Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of 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 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: [email protected]

John L. YEAGER School of Education, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA

E-mail: [email protected]

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





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;



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).




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):




• 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




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.




• 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).




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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.




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




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






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.




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.




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.




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],




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/

Documents

Comparative Study of Faculty Evaluation of Teaching Practice Between Chinese and U.S. Institutions of Higher Education