (1999) findings and the information obtained from a review
of Chinese higher education literature, faculty evaluation of teaching can be
divided into three areas: student ratings; evaluation by peers, academic
administrators, and experts; and faculty self-evaluation. Within each area, the
pros and cons of these practices are discussed. Some literature regards student
evaluations as the most influential measure of teaching evaluation (Chen &
Hoshower, 2003; Kwan, 1999). However, teaching portfolios are becoming
increasingly common in higher education (Buckridge, 2008). There is evidence
that the use of peer evaluation practices has started to increase in the past decade
(Osborne, 1998).
Student Rating of Teaching
Although student rating of teaching effectiveness remains the most important and
frequently used measure, some scholars question and discuss its appropriateness
in terms of validity and reliability (Chen & Hoshower, 2003). Regardless of these
concerns, many institutions have adopted and used student evaluations of
teaching with little evidence that the instrument actually measures or contributes
to teaching quality (Braskamp, Brandenburgh, Kohen, Ory, & Mayberry, 1984).
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 5/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 204
Marsh and Roche (1993) identified four common uses of student evaluation of
teaching effectiveness:
• provide formative feedback to faculty for improving teaching;• provide formative feedback to faculty for improving course format and
content;
• influence the professor’s tenure, promotion and salary increases; and
• make student evaluation results available for other students to use in the
selection of courses and faculty.
However, the last function is a subject of some controversy. While it has not
been adopted by a large number of institutions, teaching evaluation outcomes are
publicly available in many public institutions, where student organizations
routinely request these data be disseminated to the student body. An extensivenumber of studies have investigated the reliability and validity of student ratings
with mixed findings (Chen & Hoshower, 2003).
Further critics of student ratings worry that students do not have sufficient
background or information to judge all aspects of faculty performance or course
contents (Chen & Hoshower, 2003; Cashin, 1983; Centra, 1993).
In addition, debates continue over the potential influence of students’ personal
ties with the instructor. If the instructor has developed good relationships with
the students outside the class, students tend to give him/her a high rating
regardless of the instructor’s teaching effectiveness.
Overall, the literature supports the view that student evaluation of faculty is
appropriate, and that properly designed student ratings can be a valuable source
of information for evaluating certain aspects of faculty teaching performance
(Cohen, 1981; Marsh, 1984). Students are regarded as the clients and consumers
of the educational services; therefore, they have the eligibility and right to
evaluate the quality of teaching and should become a major part of evaluation
process (Nie & Xu, 2006). A major advantage of involving students is the
extensive amount of available data that is made available, which can assist in
developing quantitative evaluations. In addition, involving students in the
teaching evaluation process can motivate students to engage in learning activities
(Xu, 2006). Some research findings (Broder & Dorfman, 1994) suggest that
about 81% of the explained variation in teacher ratings was associated with
attributes that contribute to student enjoyment of the learning process; while in
other studies over 90% of the explained variation in course ratings was
associated with attributes that measure how much a student learned in the course.
These results indicate that student evaluations reflect the amount learned in an
instructor’s section rather than, for example, the instructor’s ability to entertain.
Below is a list of research-based guidelines for improving the validity of student
ratings (Cornell University Teaching Evaluation Handbook , 2008):
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 6/27
Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation 205
• Response format should be clear and consistent;
• Students should remain anonymous;
• Students should be given adequate time to complete the questionnaire;• Students should not be allowed to discuss their ratings while they are
being administered;
• Questionnaires should be administered during the last four weeks of
semester (but not the last day and not during or after an exam);
• Someone other than the one being evaluated should administer the
questionnaire, or at the very least, the one being evaluated should leave
the room;
• A student should collect the questionnaires and mail them to an
independent office for scoring;• 80% minimum attendance of the student population in a course is
necessary on the day an evaluation is administered;
• Do not use a numeric questionnaire in courses with fewer than 10
students (use open-ended, written response items instead).
Chen and Hoshower (2003) deem quality student participation as an essential
antecedent of the success of student evaluations of teaching effectiveness.
Therefore, it is desirable to study how to solicit students’ participation and
valuable inputs. Chen and Hoshower’s investigation shows that if students are
kept ignorant of the use of teaching evaluations, if teaching evaluations are usedfor purposes that students do not value, or if they see no visible results from their
participatory efforts, they will cease to give meaningful input. In addition,
discussions about quality student participation also have focused on whether or
not all students should evaluate their instructors. Some argue that only the
high-performing students should participate, while others suggest the exclusion
of frequent absentees who are unlikely to take the evaluation seriously (Nie &
Xu, 2006). However, students who are frequently absent may represent a special
sample of students, possibly reflecting poor academic achievement or motivation.
Current practice seems to encourage the participation of all students in the rating process.
A recent trend has been for HEIs to move student evaluation of teaching to an
online process. Two major advantages of online student evaluation of teaching
include faster turn-around time to provide feedback to the instructor and
assurance of anonymity of student identity. A major concern of online systems is
the potential for lower response rates (Cornell University Teaching Evaluation
Handbook , 2008).
Instructor Self-Evaluation
Instructor self-evaluation was found to be adopted by many colleges and
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 7/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 206
universities for both formative and summative purposes (Seldin, 1999).
Self-evaluation has its proponents as well as critics.
Arreola (1995) sees self-evaluation as a valuable part of a program of continuous assessment. Seldin (1998) agrees that a good searching and reflective
self-evaluation can be the precursor of improved performance because it
increases commitment to institutional goals. Other advocates of self-evaluation
argue that other rating forms such as student ratings, evaluation by peers, the
department chair or academic dean pose external pressure on faculty members;
while the external pressure could push faculty to reach the prescribed level of
performance, it would hardly motivate them to excel (Nie & Xu, 2006; Xu, 2006).
Based on the concept of developmental evaluation, self-evaluation is considered
as an appropriate and effective mechanism to encourage faculty to internalize the
need for development and to seek improvement (Gu & Tian, 2008; Liu, 2007;
Nie & Xu, 2006). These proponents suggest that faculty should play a key role in
the evaluation of their own teaching as they are critical players in the
teaching-learning process.
