03162cam a22004452u 4500001000800000005001700008007001400025008004100039035001200080037001900092040002700111091000800138100002300146245011300169260006800282300001000350500014700360520133600507530007901843533008101922650003302003650003302036650004502069650002802114650003202142650003102174650002902205650002902234650002802263650003302291650003102324650002802355650003102383650005402414650003402468650003102502655003902533710010202572984004202674536722720181018165953.0he u||024||||080220s1978 xxu ||| b ||| | eng d a5367227 aED171213bERIC aericdbengcericddMvI amfm1 aCashin, William E.10aSources of Information Upon Which to Base Evaluations of College Teachingh[microform] /cWilliam E. Cashin. a[Washington, D.C.] :bDistributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,c1978. a24 p. aAvailability: Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development in Higher Education, 1627 Anderson Ave., Box 3000, Manhattan, Kansas 66502.5ericd aThe kinds of information that have been used in the past to evaluate the effectiveness of college teaching are briefly reviewed, and the advantages and disadvantages of eight sources that seem most useful for making such judgments are discussed. Possible sources of information for evaluating an instructor's teaching effectiveness are: classroom visitation; a course portfolio; long-term followup of students; measurement of student achievement; opinions of deans, department heads, and colleagues; self-evaluation; systematic student ratings; and academic advisement. Little importance should be attached to the following sources of information: enrollment in elective courses, grade distributions, informal student opinions, and scholarly research and publication. Since there is no single source of information that is acceptable for evaluating college teaching, it is strongly recommended that several sources be used to evaluate college teaching. These sources should be chosen so that in combination they provide accurate and valid information about all of the individual instructor's teaching responsibilities. Teaching responsibilities of most faculty members would seem to be adequately covered by using systematic student ratings, course portfolios, opinions of colleagues and department heads, and self-evaluation. (SW) aMay also be available online. Address as at 14/8/18:uhttps://eric.ed.gov/ aMicrofiche.b[Washington D.C.]:cERIC Clearinghouseemicrofiches : positive.07aAcademic Achievement.2ericd07aAdministrator Guides.2ericd07aClassroom Observation Techniques.2ericd17aCollege Faculty.2ericd17aCollege Instruction.2ericd17aEvaluation Methods.2ericd07aFollowup Studies.2ericd07aHigher Education.2ericd07aPeer Evaluation.2ericd07aPersonnel Evaluation.2ericd07aResource Materials.2ericd07aSelf Evaluation.2ericd07aStudent Evaluation.2ericd07aStudent Evaluation of Teacher Performance.2ericd17aTeacher Effectiveness.2ericd17aTeacher Evaluation.2ericd 7aGuides, ClassroomxTeacher.2ericd2 aKansas State Univ., Manhattan. Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development in Higher Education. aANLcmc 2253 ED171213d77000000179476