Methods of Assessing Teaching: Investigating the How and Why.

Both supporters and critics of higher education have expressed concern about the decline of teaching, particularly of undergraduates (Bloom, 1987; Boyer, 1987; Boyer, 1990; and The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduate in the Research University, 1998). They have articulated that the "publish or perish" policies have lead to a proliferation of research to the detriment of teaching and that the status of teaching should be raised. In fact, Boyer (1990) found that a majority of faculty teaching at research and doctorate institutions believe that "at their institution the pressure to publish reduces the quality of teaching" (p. 55). Echoing these sentiments, The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduate in the Research University (1998) concluded that the state of undergraduate education and teaching "is in such a crisis, an issue of such magnitude and volatility that universities must galvanize themselves to respond" (p. 37). While there may be a number of causes for this situation, Keig and Waggoner (1995) suggest that one reason for the decline of undergraduate teaching is due to the manner in which teaching is assessed: "By all accounts, college teaching is not as good as it could be. Teaching may be no better than it is . . . because academicians erroneously assume that time-honored practices of faculty evaluation play a significant role in improving instructional quality" (p. 51). The authors conclude that at most undergraduate institutions faculty evaluations are conducted primarily for personnel decisions, not for improving teaching. Arguing that the assessment of teaching is often hastily conducted, Scriven (1980) suggests that the evaluation process "is [such a] . . . source of shame that it is hardly surprising that teaching is rarely rewarded in an appropriate way" (p. 7). Others have described the assessment of undergraduate teaching as "simplistic," "primitive," "without significant credibility," "limited," "sporadic," and "inadequate" (McKeachie and Kaplan, 1996; Scriven, 1980; and Soderberg, 1986). In order to raise the status of undergraduate teaching and improve classroom instruction, Boyer (1990) contends that "for teaching to be considered equal to research, it must be vigorously assessed, using criteria that we recognize within the academy, not just in a single institution" (p. 37). Although the call for the improvement of the assessment of teaching echoes throughout the academy, a preponderance of research focuses only on a narrow aspect of the assessment process; student evaluations and ratings of teachers. McKeachie and Kaplan (1996) argue that "after fifty years of research and more than 2,000 journal articles, there's little reason to doubt that the procedure can provide valid and useful information for both faculty members and administrators" (p. 5). D'Apollonia and Abrami (1997) contend that this huge body of literature primarily has dealt with the psychometric properties of student ratings and practical guides for faculty evaluation. They further argued that "many researchers have concluded that the reliability and the validity of student ratings are generally good and that student ratings are the best, and often the only, method of providing objective evidence for summative evaluation of instruction" (p. 1198). However, a number of drawbacks and controversies persist with regard to student evaluations of teachers. These include the influence of lenient grading on student ratings, students' conceptualization of effective teaching, the potential negative effect of low ratings on teacher motivation, the assumption that student ratings are correlated with learning, and the lack of sophistication of personnel committees who use student ratings (Greenwald and Gillmore, 1997; McKeachie, 1997; and McKeachie and Kaplan, 1996). A burgeoning area of discussion related to the assessment of teaching is the use of teaching portfolios for faculty reviews (Cohen, 1997). …