The species, professor americanus has responded in the past to many names. He has been called pedagogue, professor, le ache r, researcher, academician, scholar, apostle of enlightenment, even in­tellectual. Less generous references have included subversive, dilettante, incompetent, and other names too numerous to mention. The professor is indeed a many.faceted personality.

On the other side of the desk are the students. To serve students is a basic function of educational in­stitutions, a fact that no professor or administrator can afford to forget. Trow, (1960) attempted to identify some trends in American higher education, especially in the nature and content of student subcultures. He discussed four subcultures that dominate the American college scene; the collegiate culture, the vocational culture, the academic culture, and the nonconformist culture. He predicted that the non­conformist, "intellectual", "radical'', "alienated" students would he the most powerful subculture on the campus of the future. Incidences a la Berkeley seem to have validated his prediction. We no longer can discuss

JUNE 1117

The Professor-Student Affair: A Survey

higher education at the exclusion of either the professor "r the student.

One of the most difficult problems that must he solved before useful results can come from research into the relationship between the teacher and student is that of securing ob­jective measures of the teacher's personality as it affects the learning process. Medley and Mitsel ( 1958, p. 86-92) have reported that the usual approach to this problem has been to solicit ratings by supervisors or specially trained observers, "but despite all attempts to improve them, such ratings are still biased, sub­jective, and in many cases, unin­terpretable by anyone, even the rater himself."

Obaervation by a Foreign Obaerver

The writer has id en ti fie d numerous methods and designs that have been used for the purpose of observation. First of all, an opera· tional definition submitted by Wrightstone (1958, p. 927) seems pertinent. "An observational tech­nique is a direct method of sampling behavior in social and learning situations."

Guerin Fischer

The earliest attempts to obtain ob­jective measurements of classroom behavior came from Horn (1914), Puckett (1928, p. 210) and Wrightstone (1934). Hom proposed that a small circle be recorded by the classroom visitor in the ap­propriate space on a seating chart for "each recitation or request for recitation" and a square for each time a student was doing something. The purpose was to ascertain the distribution of participation by pupils in the lesson. Puckett elaborated on the scheme by developing a set of symbols, each symbol having a special meaning. Wrightstone established a more elaborate code, together with a seating chart.

Every time the teacher interacts with a pupil, the observer records the appropriate letter on a class roster opposite the name of the pupil involved. Medley and Mitzel ( 1960, p. 257) in their chapter in the Handbook of Research on Teaching make the statement that the quarter· century since these procedures were introduced has seen little ad­vancement in the form of the in­struments but the procedures for

11

scoring them have improved. A seven-category scale for analyz­

ing teacher's statements as a means of measuring the "social-emotional climate" in classrooms w a s developed by Withall ( 1949, p. 347-361). He reported that when students' feelings of "good" or "bad" recorded by a mechanical device were related to the teacher's statements, the results indicated more positive emotional reactions in the leamer·centered than in the teacher-centered i n s t r u c t i o n . Withall's technique was not intended as a method for observing behavior in the classroom; rather, it was a method for coding typewritten transcripts of sound recordings of classroom behaviors. The writer reported Withall's technique in this section because others (Mitzel and Rabinowitz, 1953) have used the Withall technique as a method of observation.

Withall (1956, p. 203-212) later described a technique for obtaining a measure of the teacher's classroom interactions which eliminated the use of a foreign observer. He used a time-lapse camera that would take a picture every fifteen seconds and a sound tape recording for the class interaction. This may be a novel method to glean information about the teaching-learning process, hut no evidence was presented to show that the technique was reliable or valid.

One of the limitations of the observational method is that the presence of the observers may disrupt the classroom. Mitzel and Rabinowitz (1953), using the Withal} technique, had observers visit the same classroom for eight weeks, hut the ratings for the first four weeks were treated separately from those for the last four weeks. An analysis of variance of the observer scores indicated good agree­ment, hut the teachers exhibited marked fluctuations in behavior

12

from one period to the next and the differences did not become clear un­til the second half of the series, the assumption being that the later fluc­tuations reflected the lessened in­fluence of the observer. In addition, "teachers appeared to differ in the consistency of classroom climate which they provided from one oc­casion to another."