On the other hand, dissenters argue that self-evaluations are not a meaningful
measure of teaching performance because similar to other procedures they lack
validity and objectivity (Centra, 1993). Nie and Xu (2006) were concerned about
faculty’s objectivity when reporting to administrators. Despite these concerns,
self-evaluation is widely popular as a component in the assessment of teaching
performance. There is considerable recognition that faculty members can and do
produce not only insights into their own course and instructional objectives but
also solid clues about their classroom teaching competency (Seldin, 1999).
Studies have revealed some interesting findings about faculty’s self-evaluation:
Student and faculty self-evaluations provide a similar profile of instructor
strengths and weaknesses (Feldman, 1989). Superior teachers tend to be more
accurate in their self-evaluations than mediocre or poor teachers (Centra, 1993;
Barber, 1990). Differing from Centra’s and Barber’s finding, Feldman (1989)
concluded that self-evaluation appears not to be distorted by teacher
characteristics such as age, sex, tenure status, teaching load, or number of years
of teaching experience.
One of the most frequently used methods for self-evaluation is the teaching
portfolio. The teaching portfolio is not a new concept in the field of education.
For decades, institutions have included some type of teacher self-report or
extended resume as a basis for personnel decisions. Today, the teaching portfolio
is increasingly used for both formative/developmental and summative purposes
(Buckridge, 2008; Centra, 1993).
Edgerton, Hutchings, and Quinlan (1991) identified three domains that college
professors could include in a portfolio.
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 8/27
Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation 207
• Course planning and preparation, presented by such work samples as
course syllabi and lecture notes.
• Actual classroom instruction as represented, for example, by video tapesand colleague or student comments based on class observations.
• Evaluation and student feedback, such as the teacher’s comments on a
graded essay assignment.
Many scholars doubt the feasibility and effectiveness of using a portfolio to
serve the dual purposes of formative and summative evaluations, while others
have conducted investigations which have indicated the possibility of integrating
both purposes (De Rijdt, Tiguet, Dochy, & Devolder, 2006). Other scholars
strongly advocate using a portfolio only for developmental/informative purpose
(Klenowski, Askew, & Carnell, 2006). It is important that portfolio evaluations
correlate with valid measures of teaching effectiveness.
Some literature suggests that institutions should be cautious when using this
measure for different purposes. Summative evaluation deserves special attention
given the vital decisions it supports, such as tenure and promotion. Centra (1993)
investigated the possibilities and pitfalls of using portfolios for summative
evaluations, and found significant variation between different raters when doing
portfolio evaluations for the same faculty member. Compare to other raters such
as the dean and peers appointed by the dean, peers selected by the individual
faculty member under review are the most lenient in their evaluation. Another
study of peer evaluation in which peers judged each other also produced very
high peer evaluations. This is probably due to the personal ties between the
evaluator and the individual being evaluated. It could also be out of the concern
that the peers themselves could potentially be evaluated in the future. Centra
(1993) suggests that when the portfolio is used for summative decisions, it is
reasonable to ask teachers to provide only positive examples of their
effectiveness; however, when used for formative purposes, reflections of one’s
weakness would be less threatening to an individual and could be useful indeveloping improvement activities.
According to Seldin (1999), other measures of self-evaluation include faculty
activity sheets, videotape recordings, discussions about teaching effectiveness,
and comparing self-rating with student ratings. Activity sheets are faculty’s
self-report. But this measure is said to lack credentials for personnel decisions.
Watching videotape recordings can help teachers bring out important but
forgotten details, thus bringing teaching strengths and weaknesses into sharper
focus. Having faculty discuss teaching effectiveness, confront cherished
assumptions, values, and attitudes could change their personal makeup, andcould improve performance (Seldin, 1999).
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 9/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 208
Evaluation by Peers, Academic Administrators and Experts
In the past decades, criticism arose that summative evaluation rarely providessufficient information for faculty to improve teaching (Keig & Waggoner, 1994).
In response to this criticism, some scholars suggested collaborative efforts among
faculty members to assess each others’ teaching and to assist one another in
efforts to strengthen teaching. These suggestions have—to a limited
extent—been adopted, and collaborative peer evaluation processes have been
designed and implemented across institutions. However, there have been
extensive discussions about the pros and cons of peer evaluation.
Centra (1987) advocated institutions to adopt peer evaluation in addition to
student and administrator evaluation, and encouraged the use of qualitative procedures. In addition, he stated the desirability of providing training to
observers as an important part of the peer evaluation process.
Shaughnessy (1994) described peer evaluation as a mentoring relationship,
where the punitive elements in an evaluation process were replaced by
supportive elements. He also identified another crucial area for examination: the
discrepancy between the results of evaluation by a peer and that by students.
Although peer evaluation of teaching has been increasingly adopted by HEIs,
there are still debates about its appropriateness. Many faculty value the belief
that teaching is subjective and personal. In fact, the “private” environment and
freedom of classroom teaching is one of the major factors that attract people of
talent to the profession. Besides, considering the considerable weight attributed
to professional activities in many HEIs, peer evaluation of teaching is often given
a low priority. Additionally, class observation by peers is a time-consuming
process and institutions need to verify that the process is able to effectively serve
its intended purposes.
According to the literature, in Chinese HEIs, experts are invited from outside
the institution to partake in the faculty evaluation process. Expert evaluation is
considered to be a very objective and rigorous mechanism because of experts’
mastery of the course attributes, teaching objectives, pedagogical approaches,
and philosophy about education (Xu, 2006).
Academic administrators are another major group of participants in the
teaching evaluation process. Since they are responsible for planning and
implementing faculty development programs, it is necessary for them to have an
understanding of the classroom situation, to receive feedback from both
instructors and students, and to understand the requests and concerns of
instructors and students. When necessary, the academic administrators must play
a role in assisting communication between faculty and students (Xu, 2006).
In most Chinese institutions, faculty evaluation is implemented by institutional
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 10/27
Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation 209
administrators who are charged with the total evaluation process including
collecting and analyzing data and interpreting results (Nie & Xu, 2006).
