<p>This study investigated the faculty perception of the use of a student evaluation of faculty instrument. The areas considered were use of the current Student Evaluation of Faculty (SEF) instrument to measure teaching effectiveness; use of the current instrument for annual faculty review; faculty involvement in developing the instrument; utilizing the instrument to improve teaching; and demographics of faculty gender, college/school in which they teach, and the numbers of years of higher education experience. </p><p> Participants included 734 full-time instructional faculty members at Mississippi State University who taught during the fall 2012 semester and utilized the current SEF instrument. From the 734 faculty invited to participate in the study, 205 responded. The study was conducted in the fall 2013 semester. Over 71% of the participating faculty indicated a negative perception toward the current SEF instrument as an effective tool for their use in evaluating teaching effectiveness. However, 60% of the participants agree the instrument serves as an effective tool for their use to improve teaching. The faculty also indicated they would like to be able to compare their SEF results to others teaching comparable courses. Participants were asked to rate each question taken from the current SEF instrument, indicating its level of usefulness in their ability to utilize the results to improve teaching. Of the 11 questions, only 2 were found to be least useful to the faculty. One of those was related to the tests they give being fair and the other related to the student learned a great deal in the class. Almost 81% of the participants indicated that faculty involvement in the development of the current student evaluation of faculty instrument increased the usefulness in measuring teaching effectiveness. </p><p> Conclusions based on the findings indicated a need to continue revising the evaluation process and instrument to include a multidimensional process. This multidimensional process should provide separate instruments to be used for annual faculty review and for improving teaching. These revisions should be carried out with faculty involvement to ensure acceptance of the processes and maintain positive perceptions. </p><p> Keywords: student evaluation of faculty, multidimensional evaluation process, teaching effectiveness </p>

<p> Traditional teacher evaluation procedures involve the school leader providing feedback in a summative form to the classroom teacher (Tuytens &amp; Devos, 2011). The function of the administrator to be both supervisor and evaluator is a contrasting role. There are four main purposes of teacher evaluation: improvement, accountability, staff development, and personnel decisions (Darling-Hammond, Wise, &amp; Pease, 1983; Tuytens &amp; Devos, 2011). Administrators are already constrained for time and resources. Therefore, fulfilling all four purposes through the current evaluation process in California is becoming increasingly difficult.</p><p> Using peers in the evaluation process is an alternative evaluation method being explored across the country, specifically in the form of Peer Assistance and Review (PAR; Goldstein, 2004; Matula, 2011; Weems &amp; Rogers, 2010). The problem this research addressed was the efficacy of teacher evaluation systems and how evaluative practice can be improved from the perspectives of principals and Consulting Teachers (CTs) with experience in the PAR program. </p><p> The study found principals and CTs had mixed reactions regarding the inclusion of PAR as a multiple measure for teacher evaluation. All participants' perceptions of the role of the CT included the common language of supporter, helper, coach, and mentor, which matched the PAR documents from each district. The data showed that subjectivity, fear, and lack of time, negatively impacted the traditional teacher evaluation process and that involving peers in the process could be beneficial.</p>