Ryans (1960), devised an in­strument call the Teacher Charac­teristic.s ScMdule. The instrument consists of 300 items which correlate with teacher classroom behavior as rated by observers. The observer, after viewing a class for about fifty minutes, makes assessments on each of 25 dimensions of the behavior that had occurred and then records his assessments in the form of ratings on seven-point scales. Ryans mentioned in his summary that the measuring instrument in the rating method is not so much the paper device itself as it is the rater, judge or observer.

Teacher Behavior Another rating scale similar to

Ryans' was developed by McGee (1955, p. 113) for his research on the classroom behavior correlates of the F scale as a measure of authoritarianism in teachers. "Each of the items in McGee'.s Clas.sroom Observation Record was for its ap· propriateness in the sense that it should he related in some dynamic way to one or more of the variables comprising the authoritarian syn· drome." The author stated in his conclusion that "from the findings in the present study it seems safe to conclude that teachers' classroom behavior on an Authoritarian­Equalitarian dimension can he predicted with fair accuracy from scores on the F scale."

Medley and Mitzel (1958, p. 86-92) devised a technique for oh­j ectively observing and recording

classroom behavior: The Ob.servation Schedule and Record (OScAR). The OScAR was developed as a device for securing a record of behaviors of teachers and pupils witnessed by a foreign observer. The items which, on the basis of content, appeared to belong together were grouped into fourteen keys which were found to have reliabilities of at least .60. A factor analysis accounted for three factors: Emotional Climate, Verbal Emphasis and Social Structure. A factor analysis concluded that: " (a) relatively untrained observers using an instrument like OScAR can develop reliable information about differences in classrooms of different teachers, (h) the OScAR technique is sensitive to only three of many dimensions that probably exist, and ( c) observations made with in· struments of this type can contribute to the solution of many important problems having to do with the nature of effective teaching."

Swineford ( 1963, p. 214) developed an instrument called /OT A or /n.strument /or the Ob.servation of Teaching Activitie.s. After using the instrument a number of times and submitting the findings for statistical analysis, the author concluded that factors affecting teacher behavior "suggest that the kind of person the teacher is, in­cluding his knowledge, is more significant in influencing his teaching behavior than are the in­fluences from the school, ad­ministration and community."

According to Medley and Mitzel (1960, p. 271) in their chapter on observation in the Handbook of Re.search on Teaching, Flanders (1960) had developed up to 1960 the most sophisticated technique for observing the teaching-learning pro­cess thus far. The technique, called Interaction Analy.ti3 utilized a system of ten categories. The observer, at the end of each three-

EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

second period decides which category best represents the "communication behavior" during that three seconds and writes down the number of that category while observing the next three·second period. The basic idea of the technique is to categorize the "dominant pattern" of a three·sec· ond period rather than each stale· ment or other unit of behavior. Flan· ders emphasized that an important part of the training of observers ap· pears to be the development of a cer· lain rhythm of recording while observing.

Recent factor analytic studies of teacher behavior which also examine the effects of that behavior have been done by Medley and Mitzel (1959), Ryans (1961) and Mc· Keachie ( 1961). Of special interest is the McKeachie study in that it re· lated to the university population. He found college grades influenced by interactions between several di· mensions of teacher behavior and certain student personality.

In a more recent study Solomon, Rosenberg and Bezdek ( 1964, p. 23· 34) used observer ratings, student descriptive questionnaires and factor analyzed the results. This analysis revealed: (1) the learning of facts was significantly related to teacher clarity, expressiveness and to lee· luring; (2) gains in comprehension related significantly to teacher energy, flamboyance, and lo a modem position on a permissiveness versus control continuum; (3) evaluations of students related significantly to clarity, expressive· ness and to warmth.

Observational techniques present basic problems of observing and recording behavior in various types of situations. One such problem is a clear definition of the behaviors to be seen and judged; another is the type of situations, structured or unstructured, in which they are observed. Wrightstone (1951, p.

'UNE 1117

342) suggests that the two most serious difficulties of observational techniques are sampling error and observer error. "Research with observational technique has helped to reduce sampling error and to ensure a better assessment of the typical behavior of individuals in defined situations." This has been achieved by more clearly defining the situations and populations.

