Instructor performance appraisal in community colleges Public Deposited

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/jh343w591

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract or Summary
  • This study was designed to determine instructor performance appraisal methods being used in community colleges (in Florida, Iowa, New York, Texas, and Washington) and to identify factors responsible for variations in performance appraisal procedures. Questions about instructor performance appraisal which were examined included: who does it, for what purposes, what methods are used, and what is evaluated. Hypotheses which were tested stated that significant differences do not occur (1) among the states, (2) between the responses of administrators and instructors, (3) between the responses from multi-campus and single-campus colleges, and (4) among the various interaction combinations of state, personnel, and campus factors. Procedures Data were obtained with a mailed questionnaire sent to administrators and instructors selected at random from faculties in participating colleges. A total of 160 questionnaires were used, 32 from each state. The data were statistically analyzed through the multianalysis of variance technique. Conclusions Conclusions were that: 1. The instructor's immediate supervisor is primarily responsible for appraisal, but contributions are provided by students and other administrators. 2. Important purposes for appraisal include: improvement of instruction, to encourage retention of effective personnel, and articulation of goals and objectives which affect supervisor and instructor. 3. Rating scales are the most extensively used method for appraisals. 4. Criteria for measuring instructor performance emphasized: classroom interaction with students; attitude, judgement, initiative, leadership; classroom management; instructional planning; commitment to institutional goals; interaction with faculty; and improvement since last appraisal. 5. Significant differences occurred among responses from the five states for 25 of the 60 items on the questionnaire. 6. Significant differences between administrator and instructor responses occurred for 19 of the 60 items. 7. Multi-campus and single-campus colleges were essentially not different (the null hypothesis was rejected in four instances). 8. The null hypothesis stating that there are no significant interaction differences for the mean scores of the variables in the study was rejected in 23 instances, but no pattern of rejection was identified.
Resource Type
Date Available
Date Copyright
Date Issued
Degree Level
Degree Name
Degree Field
Degree Grantor
Commencement Year
Advisor
Committee Member
Academic Affiliation
Non-Academic Affiliation
Subject
Rights Statement
Peer Reviewed
Language
Digitization Specifications
  • File scanned at 300 ppi (Monochrome) using ScandAll PRO 1.8.1 on a Fi-6770A in PDF format. CVista PdfCompressor 5.0 was used for pdf compression and textual OCR.
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2013-11-21T22:07:13Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 MaxwellDavidK1974.pdf: 625689 bytes, checksum: 950a3e630c5f72c444fcba7ba8ed7d27 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Submitted by Madison Medley (mmscannerosu@gmail.com) on 2013-11-21T19:55:13Z No. of bitstreams: 1 MaxwellDavidK1974.pdf: 625689 bytes, checksum: 950a3e630c5f72c444fcba7ba8ed7d27 (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2013-11-22T21:59:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 MaxwellDavidK1974.pdf: 625689 bytes, checksum: 950a3e630c5f72c444fcba7ba8ed7d27 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1973-07-23
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Kirsten Clark(kcscannerosu@gmail.com) on 2013-11-22T21:59:51Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 MaxwellDavidK1974.pdf: 625689 bytes, checksum: 950a3e630c5f72c444fcba7ba8ed7d27 (MD5)

Relationships

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Last modified

Downloadable Content

Download PDF

Items