This study aims at the faculty evaluation current situation analysis to make the discussion analysis, the research object contains 96 academic years three universities in Taiwan proceed faculty evaluation . The methods of this study are the analysis of literature, the analysis of documents and semi-structured interviews. The results of this study include of following: 1.Analyzing, reorganizing, inducing the practical practice of the demestic and foreign faculty evaluation, and establishing the criterions of the faculty evaluation for this study. 2.Comparing and Analyzing the faculty evaluation laws difference of three universities in Taiwan . 3.Comparing and Analyzing the faculty evaluation administer mechanism difference of three universities in Taiwan . 4.Comparing and Analyzing the faculty evaluation the current problems difference of three universities in Taiwan . 5.Proposing suggestions for improving the faculty evaluation to the authorities of education and public and privately universities in Taiwan acccoding the findings of this study.

Journal impact factors play an increasing role in academics as a tool for evaluating faculty, research, and resource allocations. These evaluations may be effective in departments where the subject matter is reasonably unified. However, given the diversity found within the subject matter of psychology, the impact factors of journals may not be comparable across the various areas. This study compares the average impact factors across decile levels of journals from seven areas of psychology. It is found that impact factor scores are not comparable across the seven areas of psychology. This difference is more pronounced when looking at higher decile journals. Further research could be conducted to investigate differences among psychology areas using other bibliographic variables, including some of the newer indices of individual scholar productivity, such as the h-index.

The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which selected variables are related to scores on the Utah State University Faculty Evaluation Questionnaire (USU FEQ). The variables examined were size of class, level of class, college under whose auspices a class is offered and whether the class is required or elective. In addition, the relationship between total mean score and responses to question 23, a percentage ranking of instructors, was assessed. The fall quarter, 1975, FEQ results were used in this assessment. Employing the same procedures as had been followed in previous quarters, 315 courses were evaluated. Courses at all levels (100-700) and within all colleges of the University were sampled. Through multiple regression analysis, it was found that 87% of the variance in total mean scores was explained by the selected variables. Question 23 was the outstanding contributor; therefore, the analysis was repeated with this variable removed. As a result, 21% of the variance was explained by the remaining variables. Question 23 was highly related to total mean score. Reasonably accurate prediction of instructors ratings can be made from a knowledge of responses to this question. A small negative correlation was found between sample size and total mean score. Instructors of larger classes tended to rate lower than instructors of smaller classes. A small contribution to the explained variance was made by the variable of class size. This contribution has little practical significance. Instructors of different colleges received different average ratings. Those colleges most closely related to high total mean scores were Education, Family Life and Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences. Those colleges receiving lowest ratings were Engineering and Science. Knowledge of the college under whose auspices a course exists improves prediction of instructors ratings on the USU FEQ. Whether a course was required or elective and the level of a course had little relation to the ratings instructors received. The outcomes of this investigation may be limited by any one or a combination of the following: The results of this study were obtained from fall quarter evaluations. Ratings may relate to the quarter in which the course was evaluated. The USU population was the only university used in the sampling. Results, therefore, will be generalizable to USU alone. This study has been concerned with environmental variables, i.e., class size, level, college, required vs. elective. Student, class, or teacher characteristics have not been considered. Significant relationships may exist in these areas. Within University policy, professors are allowed to choose the quarter in which they will be evaluated. Therefore, some volunteer effects may be present in this study. However, extra encouragement to evaluate fall quarter was given to teachers to help control for these effects. From this study of the relationship between selected variables and total mean scores, the following may be concluded; Question 23 could be used to obtain a quick, easy estimate of student ratings of an instructor. The significant differences between ratings of instructors in different colleges receive presents an area of concern. When comparing instructors from different colleges, precautions may need to be taken. Differential norms for the colleges could be considered. The size of an instructor's class is of no significant concern when interpreting FEQ results. The results of this study show no basis for the employment of differential norms for differing class sizes. No basis for considering whether a course is required or elective and level of a course when interpreting questionnaire results is given. From the above summary and conclusions the following recommendations are made; The college under whose auspices an instructor teaches should be considered when interpreting FEQ results. College norm groups should be considered for inclusion on results printouts. The significantly higher ratings received by instructors in the College of Education should be investigated. The following questions arise; A. Do students rate instructors higher if instructors give them higher grades? (Grades received in Education are higher.) B. Are the students in the college more empathetic to their instructors and, therefore, more lenient in their ratings? C. Is the course content less demanding or more interesting so as to receive higher student ratings? D. Are, in fact, the instructors in the College of Education better teachers? If so, what are the characteristics that make them better? These questions and others should be researched. 3. Since relationships may vary according to the particular aspect of teaching performance that the student is asked to rate (Clark & Keller, 1954), a factor analytic study including the selected variables of this study and all of the questions on the USU FEQ may be profitable. 4. Scores on the USU FEQ may be related to the department in which the course is taught. Correlations might be determined for the departments which have a large enough N. 5. Determination of whether students' subjective criteria in rating faculty match the faculty members' goals in teaching may disclose some valuable information about the USU FEQ. 6. The benefits from student evaluation of instruction can only exist to the extent that ratings represent valid appraisals of classroom instruction. Research must be conducted in answer to the question, "Is the USU Faculty Evaluation Questionnaire a valid instrument?"

This is a multi-article dissertation that seeks to address the current state of online teaching evaluation processes in post-secondary institutions. The last two decades have seen a dramatic increase in enrollment in online courses at post-secondary institutions. Unfortunately, evaluating online instructors has been a neglected field of research leaving many post-secondary institutions to develop their own evaluation systems. A deeper analysis of the current practices of online instructor evaluation will help administrators to strengthen their evaluation processes, thereby providing more effective online teaching. The first article is a literature review that explores common practices of post-secondary institutions. By performing an extensive review of the literature, it is clear that very little research has been done to address online instructor evaluation beyond student evaluations. The second article compares different approaches to online instructor evaluation in various post-secondary institutions. By performing interviews with administrators, we found that many institutions are using a variety of types of evaluations and not just student evaluations to evaluate online teaching. The third article is a study that explores how well institutions that utilize a master course model evaluate online teaching competencies. This is done by performing a content analysis of their observational rubrics.

The purpose of this study was to (a) develop an evaluation instrument capable of rating students' perceptions of the instructional quality of an online course and the instructor’s performance, and (b) validate the proposed instrument with a study conducted at a major public university. The instrument was based upon the Seven Principles of Good Practice for Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The study examined four specific questions. 1. Is the underlying factor structure of the new instrument consistent with Chickering and Gamson's Seven Principles? 2. Is the factor structure of the new instrument invariant for male and female students? 3. Are the scores on the new instrument related students’ expected grades? 4. Are the scores on the new instrument related to the students' perceived course workload? The instrument was designed to measure students’ levels of satisfaction with their instruction, and also gathered information concerning the students’ sex, the expected grade in the course, and the students’ perceptions of the amount of work required by the course. A cluster sample consisting of an array of online courses across the disciplines yielded a total 297 students who responded to the online survey. The students for each course selected were asked to rate their instructors with the newly developed instrument. Question 1 was answered using exploratory factor analysis, and yielded a factor structure similar to the Seven Principles. Question 2 was answered by separately factor-analyzing the responses of male and female students and comparing the factor structures. The resulting factor structures for men and women were different. However, 14 items could be realigned under five factors that paralleled some of the Seven Principles. When the scores of only those 14 items were entered in two principal components factor analyses using only men and only women, respectively and restricting the factor structure to five factors, the factor structures were the same for men and women. A weak positive relationship between students’ expected grades and their scores on the instrument was found (Question 3). There was no relationship between students’ perceived workloads for the course and their scores on the instrument (Question 4).

The purpose of this study is to analyze and compare the current faculty evaluation practices in two universities in Thailand as perceived by faculty and administrators. Although both institutions are universities, one is notably larger and more diversified. From a sample population of 450 (250 each), the response rate was 71.8 per cent. A survey instrument was used to collect the data early in 1984. Statistical procedures used in the analyses of data include frequency and percentage of responses, analysis of variance for split-plot repeated measures design, t tests, and binomial distribution as required to answer the twelve research questions designed to guide the study.

M.Cur. (Professional Nursing Science: Nursing Education) / The Nursing Strategy for South Africa calls for nursing colleges to increase the intake of new nursing students by 25% without the proportional increase of nurse educators. This has created an unacceptable increase in the number of nursing students leading to increased workload of nurse educators. Other compounding problems that relate to classroom teaching, clinical, personal and organization, hinder performance and contribute to the frustration of the nurse educator. The purpose of this study is to explore and describe the factors influencing nurse educators’ teaching and learning performance at a nursing college in Gauteng in order to develop supporting strategies to improve their performance in teaching and learning. The research design is qualitative, explorative, descriptive and contextual in nature. A non-probability purposive sampling method was used to select a sample of 12 nurse educators to participate in individual semi-structured interviews. A qualitative open coding data analysis method was used. To ensure the trustworthiness of the study, the researcher used Lincoln and Guba’s four criteria and strategies of establishing the trustworthiness of qualitative data namely credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Four main themes and sub-themes emerged as follows: (1) Large student numbers - difficulty in recognizing students as individuals and identifying ‘at-risk’ students, difficulty in managing a large class, concerns about quality of nursing students in a large class, content-delivery process is a challenge in a large class; (2) Language and cultural barriers - language barrier and diverse cultural groups of students in one class; (3) Competence of nurse educators - inadequate knowledge / subject didactics, ineffective skills and negative attitude and inappropriate values; and (4) Ineffective management practices - inadequate orientation and mentoring and lack of human and material resources. The themes and sub-themes were conceptualized within the relevant literature and supporting strategies to improve nurse educators’ teaching and learning performance were described. Recommendations were made with regard to nursing education, nursing practice and nursing research.

本研究旨在建構我國大學教師評鑑指標，以供大學做為教師續聘和升等之參考。研究方法部分，先以文獻分析歸納出我國大學教師之三大角色構面和47項教師評鑑指標，並以專家問卷和模糊德菲術問卷進行指標的刪修和確定。接著以多元度量法和集群分析的方式整合大學教師對指標的分類，以建構評鑑構面，並利用模糊德菲術整合大學教師對指標重要性之看法，最後以歸一化之方式求得各構面以及各項指標權重，完成我國大學教師評鑑指標系統。根據研究之結果與分析，歸納主要結論如下： 一、本研究確立我國大學教師評鑑指標，為三大構面共34項指標。指標三大構面依權重高低依序為：研究構面（41%）、教學構面（35%）、服務構面（24%）。 二、大學教師評鑑之服務構面底下分為三個次構面，分別為專業性服務、一般性服務、學生指導。 三、研究構面之下權重最重的指標依次為：1-1.在原創性研究上獲得之榮譽或獎勵（佔7.78%）；1-2.在有外審制度之期刊發表論文（佔4.64%）；1-3.學術影響力（佔4.53％）。 四、教學構面下，2-1.教學內容的品質與適切性（佔3.54%）；2-2.優良教師獲獎（佔3.41%）；2-3.教學方法（佔3.14%）。 五、服務構面權重最重的指標為學生指導此一次構面下的指標3-10.指導碩士學位和博士學位學生論文（佔2.25%）權重最重，其次為專業性服務此一次構面下的指標3-1擔任專業期刊的主編或審查委員（佔2.14%）。 　　本研究依研究結果提出以下建議： 　　一、對高等教育主管機關之建議。 　　二、對大學教師之建議。 三、對未來研究之建議。 / The purpose of this study is to construct the Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicators which aim for faculty tenure and promotion. As for research methods, by means of literature review, 47 indicators within 3 main dimensions had been organized as a raw model of Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicators based on which the Fuzzy Delphi questionnaire was developed and the survey was conducted with the sample of higher education experts. Symmetric triangular fuzzy number then was used to analyze experts’ opinion on the importance of each indicator and to help indicator selection. At the next stage, we conduct a concept mapping questionnaire to collect faculty’s opinion about how many dimensions those indicators belong, and use cluster analysis to construct the dimensions of faculty evaluation. Then, we normalize symmetric triangular fuzzy number’s total score to determine the weight of each dimensions and indicators; accordingly, the Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicator system was constructed. The main conclusions are as follows: 1.Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicator system consists of 3 dimensions and 34 indicators in total. The 3 dimensions are: research (accounts for 41%), teaching (35%), and service (24%). 2.The dimension of service consists of 3 sub-dimensions, which are professional service, general service, and student counsel. 3.In the dimension of research, the indicator of honor on original research accounts for the most part (7.78%), and then the indicator of writing papers in reviewed journals accounts for 4.64%. 4.In the dimension of teaching, the indicator of the quality of teaching content accounts the most (3.54%), and the indicator of teaching awards accounts for 3.41%. 5.In the dimension of service, the indicator of advising masters’ and doctors’ theses accounts the most (2.25), and the indicator of serving as an editor or reviewer of professional journals accounts for 2.14%. According to the conclusions, some suggestions had been proposed： 　　1. suggestions for higher education administrators 　　2. suggestions for faculty members 　　3. suggestions for further study.

La investigación tuvo como objetivo general contribuir en la organización de un conjunto de criterios para la evaluación del desarrollo axiológico del profesorado de la Escuela de Educación de la Universidad de los Andes, a fin de promover programas de desarrollo profesional, personal y de evaluación que garanticen mejoras en la institución. Constituye el requisito indispensable para optar al Título de Doctor del Programa de Doctorado: Innovación y Sistema Educativo. Para su desarrollo, se prestó atención especial a descriptores referidos a la moralidad, eticidad, desarrollo profesional, desarrollo personal, evaluación, mejora educativa, códigos deontológico y valores educativos. Unido al propósito central, el desarrollo de la investigación permitió el establecimiento de fines secundarios que apuntaron a determinar implicaciones pedagógicas que se generan cuando el profesorado alcanza y mantiene un desarrollo axiológico adecuado, contribuir con el desarrollo teórico y práctico de la concepción axiológica de la mencionada escuela la cultura de la evolución institucional y del profesorado, contribuir en la elaboración de una tabla o escala de valores que oriente el comportamiento moral y ético del profesorado y proporcionar el establecimiento de códigos deontológico en la escuela objeto del estudio.La investigación se sustentó en varios pilares teóricos. Destacan aquellos que están referidos a los distintos modelos contemporáneos que explican el problema de la ecuación moral; en especial, se colocó énfasis en el modelo de educación moral como proceso cognitivo - evolutivo sustentado en la teoría de Lawrence Kohlberg. Asimismo, se apoya en los modelos de evaluación del profesorado; en particular, se colocó atención a la evaluación del profesorado y mejora educativa. De igual manera, se encuentran referencias teóricas que contribuyeron a dilucidar el problema de los valores, la eticidad y la moralidad. Además de los anteriores soportes teóricos, la investigación, está dirigida sobre la creencia de que la mejora educativa sólo es posible si es adelantada por el profesorado que demuestra y mantiene cierta madurez en sus estructuras axiológicas.El diseño metodológico que se empleó corresponde al modelo holístico - inductivo de tipo descriptivo y de campo, bajo las consideraciones y permisas que orientan la investigación cualitativa. Resalta por ser un "estudio de casos instrumental". El escenario donde se desarrollo, la contituye la Escuela de Educación de la Universidad de los Andes de Mérida - Venezuela. La población objeto de estudio estuvo formada por los profesores, alumnos y administradores que hacen vida en la citada escuela, las distintas muestras fueron seleccionadas por medio de "muestreo no probabilísticos". En particular, se aplicó el "muestreo accidental o causal" y el "muestreo internacional u opinático". Para recabar la información se diseñó una serie de instrumentos. A los alumnos se les consultó en tres oportunidades a través de tres instrumentos con escala tipo Likert y escalas de clasificación, a los profesores en dos ocasiones, por medio de una encuesta y el autoinforme, y a los gerentes y administradores a través de una entrevista cualitativa en profundidad. Todos los instrumentos empleados fueron revisados y sometidos a consideración de expertos, se estimó su validez de contenido por medio del Coeficiente de Proporción de Rangos (CPR). Los datos fueron presentados y analizados a través del Modelo Interactivo de Miles y Huberman, lo cual permitió el diseño de esquemas, dibujos, gráficos y mapas conceptuales que coadyuvan a la comprensión de información recabada. Las conclusiones apuntan que para pretender mejoras educativas es necesario la interrelación de procesos que abarquen la evaluación del profesorado, el desarrollo profesional y personal y la gestión de la calidad educativa. Para que ello sea posible es inminente y de gran importancia que el profesorado sea colocado como el foco de atención. En este sentido, y en atención a estos presupuestos, la investigación permitió recoger algunas impresiones de los profesores de la escuelo objeto del estudio y, con todo ello elaborar unas conclusiones y propuestas. Descriptores: Desarrollo axiológico, evaluación del profesorado, desarrollo personal, desarrollo profesional, ética, moral, valores, mejora educativa. / The general objective of the research was to contribute to the establishment of a group of criteria for the evaluation of the axiological development of the faculty of the School of Education of the Universidad de los Andes with a view to promoting professional, personal and evaluation programs that would guarantee improvements in the institution. This research is a requisite for candidacy to the title of Doctor of Philosophy under the Doctoral Program: Innovation and the Educational System. In its development special attention was paid to key words related to morality, ethics, professional development, personal development, evaluation, educational improvement, deontological codes and educational values. Together with the principal objective, the carrying out of the reaches and maintains adequate axiological development, the promotion of a culture of institutional and faculty evaluation within the context of the previously mentioned school, the contribution towards the elaboration of a table or scale of values to orientate the moral and ethical development of the faculty can be evaluated and the promotion of the establishment of deontological codes in the school under study.The research is based on several theoretical pillars, the foremost being those related to the different contemporary models that explain the problem of moral education. Special emphasis is placed on the moral education model as a cognitive-evolutive process based on the theory of Lawrence Kohlberg. It is also based on models for faculty evaluation; in particular, attention is placed on the evaluation of the professional development of the faculty and on the assumptions on which faculty evaluation and educational improvement are based. Likewise, theoretical references are found that contribute to the explanation of the problem of values, ethics and morality. Besides the preceding theoretical bases, the research is guided by the belief that educational improvement is possible only if it is promoted by a faculty that demonstrates and maintains certain maturity in its axiological structures.The methodology used was the holistic-inductive model of a descriptive and field type, using at the considerations and premises that orientate qualitative research. It is predominantly an "instrumental case study". The research was carried out at the School of Education of the Universidad de los Andes in Mérida, Venezuela. The population under study was composed of professors, students and administrators of the school. The different samples were taken by means of "chunk sampling". In particular, "accidental or casual sampling" and "purposive or opinion sampling" were used. A series of instruments was designed for gathering information. Students were consulted on three occasions using three instruments with Likert type scales and classification scales, the professors on two occasions by means of a survey and a self-survey, and the managers and administrators through an in-depth qualitative interview. All the instruments used ere reviewed by and submitted for the consideration of experts. Their content validity was estimated by using the Range Proportion Coefficient (RPC). The data were presented and analyzed by means of the Miles and Huberman Intercative Model, Wich allowed diagrams, drawings, graphs and conceptual maps to be made that contributed to the comprehension of the information gathered. The conclusions indicate that in order to obtain educational improvements the interrelation of processes that encompass the evaluation of the faculty, professional and personal development and the attaining of quality education is necessary. For this to be possible, it is necessary and of great importance that the faculty be the focus of attention. In this respect, and in view of these assumptions, the research allowed the gathering of some of the impressions of the professors of the school under study and thereby the drawing of conclusions and the elaboration of conclusions and the elaboration of proposals.Key words: Axiological development, faculty evaluation, personal development, professional development, ethics, morals, values, educational improvement.

The aim of this research is to evaluate the process of the 2005 Excellence in Tuition Awards at the University of South Africa. To achieve this aim an investigation was undertaken into (a) the strengths and weaknesses of the 2005 Awards process and (b) possible ways to improve it for the future. The literature study sought to place the rewarding of quality teaching in the broader framework of international excellence in tuition awards, current criteria (both locally and globally) used in evaluating teaching in higher education, and principles of business process management. The qualitative investigation attempted to provide a contextual understanding of Unisa's experience of awarding excellence in tuition, through an exploration of the experiences of those who were directly involved in the 2005 Excellence in Tuition Awards process at Unisa. The findings serve as basis for guidelines for future Awards processes. / Educational Studies / M. Ed.(Open and Distance Learning)