Research has revealed ways and means whereby observer error may he reduced. These include precise definitions of the phenomena lo be observed and structured forms for recording the findings immediately, thus m1n1m1z1ng observer in terpretation. Murray, et. al. ( 1938, p. 761) cited errors made by observers that limit the reliability and validity of the results. They are: "(a) the error of lenience or se· verity; (b) the error of central ten· dency, or hesitation to give ratings at the extremes of a scale; ( c) halo effect, or the general attitude toward a general impression of a person or object being rated; (d) the so·called logical error which comes from presuppositions in the minds of the raters and lack of definiteness of the trait rated." Even though the above statement was made twenty.nine years ago, current writers still claim similar if not the same types of er· rors. Gage (1958, p. 100·101) stated that

our own negative results should cause us lo look more closely at what we mean by "understanding our pupils." Such understanding is a basic objective of teacher education curricula • . . It is in· deed highly plausible as a desiratum for teachers. Yet up to now, in our own . . . and in other's research, support for this proposition has been hard to come by.

Rating Methoda It is likely that no approach to the

investigation of the teaching·learning

process has been used more often than the rating method. Domas and Tiedeman (1950) listed a 1,006 item annotated bibliography on teacher competence which contained several major headings devoted to various uses of the rating method. Remmers (1963, p. 324) indicated that since 1950 the use of rating methods has not diminished in importance or fre· quency. Good (1959, p. 439) de· fined rating as "an estimate, made according to some systematized pro. cedure, of the degree to which an in· dividual person or \hing possesses any given characteristic; it may be expressed qualitatively or quan· titatively," Good (1959) further defined the rating scale as "a device used in evaluating products, at· titudes, or other char~cteristics of in· struclors or learners."

Evaluation, however, is basically a subjective process. It has long been considered that objective means of collecting data make it possible to reduce the subjectivity involved in the process. The rating scale is de· signed lo help with this process. The rating scale directs attention to what are considered important factors in the teaching·learning process.

On crucial factor is implied in Good's definition of rating and rating scales - the human rater. All results and conclusions reported in this section must be tempered with the imperfectly reliable and often not highly valid human rater or rating scale. Such things as op· porlunity bias, rating biases, ex­perience bias, and criterion distor· tion must be taken into account in making inferences from research concerned with ratings or rating scales.

Tomlinson ( 1955) and Ryans ( 1959) indicate that efforts to ap· praise the quality of teaching are probably as old as teaching itself. Formal rating, an effort to refine appraisal techniques, is not as old

13

and currently is widely used. (Mueller, 1960)

Howsam ( 1960, p. 31) contends tliat researchers have given much at· tention to the problem of teacher rating. Recognizing that it is im· portant that rating be well done, they have investigated how well peo· pie rate teachers. They have com· pared raters and kinds of raters; they have struggled to devise means which can, to some extent at least, lend objectivity to this highly sub· jective process. Any person who knows the teacher's work might be in a position to rate him (Howsarn, P· 32). Students may rate teachers; parents of students may rate teachers; the teacher may rate himself; oilier teachers (colleagues) may rate him; administrators may do the rating; or qualified persons not otherwise connected with tlie col· lege or university, such as members of the board of control of an in· stitution, may be called in to do the rating.

or the many possible rating ap· proaches, Eckert ( 1950) and Howsam (1960) suggest three direct and effective methods for the in· vestigation of the teaching-learning process; (a) ratings by supervisors; (b) ratings by colleagues; and ( c) student ratings of instructors.

Supeni1or1

The most common and most researched method of. investigating tlie teaching·learning process has been by supervisors and ad. ministrators (Howsam, 1960). The research has been concerned with whetlier such ratings are consistent, whether tliey agree with others, whether they agree with other criteria such as student gain and the basis of the assessment.

There is a prevailing current opin· ion (Stern, 1963, p. 420) tliat con· sistency of ratings by supervisors is fairly high. However, earlier

14

research has stated that such raters have strong tendencies to disagree with each other (Stern, Stein and Bloom, 1956). Morton (1961) in· dicated that adequate preparation for the task of rating tends greatly to increase the inter·rater agreement. Having a well defined rating in· strument with clear descriptions of the characteristics of the process to be observed also increases agreement between raters (Howsam, 1960).