Unfortunately, administrators rarely provide feedback to faculty members in atimely manner, nor do they communicate with faculty or discuss with them about
the outcomes of the evaluation (Liu, 2007). In addition, the responsible
administrators’ lack of expertise in categorizing and analyzing data renders the
interpretation a formalistic procedure and diminishes the benefits of the whole
process (Nie & Xu, 2006). Research indicated a positive influence of providing
feedback on teaching evaluation outcomes in stimulating faculty to continuously
reflect on and make adjustment to their instructional activities (Gu & Tian, 2008).
Providing feedback and having discussion on the outcome also create an
opportunity for faculty to communicate their concerns over not only the teachingenvironment, but also the evaluation process. From an administrative standpoint,
communicating with faculty about the evaluation feedback can facilitate
administrators’ understanding of faculty’s concerns, goals, and expectations, and
their efforts to coordinate faculty’s individual goals with institutional or
academic unit missions. Therefore, in order to maximize the value of teaching
evaluation, it is suggested that administrators provide timely feedback to faculty
and attentively listen to the faculty’s voice (Gu & Tian, 2008).
Many similarities as well as differences are identified in the literature of both
countries. While they share the same concern for the students’ ability to give fair and objective judgment, both countries give considerable weight to student rating
of faculty teaching. The American literature also provides considerable
discussion on the pros and cons of using an online student evaluation system.
However, this issue is not among the focuses of Chinese literature. Teaching
portfolio or self-reporting seems to be a well established practice of teaching
evaluation in America. In Chinese HEIs, however, involvement of faculty in the
teaching evaluation process is not as common as in the American sector.
Another major difference between the two countries’ literature is that Chinese
literature addresses inviting experts from outside the institutions as an importantgroup of evaluators, a practice is largely absent from the American literature.
Finally, interpretation and utilization of evaluation outcomes are another major
concern according to the Chinese literature, indicating that the Chinese HEIs
have not worked out an effective way to interpret the collected data and connect
the outcomes back to instructional activities.
Study Method
Based on findings from the literature, this study examines how several top-tier
Chinese and American HEIs are conducting teaching evaluation. Five questions
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 11/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 210
guided the examination of these institutions’ teaching evaluation policies and
practices:
• What major forms of faculty evaluation of teaching are employed (e.g.,student evaluation, peer evaluation, self-report)?
• What are the purposes that teaching evaluation serves (e.g., formative,
summative purpose)?
• Are departments and/or disciplines within one university different or
consistent in terms of the criteria, standards and instrument of faculty
evaluation of teaching?
• How do faculty and administrators communicate and use evaluation
outcomes?
• Do these universities employ practices of faculty evaluation of teachingthat are commonly shared among their peers; do they employ practices
which are unique to themselves? What are the common and unique
practices?
Data Collection and Analysis
It is necessary to identify the top-tier institutions before studying the faculty
evaluation of teaching adopted by these institutions. While it is relatively easy to
identify the 39 Chinese Project 985 institutions as the top-tier universities on the
Chinese side, the issue becomes more complicated when it comes to classifying
American universities, as there is no single set of authoritative report issued by a
U.S. governmental body to rank the overall performance of American colleges
and universities. Simply using “Ivy League” institutions as the target on the
American side does not seem plausible for this research, because this would
create a large gap in terms of the number of institutions in the two groups. For
the purpose of this research The World University Rankings 2010–2011 issued
by The Times Higher Education Supplement of London is used to identify
top-tier American universities. The authors believe this is a reasonable resource
because this report claims to be aiming at creating a genuinely useful tool for the
global higher education community and beyond. Thirteen separate indicators
used in this report range from teaching, research, and citation to industry income
and international mix (The World University Rankings, 2010–2011). Secondary
data of institutional teaching evaluation policies and practices were collected
from the target institutions’ websites. Ideally, the teaching evaluation practice
and policies from all of the 39 Chinese Project 985 universities and all the top 39
American universities according to the World University Rankings should be
collected and analyzed. However, due to lack of accessibility of someinstitutions’ data, only the practices available on institutional website were
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 12/27
Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation 211
included in this study. The available data are reviewed, and their key items
identified. Practices commonly shared among 985 institutions and top-ranked
American universities and those unique to either system or individual institutionsare categorized and summarized. Finally, practices unique to the top American
institutions will be further discussed in terms of their applicability to the setting
of Chinese top-tier institutions.
Teaching Evaluation Policies and Practices in American Elite HEIs
A total number of eight institutions were selected from the US News and World
Report 2010’s list of America’s best 39 national universities for examination:
Brown University, Duke University, Cornell University, Harvard University,Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), University of Pennsylvania,
University of Chicago, and Yale University. Sources of institutional information
included their institutional faculty handbook, handbook of academic
administration, introduction of teaching evaluation procedures and other publicly
available materials. As indicated earlier, five questions regarding the purpose of
teaching evaluation, major forms, criteria and standard setting, outcome
communication and application are addressed. Examination of these institutions’
published policies reveals several shared practices.
Purposes of Teaching Evaluation
Almost all the eight investigated institutions clearly stated that teaching
evaluation serves summative purposes such as faculty appointments,
reappointment, promotion, tenure, and salary adjustment ( Brown Handbook of
Academic Administration, 2009; Cornell University Teaching Evaluation
Handbook , 2008; Duke University Faculty Handbook , 2009; Handbook for
Faculty and Academic Administrators, 2010; Information for Faculty Offering
Instruction in Arts and Sciences, 2009; Instructor’s Online Tutorial , 2010; MIT Online Subject Evaluation, 2010; Subject Evaluation Policy and Procedures,
2010; University of Chicago Committee ion the Criteria of Academic
Appointment , 1972). However, a few also mentioned using teaching evaluation
for formative purposes such as improving instruction, providing feedback to
students, and assigning instructors to development programs. Specifically,
student evaluation is more frequently used than other forms of teaching
evaluation for formative purposes. Yale maintained that student evaluation serves
to “assist instructors in improving their courses and their teaching as well as to
improve education in Yale College in general” (Yale University Faculty
Handbook , 2002). Since most of these elite universities are large research
institutions which hire teaching assistants and instructional support staff to teach
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 13/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 212
undergraduate courses, another major purpose of student evaluation of teaching
is to provide feedback and assistance to these employees, many of whom are in
their initial years of teaching. In addition, several institutions made the studentevaluation results available to all students in order to help students in course
selection.
