Factors Related to Pupil Observation Reports of Teachers and Attitudes Toward their Teacher

Effect of anonymity on student evaluations of faculty performance.

“…Differences were found for both PIT and NIT scale scores. Whether these differences reflect actual variance in faculty performance or simply serve to index students' affective responses to instructors and their grading policies (e.g., Bledsoe et al, 1971;Brown, 1976;Holmes, 1972;Kennedy, 1975;Sullivan & Skanes, 1974; Stone, Note 1) is a question that cannot be answered with the present study's data base. Mounting evidence, however, indicates that a substantial proportion of the variance in student ratings of faculty performance represents the influence of students' grades and other contaminating factors (e.g., Brown, 1976;Stone, Note 1).…”

“…For example, to the extent that rating data are contaminated by other variables (e.g., expected grades, actual grades), their interpretation should differ from ratings free of such effects. Since there is evidence suggesting that ratings may be influenced by actual and expected grades (e.g., Bledsoe et al, 1971;Holmes, 1972;Kennedy, 1975;Sullivan & Skanes, 1974; Stone, Note 1), the collection of evaluations using signed ratings would appear advantageous, (b) Signed ratings may have greater utility than unsigned ratings when a faculty member needs more detailed feedback on his or her performance than is covered by a rating form. If, for example, a professor finds that a number of students perceive him or her as confusing, neither the reasons underlying this perception nor the steps that might be taken to change it are apparent.…”

“…Another has been the validity of ratings. In efforts to assess the validity of ratings, previous studies have examined the degree to which student ratings of faculty performance correlate with such items as colleagues' ratings (Maslow & Zimmerman, 1956), teaching experience of the faculty member (Bledsoe, Brown, & Strickland, 1971;Heilman & Armentrout, 1936;Sullivan & The assistance of Marci R, Fusilier and Conrad Jackson is gratefully acknowledged.…”

“…Requests for reprints should be sent to Eugene F. Stone, Department of Administrative Sciences, 710 Krannert Building, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907. Skanes, 1974), "entertainment value" of the class (Royce, 1956;Weaver, 1960), student achievement (McKeachie, Lin, & Mann, 1971;Rodin & Rodin, 1973;Sullivan & Skanes, 1974), and actual and expected grades (Bledsoe et al, 1971;Holmes, 1971Holmes, , 1972Kennedy, 1975;Sullivan & Skanes, 1974). In spite of the relatively wide scope of topics dealt with by previous research, there is a paucity of empirical evidence on how, if at all, student ratings submitted anonymously differ from those that are signed.…”

Non‐instructional correlates of student ratings: a brief review

“…The majority of studies addressing this question have found a positive relationship between experience and rated effectiveness (Clark and Keller, 1954;Comaford, 1951; Downie, 1952; Gage, 1961; Guthrie, 1954; Sullivan and Skanes, 1974;Walker, 1969), although some have found no relationship (Heilman and Armentrout, 1936; Peterson et al, 1974) or even a negative relationship (Rayder, 1968). Bledsoe et al (1971) found that teachers with the least and most experience were rated higher than those with intermediate amounts of experience. However, he also identified a confounding age factor in that instructors below the age of 35 were rated higher than older instructors.…”