Marsh (1954, p. 80) reported that "for the most part administrator ratings do not produce very high correlations with student gains." Research by Mitzel and Medley (1956) supports this finding. Other research indicates that student ratings and supervisor ratings tend not to be in close agreement (Domas and Tiedeman, 1950).

Two important indications are reported in the literature which ap· pear to account for the discrepancy between supervisors and students' ratings of classroom procedure. The first indication is what Morton ( 1961, p. 122) calls interference. "It is not possible to visit a classroom without affecting the normal balance and setting. The supervisors very presence injects a foreign element which often brings tension and nn abnormal condition to the classroom." What goes on in a classroom one day may not he typical of other days, thus presenting the supervisor with a biased picture of the teaching.learning process.

The second indication is that supervisors base their ratings on fac. tors other than tliose which arc present in tlie classroom. Though there is little evidence as to the real sources of rating by supervisors, Gowan (1955, p. 149) suggests that "whatever tliese factors are, they are evidently more connected w i t h public relations and with relations with supervisors and witli appraisal of the individual in a group in

which status in the group is a factor, than tliey are with the careful and disinterested rating by an expert." In fact, some evidence suggests tliat supervisors' ratings may even he in· fluenced by factors which are ir· relevent, if not actually antithetical to actual classroom teaching-learning processes.

Wandt (1954) found that teachers with most favorable attitudes toward supervisors received superior ratings from their supervisors. Fink ( 1953) reported a significant correlation between supervisors' ratings of suc· cess and teachers' ethnocentrism scores, suggesting that supervisors tend to favor more rigid, conforming personalities among their teachers. Gowan (1955, p. 151) hypothesized that "when an authority figure rates a group of subordinates on a certain variable, his rating will be more highly correlated with the patterns of identifications established by his value system than with the actual variable itself." Further research in· to these two areas is needed.

The assessment of the teaching· learning process by supervisors can be made fruitful if the instructors make available to designated officials a prospectus of the course material or an outline showing in· tended procedures (Morton, 1961, p. 122) . Salter ( 1961) recommended that every university of any size needs to establish a new department for the purpose of administratively investigating the classroom pro· cedures. Gage ( 1961, p. 19) in· dicated, however, that "no matter how well trained and competent, supervisors cannot he used for ad· ministrative appraisals." When the teacher knows he is being watched by someone whose opinion will determine his promotion or salary, his performance may depend more on his nerve than on his teaching skill.

It is hoped that an answer to

EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Gage's conviction will he forthcom· ing from the current study being conducted by Earlhorn ( 1965) where an expert in the particular academic area does the rating. However, until such data is available to the contrary, ratings by supervisors must stand as an unreliable method of rating the various elements of the teaching· learning process.

Colleagues Very few appraisals based on the

ratings of colleagues have been reported in professional literature. Guthrie ( 1949) reported that one in· stitution uses ratings by a secret committee of colleagues, based on nine aspects of good teaching. Norem (1950) reported that another institution reports the development and use of a rating scale to obtain colleagues' judgments of scholarship, scholarly attainment and professional services.

Usually, teachers have access to only limited evidence of the work of other teachers. Rating, therefore, tends to be based on marginal evidence. Before such ratings could be really successful, teachers would have to have opportunity for inter· class visitations. An added problem is the probable reluctance of teachers to rate each other except for research purposes (Howsam 1960).

McCall's (1959) study of teachers found that colleagues tended slightly to call the teacher who got better results the poorer teacher. Marsh (1956) supported the general find· ings of studies in this area and con· cluded that instructors based their opinions of each other on evidence such as amount of knowledge of the subject taught rather than how or the effectiveness of the teaching.

Stecklein ( 1958) indicates that the use of colleagues in rating in· structors has been for appointment and tenure decisions. This use

JUNE 1117

probably accounts for a lack of wider use by colleges and universities to date.