Forms of Teaching Evaluation
Most of the examined American institutions use two major forms of teaching
evaluation: student evaluation and peer evaluation. While course evaluation by
students is adopted by all of the investigated institutions, they take different
avenues to implement student evaluations. Some institutions distribute courseteaching evaluation forms to students in class ( Duke University Faculty
Handbook , 2009); others have built a comprehensive online evaluation system
where not only students, but also administrators and peer faculty can submit their
evaluation forms, and/or receive feedback ( Information for Faculty Offering
Instruction in Arts and Sciences 2009–2010, 2009; Yale University Faculty
Handbook , 2002). Apart from evaluation by current students, the University of
Pennsylvania also regards former students’ opinion as an essential input for
identifying good teaching ( Handbook for Faculty and Academic Administrators,
2010).Another major form of teaching evaluation adopted by these institutions is
peer evaluation, which is achieved mainly via class observation by peers. For
classroom inspection, Brown University specifically requires the classroom
reviewer to be a senior faculty member. Penn’s institutional policy demands
some type of peer evaluation for the purpose of appointment and promotion,
although it does not specify what types of peer evaluation are acceptable or
expected. Further examination is needed to study peer evaluation practices
adopted by schools and departments.
Setting of Criteria, Standards, and Instruments
The examination of institutional websites reveals that while most institutions
allow some autonomy for schools, departments, and disciplines to set criteria and
standards for teaching evaluation conducted in their organizational units, they
also vary in the degree of control over the general guidelines for the evaluation
process, and consistency of evaluation practices among different academic units.
At Brown University, senior faculty members are responsible for setting
criteria and standards, and preparing instruments for their own departments.
Once the criteria and standards are set, they cannot be altered without approval
by the Dean of Faculty. However, weighting of different components of teaching
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 14/27
Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation 213
evaluation can be occasionally changed by the departments. Cornell
University—in an effort to encourage consistency in the evaluation of
teaching—developed and published a teaching evaluation handbook. Thehandbook indicates that consistency does not imply that every college or
discipline must carry out teaching evaluations in the same way or use the same
criteria. Instead, the consistency issue is meant to encourage that teaching is
valued to the same degree across the institution, and that the value of teaching is
evident in the manner in which it is evaluated. MIT is another example which
combines institutional consistency with school/department autonomy. It implies
that a universal form of student evaluation should be used across the institution,
but instructors can have the option of asking additional specific questions of their
students. While it has built one single online system of evaluation for the wholeinstitution, the departments are allowed to add department-specific and
instructor-specific questions to the online system. At the University of Chicago, a
sample questionnaire for student evaluation of teaching is provided by the
institution for reference. However, individual faculty members have the
autonomy to design their own questionnaire.
Communication and Use of Evaluation Outcome
Among the examined institutions, the communication and use of evaluationoutcome is an issue that shares some degree of similarity as well as variations. In
most cases, the institutions require a timely communication mechanism where
different stakeholders are able to access and utilize the evaluation outcome. For
instance, most institutions make the evaluation outcome—or at least part of the
outcome—available to students for them to use in the course selection process.
Another common policy entails that instructors are not to have access to the
student evaluation outcome until all grades for the course have been submitted.
Institutions differ in terms of whether they provide the opportunity for
instructors to rebut or comment on the results of the evaluation, to whichstakeholders the results are reported, or how the information flows through the
organization.
At Brown University, department chairs are required to review the results of
each individual instructor in his/her department, and provide annual review
letters for individual instructors. Instructors are given reasonable opportunities to
review, rebut or comment on their own evaluation outcomes. At Duke University,
the Dean instead of the department chair annually reviews each instructor’s
results, and reports to the Provost. Similar to Brown, Duke also gives faculty
members the opportunity to comment on the student evaluation of their courses.
At Harvard University, when final grades are submitted, summary statistics and
written comments can be electronically accessed by the instructors, teaching
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 15/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 214
fellows, and teaching assistants (TAs). Evaluation results are also available to the
department chair and the committee offering the course (which usually consists
of the principal instructor and his/her TA). In addition, instructors whoseevaluation results raise concerns can be notified and urged to seek advice on how
to improve. If an instructor is notified for the second time about concerns over
his/her teaching, he/she will be prohibited from further teaching. At MIT, the
student evaluation forms are collected and returned to the departments where
they are made available for review by instructors, department heads, and other
officers, and in some cases, students.
Table 1 summarizes the shared and unique practices identified in these
investigated American elite institutions.
Table 1 Summary of Practices in Selected American Elite HEIs
Indicator Common practices Unique practices
Forms of
evaluation• Student evaluation via
questionnaire
• Classroom visitation by peers
• Formal students’ opinion
• Interview selected students
• Classroom observation by
senior faculty only
Purposes of
evaluation• Summative purposes
• Formative purposes —
Setting of criteria,
standards &instrument (CSI)
• Academic units design their
own CSIs• Certain degree of consistency
across institution
• Senior faculty set dept.
process• Change of weighting &
criteria
• Use universal online form, butallow dept. autonomy
Com. & use of
evaluation
outcome
• Availability of studentevaluation outcome
• Time for instructors to view
student evaluation
• Dept. chair review all results& prepare annual review
letters
• Dean annually review all
results and report to provost
• Summary stats & commentsare e-accessible to instructors
• Instructors can rebut or comment on the results
Note: *CSI: setting of criteria, standards, and instrument.
Teaching Evaluation Policies and Practices in Chinese Top-Tier HEIs
There are more easily identifiable patterns among Chinese institutions than their
American counterparts. There should be no surprise at the consistency among
these institutions considering the highly centralized governance of the Chinese
public higher education system. Many of their administrative and management
policies are promulgated under the State framework MOE “ Notice of Improving
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 16/27
Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation 215
Teaching Quality in Order to Strengthen Undergraduate Teaching ” (2001).
Besides, considering the national program of undergraduate teaching evaluation
initiated by the Higher Education Evaluation Center (HEEC) under the ChineseMOE, these institutions are expected to conform to a sophisticated indicator
system for evaluation. This indicator system consists of seven first-level
indicators, 19 second-level indicators, and standards which correspond to each
second-level indicators (Jiang, 2010). It is possible that the institutions design
their own teaching evaluation process based on the State indicator system.
However, this study revealed a significant degree of difference in these
institutions’ teaching evaluation policies and practices.
Nine out of 39 institutions of higher education—all of which are Project 985
institutions—were selected for this study based on the availability of their information. They include Nanjing University, Sichuan University, Harbin
Institute of Technology, Minzu University of China, Beijing Institute of
Technology, Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Beijing Normal
University, East China Normal University, and Lanzhou University.
The general pattern identified in these Chinese institutions is outlined first,
followed by a description of the similarities and differences under each
indicator—forms, purposes, consistency and distinctions among disciplines, and
communication and use of outcomes.
General Pattern
Most of the Project 985 institutions examined for this study share a similar
framework for the faculty evaluation of teaching. They set evaluation committees
at different academic levels (i.e., department level, school level, and institutional
level). Some have both institutional and school evaluation committees, while
others include the department as a third level of evaluation (Beijing Institute of
Technology, 2003; Beijing Normal University Office of Teaching Affairs, 2009;
East China Normal University Office of Teaching Affairs, 2006; Harbin Instituteof Technology Office of Teaching Affairs; Lanzhou University Office of
Teaching Affairs, 1999; Minzu University of China Office of Teaching Affairs,
2007; Sichuan University Office of Teaching Affairs, 2003). The institutional
committee sets the general guidelines, criteria, and standards for teaching
evaluation, and the lower level committees implement the institutional policy in
their respective schools and/or departments. In most of these institutions,
evaluation of teaching is integrated into a larger system which aims at inspecting
and controlling the quality of education. Another distinguishing characteristic
shared by some of the examined institutions is the absence of fixed overall
guidelines for teaching evaluation. Instead, they make an announcement each
term, in which they specify the processes of teaching evaluation. While the
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 17/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 216
general framework stays unchanged, some minor changes are observed among
different terms, such as the number of hours required for education inspectors to
observe classes.
Purpose of Teaching Evaluation
In general, teaching evaluation serves two major purposes in the investigated
institutions—summative and formative. Some institutional policies specifically
indicate that the evaluation results from experts and/or educational inspectors
will be used as essential references for appointment and promotional decisions.
Others explicitly regard results from student evaluations as important references
for developmental purposes. Specifically, they stipulate that those instructorswhose courses raise concerns among students will be notified about the concerns
and will be assisted to improve their teaching. If such concerns are raised for two
consecutive years, he/she will be dismissed from teaching activities. On the other
hand, if a course continuously gets an “A” from student evaluations for four
years, the course will be exempt from evaluation for two years. Another purpose
served by peer and educational inspector evaluation is to evaluate the courses
that compete for teaching awards.
Forms of Teaching Evaluation
The most common forms of teaching evaluation include student evaluation,
expert evaluation, educational inspector evaluation, peer evaluation, and
evaluation by school administrative leaders. Student evaluation is usually
conducted towards the end of each term, and in the form of survey questionnaires.
A majority of the investigated institutions use a single online system for student
evaluation of teaching. In order to obtain a high student response rate, almost
all—with few exceptions—set completing online student evaluation as the
prerequisite for students to view their grades for the current term and selectcourses for the following term. In China, a substantial proportion of college and
university students do not have their own personal computer or laptop, and
computer lab resources are very limited compared to the overall student
population. In order to make it convenient for students, universities have taken a
number of steps. For example, Minzu University of China has the computer lab
staff arrange a schedule for students from different units to use the lab and
complete online evaluations. In Beijing Normal University, the campus computer
lab provides free access to students during the student evaluation period. Several
institutions have implied in their policy that students must complete the
evaluation of all the instructors who teach them courses at one time. Once the
evaluation is completed and submitted, students cannot go back to make any
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 18/27
Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation 217
changes. Some institutions adopt other forms of student evaluation apart from an
online questionnaire. For instance, Nanjing University requires each class to
establish a student evaluation committee, which serves to bridge thecommunication gap between students, instructors, and administrators. Northwest
Agriculture and Forestry University established a Student Informant System, in
which student informants are elected by school administrators on an annual basis.
Student informants are responsible for the timely reporting of issues regarding
teaching quality and learning to the Office of the Teaching Affairs.
Another major and critical category is evaluation by experts, educational
inspectors, institutional and school administrative leaders and/or peers.
Evaluation by these participants is achieved mainly through classroom visitation.
Usually, they have two levels of educational inspectors or experts—institutionaland school level. Inspectors and experts at the institutional level are appointed by
the Provost (Head of the Office of Teaching Affairs) or Vice Chancellor, while
those at the school level are appointed by the dean. In most cases, experts are
appointed from outside the institutions, and educational inspectors are retired
faculty members who have abundant teaching experience and are influential in
their fields. The experts and inspectors are expected to observe classes, complete
class observation forms, and communicate with students and instructors either
before or immediately after class about the course. Educational inspectors are
also expected to conduct research on state regulations and policies, and to carry
out research on higher education assessment and educational reform.
Administrative leaders are assigned tasks of class observation on weekly,
monthly or an annual basis. These tasks vary according to their level of
administration. This initiative intends to encourage and demonstrate
administrators’ commitment to instructional activities.
Self-evaluation by instructors is not a common practice among Chinese
institutions. However, a few have adopted this practice. For instance, in Sichuan
University, self-evaluation is given a substantial weight in the evaluation process.
In Beijing Normal University, all instructors are required to complete an online
self-evaluation.
Setting of Criteria, Standards, and Instrument
This study reveals a high level of consistency of evaluation criteria and standards
among different disciplinary fields. In most institutions, one single set of
teaching evaluation policies designed by the Office of the Teaching Affairs is
used for all courses and instructors across the institution. However, there are
several exceptions. In Harbin Institute of Technology and Minzu University of
China, while the forms of student evaluation and expert/inspector/peer evaluation
are designed by the Office of the Teaching Affairs, they gave respect to different
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 19/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 218
instructional functions; namely, they have separate forms with different criteria
and standards for theoretical courses, physical education courses, foreign
language courses, and arts courses. Similarly, Lanzhou University sets differentcriteria for physical education courses, lab courses, and lectures. This university
also makes an effort to distinguish between the roles of students, instructors and
experts by designing different evaluation forms for each group. Beijing Institute
of Technology expect each school to prepare their own teaching evaluation plan
at the beginning of each term, and submit the plan to the Office of the Teaching
Affairs. Schools are allowed to shift their focus of teaching evaluation by making
changes to the criteria and standards.
Communication and Use of Evaluation Outcome
Most of the teaching evaluation policies in these Chinese universities specifically
addressed the requirement for providing feedback, and using and communicating
the evaluation results. Almost all of them stressed the importance of timely
feedback and communication. A common practice is to require the school
evaluation committees and institutional evaluation committee to compile data,
provide feedback to individuals, and report to the Office of the Teaching Affairs.
The Office of the Teaching Affairs prepares a summarized report, and publishes
the final report to the institution in the beginning of the following semester.Usually, the evaluation results are reported at the form of a letter grade, which
includes A (Excellent), B (Good), C (Passed), and D (Failed). As mentioned
earlier, if an instructor is notified for two consecutive years, he/she will be
dismissed from teaching activities. On the other hand, if a course instructor
continuously gets an “A” from student evaluations for four years, the course will
be exempt from evaluation for two years. According to the policy of Sichuan
University, instructors who get an “A” on their evaluation will be rewarded,
although the types of awards were not specified. In addition, some institutions
adopt unique practices in terms of communication of evaluation results. InBeijing Normal University, during the evaluation period, which is at the end of
each semester, instructors were allowed to have access to the data of student
evaluations as well as the data of their self-evaluation. This practice implies that
instructors can view student comments before the final exam is administered and
final grades are submitted. In order to encourage timely communication,
Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University built various channels for
information collection and feedback, such as regular meeting of administrative
coordination, Provost hotline, and student-instructor forum.
Table 2 summarizes the unique and common practices identified in the
selected Project 985 institutions.
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 20/27
Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation 219
Table 2 Summary of Practices in Selected Project 985 Institutions
Indicator Common practices Unique practices
Forms of
evaluation• Online student evaluation system
• Classroom observation by experts,educational inspectors &
administrative leaders
• Each class establishesstudent evaluation
committee
• Student informant system
• Instructor self-evaluation
Purposes of
evaluation• Summative purposes
• Formative purposes
• Evaluation of courses which contest
for awards
—
Setting of
criteria,
standards &instruments
(CSI)
• One single set of CSI designed by the
dean of faculty is applied across the
institution
• The dean of faculty
designs different CSIs for
different disciplines• Schools prepare their own
evaluation plans
Com. & use of
Evaluation• Schools provide feedback to
instructors & report to the dean of
faculty
• The dean of faculty summarizereports & publish the summary
• Instructors have onlineaccess to evaluation data
• Establish multiplechannels to encourage
timely communication
• Gradually make results of
individual
courses/instructors
available to students
Note: *CSI: Setting of criteria, standards, and instruments.
Comparative Analysis and Discussion
After the examination of the teaching evaluation policies and practices in these
selected American and Chinese HEIs, some similarities and differences become
evident. Since Chinese HEIs and scholars have the tendency of, and will continue
applying foreign models—especially American models—to their own settings, it
is valuable to do a comparative analysis in order to discuss the applicability of
these American models, and possible adjustment of these models to better fit the
Chinese context. Table 3 provides a summary of the commonality and differences
between the practices identified in these two countries.
In general, there is a more identifiable pattern of teaching evaluation among
the Chinese HEIs than in the selected American institutions. This is due to the
lower degree of autonomy enjoyed by Chinese HEIs compared with their
American counterparts. While China’s central government and MOE have shown
some efforts to decentralize governance, Chinese public higher education is still
a rather unitary system largely influenced by State stipulations and policies. This
unity is reflected in the policies and practices of teaching evaluation in these
Chinese universities. The American institutions seem to base their practices on
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 21/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 220
best practice established through research and reported in the literature.
Therefore, it is no surprise that a number of common practices were identified
among the examined universities, such as requiring instructors to submit allgrades before viewing the results of student evaluations, allowing different
schools, departments, or even individual instructors to design their own
instruments, and publishing the evaluation results to students.
Table 3 Comparison between Chinese and U.S. Practices
Indicator American elite HEIs Chinese project 985 universities
Forms of
evaluation• Peer evaluation plays a major
role
•
Student participation is notcompulsory but encouraged
• Students have unlimited
access to online evaluation
system
• Expert/educational inspector
evaluation plays a major role
•
Student participation is compulsory• Students have one-time access to
online evaluation system
Purposes of
evaluation• Summative purpose
• Formative purpose
• Summative purpose
• Formative purpose
• Evaluation of courses which
compete for awards
Setting of
criteria,
standards &
instruments(CSI)
• Schools, depts., & instructors
can design their own CSIs
• The dean of faculty design CSIs
which apply to all academic units
Com. & use of
evaluation• Evaluation results of courses
& instructors are open tostudents
• Evaluation results of individual
courses & instructors are rarelyopen to students
• Dean of faculty summarize
evaluation results and publish the
summary
Note: *CSI: Setting of criteria, standards, and instruments.
There are several major differences between the two countries in terms of
forms of evaluation. While peer evaluation plays a major role in American HEIs,
it seems to be less important than expert/educational inspector evaluation in
Chinese institutions. The Chinese have a tradition for maintaining good
relationships between each other, especially between friends and colleagues.
They also tend to show high respect to people with seniority. Therefore, inviting
retired faculty and outside experts is probably a good substitute for peer
evaluation for the Chinese universities. However, such practice has its limit in
that retired faculty may not be up-to-date about technological, disciplinary and
pedagogical advancements. In this respect, they may not be as effective as the
younger peer instructors in evaluation. Besides, lack of peer evaluation, or avoidance of peers’ suggestions, comments and critiques do not facilitate the
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 22/27
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 23/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 222
evaluation forms for them. In many universities, a single set of criteria and
standards is used for all disciplines. While a high level of centralization is a
long-established feature of the Chinese governance, excessive centralization mayreduce teaching evaluations to simply formalism. It may be more desirable for
Chinese institutions to examine the American model with regard to criteria and
standards setting. More specifically, the institutions could on the one hand
require all schools and departments to use a universal set of criteria that includes
the basic and indispensible indicators, and allow academic units to add
complementary criteria based on their own disciplinary and organizational
features.
Conclusion
This study was designed to examine and compare the policies and practices of
teaching evaluation in American elite HEIs and Chinese top tier universities, and
propose a set of best practices for faculty evaluation of teaching. The study
reveals that although there are no national guidelines for American HEIs to
follow, they largely base their institutional policies and practices on
well-established research results and literature. Therefore, institutions share some
common practices. Compared to American institutions, Chinese universities have
a more identifiable pattern regarding teaching evaluations since they build their
institutional policies based on guidelines issued by the State Council or Ministry
of Education. Based on this investigation, comparison and analysis of the
teaching evaluation policies and practices in the HEIs in these two countries, the
following set of best practices are proposed:
• maintain the practice of expert/educational inspector evaluation on the
one hand, and reinforce the practice of peer evaluation at the same time;
• make the participation of student evaluation voluntary instead of
compulsory, provide incentives to those who participate, and pose
restrictions to those who do not.
• modify the online evaluation system to allow students more time to
complete the evaluation and provide more effective input;
• allow academic units to set their own criteria, standards and instrument
for teaching evaluation.
References
Arreola, R. A. (1995). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators on designing and operating a comprehensive faculty
evaluation system. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 24/27
Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation 223
Arreola, R. A. (2000). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. (2nd ed.).
Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
Barber, L. W. (1990). Self-assessment. In Millman, J. & Darling-Hammond L. (Eds.), The newhandbook of teacher evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Beijing Institute of Technology. (2003). 北京理工大学本科教学质量监控评价办法
[Procedures for Evaluation and Supervision of Undergraduate Teaching at Beijing Institute
of Technology]. Retrieved August 25, 2010 from http://www.bit.edu.cn/jyjx/bksjy/jxglwj/
418.htm
Beijing Normal University Office of Teaching Affairs. (2009). 关于展开2009-2010 学年第
一学期本科课堂教学质量网上评价工作的通知 [Notice about Implementing Online
Evaluation of Undergraduate Teaching for Fall 2010]. Retrieved August 25, 2010 from
http://jwc.bnu.edu.cn/jxzl/jxpg/28087.htm
Broder, J. M., & Dorfman, J. H. (1994). Determinants of teaching quality: What’s important to
students? Research in Higher Education, 35(2), 235–249.
Braskamp, L. A., Brandenburgh, D. C., Kohen, E., Ory, J. C., & Mayberry, P. W. (1984).
Evaluating teaching effectiveness: A practical guide. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Brown Handbook of Academic Administration. (2009). Retrieved August 28, 2010, from
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Provost/handbook/
Buckridge, M. (2008). Teaching portfolios: their role in teaching and learning policy.
International Journal for Academic Development , 13(2), 117–127.
Cashin, W. E. (1983). Concerns about using student ratings in community colleges. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 11(1), 57–65.
Centra, J. A. (1987). Formative and summative evaluation: Parody or paradox? New Directions
for Teaching and Learning , (31), 47–55.Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining
faculty effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Centra, J. A. (1994). The use of the teaching portfolio and student evaluations for summative
evaluation. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(5), 555–570.
Chen, Y. N., & Hoshower, L. B. (2003). Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: An
assessment of student perception and motivation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 2(1), 71–88.
Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of
multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51(3), 281–309. Retrieved
August 25, 2010, from http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/51/3/281.pdf Cornell University Teaching Evaluation Handbook . (8th ed.). (2008). Retrieved August 28,
2010, from http://www.cte.cornell.edu/resources/teh/teh.html
De Rijdt, C., Tiquet, E., Dochy, F., & Devolder, M. (2006). Teaching portfolios in higher
education and their effects: An explorative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8),
1084–1093.
Duke University Faculty Handbook. (2009). Retrieved August 28, 2010, from
http://www.provost.duke.edu/pdfs/fhb/FHB.pdf
East China Normal University Office of Teaching Affairs. (2006). 教学督导工作管理办法
[Policies for Teaching Evaluation Experts]. Retrieved on August 25, 2010 from
http://www.jwc.ecnu.edu.cn/site08/news/manage/news/news_show.asp?id=140
Edgerton, R., Hutchings, P., & Quinlan, K. (1991). The teaching portfolio: Capturing the
scholarship in teaching. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 25/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 224
Faculty Rules & Regulations. (2010). Version 8.0. Brown University. Retrieved August 28,
2010, from http://facgov.brown.edu/rules/FacultyRules.pdf
Feldman, K. A. (1989). Instructional effectiveness of college teachers as judged by themselves,current and former students, colleagues, administrators, and external observers. Research in
Higher Education, 30(2), 137–194.
Gao, S. P. (2009). Teaching evaluation of higher education institutions: Retrospect and
prospect. Chinese Education and Society, 42(2), 20–29.
Gu, C., & Tian, Y. (2008). 完善高校教师评价体系的思考 [Thoughts about improving the
mechanism of teaching evaluation in higher education institutions]. 当代教育论坛:教师教
育研究 [ Forum on Contemporary Education: Teacher Educational Research].
Handbook for Faculty and Academic Administrators: A Selection of Policies and Procedures
of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from http://www.upenn.edu/
assoc-provost/handbook
Harbin Institute of Technology Office of Teaching Affairs. 哈尔滨工业大学教务处教学质量
规章制度. [Regulations of Evaluation of Undergraduate Teaching at Harbin Institute of
Technology]. Retrieved on August 25, 2010 from http://jwc.hit.edu.cn/Jwc/ShowGZZD.
asp?ID=6
Information for Faculty Offering Instruction in Arts and Sciences 2009 – 2010. (2009).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Office of Registrar, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
Retrieved August 28, 2010, from http://webdocs.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/faculty_handbook/
current/faculty_handbook.pdf
Instructor’s Online Tutorial. The Center for Teaching & Learning. University of Chicago.
Retrieved August 26, 2010, from http://teaching.uchicago.edu/tutorial/index.html#assess.
Jiang, K. (2010). Chinese education of undergraduate teaching: Guest editor’s introduction.Chinese Education and Society, 42(2), 3–6.
Keig, L. W., & Waggoner, M. D. (1994). Collaborative peer review: The role of faculty in
improving college teaching (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 2). Washington,
DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for learning, assessment and
professional development in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 31(3), 267–286. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from http://web.ebscohost.com/
ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=8&sid=5bb17271-9362-4746-a5a0-08c106834b
77%40sessionmgr12
Kwan, K. P. (1999). How fair are student ratings in assessing the teaching performance of university teachers? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(2), 184–192.
Lanzhou University Office of Teaching Affairs. (1999). 兰州大学关于展开本科课程教学评
估的决定. [Decision about Implementing Evaluation of Undergraduate Teaching at
Lanzhou University]. Retrieved August 25, 2010 from http://jwc.lzu.edu.cn/2005/jwcfile.
asp?FHid=261
Lin, Y. (2008). 关于高校教师教学质量评价的研究 [Research on teaching evaluation in
higher education institutions]. 吉林广播电视大学学报 [Journal of Jilin Radio and TV
University], 4, Retrieved August 25, 2010, from http://www.cqvip.com/qk/82914X/200804/
27742286.html
Liu, J. (2007). 我国高校教师教学质量评价研究综述 [A summary of research on teaching
evaluation in Chinese colleges and universities]. 黑龙江教育:高教研究与评估版
[ Heilongjiang Education: Higher Educational Research and Evaluation], (4), 85–86.
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 26/27
Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation 225
March, H. W. (1984). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability,
validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (5), 707–754.
Retrieved August 20, 2010, from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1985-10875-001&CFID=29111707&CFTOKEN=12179532
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. (1993). The use of students’ evaluations and an individually
structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational
Research Journal , 30(1), 217–251. Retrieved August 18, 2010, from http://www.jstor.org/
pss/1163195
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2001). 关于加强高等学校本科教
学工作提高教学质量的若干意见 [Notice of improving teaching quality in order to
strengthen undergraduate teaching]. Retrieved August 31, 2010, from http://www.
pgzx.edu.cn/upload/files/zxwd/jg20014.pdf
Minzu University of China Office of Teaching Affairs. (2007). 中央民族大学本科教师课堂
及教学质量评价办法. [Procedures for Evaluation of Undergraduate Teaching at the
Central University of Minzu University of China]. Retrieved August 25, 2010 from
http://jw.muc.edu.cn/jwc/readnews.asp?id=260
MIT Online Subject Evaluation. (n.d.). Retrieved August 28, 2010, from http://web.mit.edu/
subjectevaluation/
Nie, D. M., & Xu, J. S. (2006). 高校教师教学质量评价中的矛盾及其消解 [The
contradictions & countermeasures of the teaching quality evaluation of college teachers]. 湖
南师范大学教育科学学报 [ Journal of Educational Science of Hunan Normal University],
5(3), 48–51.
Osborne, J. L. (1998). Integrating student and peer evaluation of teaching. College Teaching,
46 (1), 36–38.Rodriguez-Farrar, H. B. (2006). The teaching portfolio: A handbook for faculty teaching
assistants and teaching fellows (3rd ed.). Brown University: The Harriet W. Sheridan Center
for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved August 27, 2010, from http://www.brown.edu/
Administration/Sheridan_Center/docs/teach_port.pdf
Seldin, P. (1997). Improving college teaching: Learning to use what we know. Paper presented
for the international conference on improving college teaching. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Seldin, P. (1998). The Teaching Portfolio. Paper presented for the American Council on
Education, Department Chairs Seminar, San Diego, CA.
Seldin, P. (1999). Current practice—good and bad—nationally. Changing practices in
evaluating teaching: A practical guide to improved faculty performance and promotion/tenure decisions. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
Shaughnessy, M. F. (1994). Peer review of teaching. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from ERIC
database. (ED371689)
Sichuan University Office of Teaching Affairs. (2003). 四川大学本科教学质量监控试行办
法 [Trial Procedure of Supervision of Undergraduate Teaching at Sichuan University].
Retrieved August 25, 2010 from http://pharmacy.scu.edu.cn/03rencaipeiyang/index_benke/
zhiliantixi/01.doc
Subject Evaluation Policy and Procedures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Office of Faculty Support.
Retrieved August 28, 2010, from http://web.mit.edu/acadinfo/sse/www/#Policy
Tian, J., Sheng, Y. L., Yang, C. Q., & Xu, S. L. (2006). 国内高校教师评价体系的变迁历程
与阶段特征 [Stages of development and characteristics of faculty evaluation system in
Chinese higher education institutions]. 清华大学教育研究 [Tsinghua Journal of Education],
7/27/2019 Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Ed…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparative-study-of-faculty-evaluation-of-teaching-practice-between-chinese 27/27
Qianyi CHEN, John L. YEAGER 226
27 (2), 58–61.
University of Chicago Committee on the Criteria of Academic Appointment. (1972). A Report
of the University of Chicago Committee on the Criteria of Academic Appointment. TheUniversity of Chicago Record , 5(6). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Retrieved August
20, 2010, from http://provost.uchicago.edu/pdfs/shilsrpt.pdf
World University Rankings 2010–2011. Times Higher Education. Retrieved October 28, 2010,
from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/
Xu, C. N. (2006). 教学质量评价指标体系的研究 [Research on the mechanism of teaching
evaluation criteria]. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from http://jwc.scu.edu.cn/details.jsp?aid=
200
Yale University Faculty Handbook. (2002). Retrieved August 28, 2010, from http://www.
yale.edu/provost/handbook/
top related