Student Ratings of Instructor•

Since about 1927 (Remmers, 1963, p. 376) considerable attention has been turned to the student as the one person who views the teacher in his day.to-day teaching activities for ratings concerning the teaching. learning process. This increase in the rating of college instructors by their students is by no means universally accepted among college staffs nor well understood (Weaver, 1%0). Although a great deal of doubt has been expressed toward students' rating college instructors, studies made from various research designs have foiled to support the attitudes presented by Cosgrove (1959) in his study on teachers' reactions to ratings by students.

The first real objection to the use of students as raters is the suspicion that the achievement of a student in a particular class may greatly in· fluence his rating of his instructor. Remmers (1939), Eckert (1950), Elliott ( 1950), Bendig (1953), and Voeks and French (1960) m research designs concerned with this susp1c1on found no relationship between the rating made of the in· structor and the grade expected or received by the students. Other research designs that have used the method of student ratings obtained similar findings to those concerned with the influence of grades. Rem­mers (1%0) found that if twenty. five or more student ratings are averaged, they are as reliable as the better educational and mental tests at present available. Guthrie (1954) indicated that class size does not in· fluence the ratings of instructors by students. Remmers (1929) and Riley (1950) suggest that the sex of stu­dent raters bears little or no rela-

tionship to their ratings of teachers. Remmers ( 1958) and Crannell (1948) held that little if any rela­tionship exists between students' ratings of the teacher and the dif · ficulty of the course or the class level. Popularity in extraclass ac­tivities of the teacher was found not appreciably related to student ratings of that teacher (Remmers, 1960) . The student rating method has proven to be a useful, con­venient, reliable and valid means of self-supervision and self-improvement for the teacher and an effective ap­proach to the investigation of the teaching·learning process for re· searchers (Remmers, 1963, p. 368).

The various research designs us· ing the student rating method on in· structors have been performed on a voluntary basis and for the im· provement o{ instruction, rather than for promotional or other ad. ministrative reasons (Stecklein, 1958). This use probably accounts for the growing popularity of the student rating method as cited by Mueller (1960) in her review of this topic, where 40 percent of 804 col­leges and universities in the United States that replied to her inquiry have used students' ratings of teachers.

The studies in the literature in· dicate that research with the Purdue Rating Scale for Instructors and its revision, the Purdue Rating Scale for Instruction have been by far the most widely used instruments. Another instrument, the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, (Cook, Leeds and Callis, 1951) has been utilized extensively in sampling students' opinions about the teacher· learner relations. Lewis ( 1964, p. 362) used the Guilford-Zimmerman Scales in studying reactions of students to teachers at Iowa State University. His original hypothesis, that student-teacher interaction along measurable personality dimensions

15

plays an important part in the students' perception of a particular teacher as most effective, was not supported.

The Miami Univer$ily /n$lructor Rating Sheet was used by Crannell ( 1948) to aid in evaluating the classroom performance of faculty members. No large differences were observed between percents computed for separate class levels, although there appeared to be occasional large divergences from one department to another. Most chairmen believed that the inspection of the ratings should be the prerogative of department heads, and not that of the university administration. This op1mon is understandable in that depriving the immediate supervisor of responsibil· ity for evaluation and recommenda. tion of personnel leads to demoraJi. zation in any organization.

Cosgrove (1959) reported a study done at Ohio State University in which The Descriptive Ranking Form for Teachers was administered to students in basic educational psychology courses. The instrument qtilizes a forced·choice technique which produces diagnostic profiles valuable for alerting a teacher as to what his students consider to be relatively strong and weak points in his performance.

With the large number of colleges and universities currently in· vestigating classroom procedures through the use of student raters, there probably are as many different forms of rating scales as there are universities using this method. Presently, however, there is no listing of the various forms (instruments), whether by descrip· tive title or kinds of rating scales (numerical, graphic, forced choice, multiple choice, check lists or cumulated points) used. It would probably take another national study similar to the one conducted by Mueller (1960) to obtain a

16

representative listing of all the stu· dent rating forms used at the college level. The need for such a listing is obvious since the student rating method has proven successful in appraising the teacher-learning pro· cess. However, such an attempt is beyond the purview of this article. More important to the present writer is the scarcity of research reports concerned with the use of various instruments for ratings of instructors by students on the university level.

We need the resources of a major project, in which use is made of questionnaires, in· tcrviews, observations, a n d recordings. The enterprise will re­quire a solid foundation and com· petent researchers. Turned loose on the teaching that goes on in several institutions, they would have description as their primary aim. Subsequently, as more was learned about what actually goes on and how it can he analyzed, they could proceed to appraisal and evaluation. Such a study might at least provide the foun· dations of knowledge on which to erect policies for the appraisal and improvement of college teaching (Gage, 1961 ) .

The author concurs with Lewis (1964} that the investigation of the effectiveness of professors in general and the student-teacher relationship in particular is a highly complex problem. There is definitely an urgent need for reports concerning studies using other instruments and the research designs in which they are being employed if the elements of the teaching-learning process are to be assembled.

LIST OF REFERENCE Cosgrove, Don J. Diagnostic rating or

teacher perfonnance. J. educ. Psychol., 1959, 50, 200-204.

Domas, S. J. and Tiedeman, D. V. Teacher competence: An annotated bibliography. J. exp. Educ., 1950, 19, 101·218.

Eckert, R. E. Ways of evaluating college teaching. Sch. and Soc., 1950, 71, 65. 69.

Flanders, N. A. Teacher influences, pupil attitudes, and achievement. Min·

neapolis : Univer. of Minnesota CU. S. Office of Educ. Coop. Res. Project No. 397) , 1960. (Mimeographed)

Gage, N. L. Explorations in teacher&' perceptions of pupils. /. Teach. Educ. 1958, 9, 97-101.

Gage, N. L. The appraisal of college teaching: An analysis of ends and means. J. Hi1her Educ., 1961, 32.

Good, C. V. (Ed. ) Dictionary of Educa· lion (2nd Ed. ) New York : McGraw· Hill, 1959.

Gowan, J. C. Relation of the "K" scale of the MMPI to the teaching personality, Calif. /. educ., Res., 1955, 6, 149.

Horn, E. Distribution of opportunity for participation among the various pupils in classroom recitations. Teach. Coll. Contr. Educ., 1914, No. 67.

Howsam, R. B. New de.signs for research in teacher competence. Burlingame, Calif.: Calif. teach. Ass., 1960.

Lewis, Edwin C. An investigation of student·teacher interaction as a determiner or effective teaching. J. educ. Res., 1964, 57, 360-363.

Marsh, J. E. Identifying the effective in· structor: 'A review of the quanti l4tive studies, 1900·1952. USAF Pers. Train. Res. Center Res. Bull., 1954, No. AFPTRC·TR-54-44.

McCall, W. A. Measurement of teacher merit. Raleigh, N. C. : State Dept. of Public Instruction, Puhl. No. 284, 1959.

McGee, H. M. Measurement of authoritarianism and its relation to teacher's classroom behavior. Genet Psychol. Mana1r., 1955, 52, 89-146.

McKeachie, W. J., Motivation, teachipg methods, and college learning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.) Current theory and research on motivation. Lincoln : Univer. of Nebraska, 1961.

Medley, D. M. & Mitzel, H. E. A techni· que for measuring classroom behavior. J. educ. Psychol., 1958, 49, 86-92.

Medley, D. M. & Mitzel, H. E. Same behavioral correlates of teacher ef· fectiveness. /. educ. Psychol., 1959, 50, 239-246.

Medley, D. M. & Mitzel, H. E. Measuring classroom behavior of systematic observation. Handbook of research on tt:achin1 (Edited by N. L. Gage) . Chicago : Rand McNally, 1963, 247·328.

Mitzel, H. E. & Rabinowitz, W. Assessing social-emotional climate in the classroom by Withall's technique. Psychol. Manafr., 1953, 67, No. 18 (Whole No, 368).

Morton, Richard K. Evaluating college teaching. lmprovin1 Col. and Univer. Teach., 1962, 10, 15·19.

Puckett, R. C. Making supervison ob­jective. Sch. Rev., 1928, 36, 290-212.

Remmers, H. H. Manual, the Purdue Ratin1 Scale for Instruction. West Lafayette, Ind.: Univer. Book Store, 1960.

Remmers, H. H. Rating methods in research on teaching. Handbook of

conlinued on. page 24

EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVES