1. bookVolume 17 (2014): Issue 2 (December 2014)
Journal Details
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
access type Open Access

Online Full-Time Faculty’S Perceptions of Ideal Evaluation Processes

Published Online: 03 Mar 2015
Volume & Issue: Volume 17 (2014) - Issue 2 (December 2014)
Page range: 208 - 219
Journal Details
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year

Post-secondary institutions around the world use various methods to evaluate the teaching performance of faculty members. Effective evaluations identify areas of instructional strength, provide faculty with opportunities for growth, and allow for reflective inquiry. While there is an extensive body of research related to the evaluation of faculty in traditional settings, there have been few studies examining online faculty members’ perceptions of evaluation processes. The present study involved dissemination of an e-survey to online full-time faculty at a large university in the Southwest United States, as well as qualitative content analysis of survey data. Findings suggest that online full-time faculty expressed interest in improvement as instructors, distinct from modality, and preferred descriptive, qualitative, and holistic feedback rather than quantitative or punitive feedback. Further, participants articulated a desire to be evaluated by those with content-specific knowledge rather than teaching expertise in the online environment. This study has implications for online distance administrators and those stakeholders involved in online faculty evaluation. Additional research is needed to continue to establish a baseline for how online faculty members conceptualize ideal evaluation processes.


1. Allen, I.E. and Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group, Pearson, Sloan-C. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

2. Arreola, R.A. (1979). Strategy for developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. In Engineering Education, 12, (pp. 239-244).Search in Google Scholar

3. Arreola, R.A. (1986). Evaluating the dimensions of teaching. In Instructional Evaluation, 8(2), (pp. 4-14).Search in Google Scholar

4. Arreola, R.A. (1995). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

5. Arreola, R.A. (2000a). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

6. Arreola, R.A. (2000b). Interview. In The Department Chair, 11(2), (pp. 4-5).Search in Google Scholar

7. Arreola, R.A.; Aleamoni, L.A.; Theall, M. (2001). College teaching as meta-profession: Reconceptualizing the scholarship of teaching and learning. Paper presented at the 9th Annual American AAHE Conference on Faculty Roles and Rewards, Tampa, FL.Search in Google Scholar

8. Baran, E.; Correia, A. and Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. In Distance Education, 32(3), (pp. 421-439). doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.61029310.1080/01587919.2011.610293Search in Google Scholar

9. Beebe, R.; Vonderwell, S.; Boboc, M. (2010). Emerging Patterns in Transferring Assessment Practices from F2f to Online Environments. In Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 8(1), (pp. 1-12).Search in Google Scholar

10. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communications research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Search in Google Scholar

11. Berk, R.A. (2006). Thirteen strategies to measure college teaching: A consumer’s guide to rating scale construction, assessment, and decision making for faculty, administrators, and clinicians. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

12. Berk, R.A. (2013). Face-to-face versus online course evaluations: A “consumer's guide” to seven strategies. In Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 9(1), (pp. 140-148).Search in Google Scholar

13. Berk, R.A. (2014). Should student outcomes be used to evaluate teaching? In Journal of Faculty Development, 28(2), (pp. 87-96).Search in Google Scholar

14. Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Search in Google Scholar

15. Boyer, E.L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. In Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1, (pp. 11-20).10.2307/3824459Search in Google Scholar

16. Braskamp, L.A. (2000). Toward a more holistic approach to assessing faculty as teachers. In K. Ryan (ed.), Evaluating teaching in higher education: A vision for the future. New directions for teaching and learning, Number 83. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

17. Braskamp, L.A.; Brandenburg, D.C. and Ory, J.C. (1984). Evaluating teaching effectiveness. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

18. Burke, L.A. (2005). Transitioning to online course offerings: Tactical and strategic considerations. In Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(2), (pp. 94-107).Search in Google Scholar

19. Carney, T.F. (1972). Content analysis. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Search in Google Scholar

20. Glassick, C.E.; Huber, M.T. and Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

21. Harrington, C.F. and Reasons, S.G. (2005). Online student evaluation of teaching for distance education: A perfect match? In The Journal of Educators Online, 2(1), (pp. 1-12). Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/ReasonsFinal.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

22. Hathorn, L. and Hathorn, J. (2010). Evaluation of online course websites: Is teaching online a tug-of-war? In Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), (pp. 197-217). doi:10.2190/EC.42.2.d10.2190/EC.42.2.dSearch in Google Scholar

23. Hixon, E.; Barczyk, C.; Buckenmeyer, J.; Feldman, L. (2011). Mentoring university faculty to become high quality online educators: A program evaluation. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(5).Search in Google Scholar

24. Holsti, O.R. (1968). Content analysis. In G. Lindzey & E. Aaronson (eds.), The handbook of social psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Search in Google Scholar

25. Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.Search in Google Scholar

26. Krippendorff, K.H. and Bock, M.A. (2008). The content analysis reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

27. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815355Search in Google Scholar

28. Levy, S. (2003). Six factors to consider when planning online distance learning programs in higher education. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Education, 6(1).Search in Google Scholar

29. Light, G. and Cox, R. (2001). Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

30. Loveland, K.A. (2007). Student evaluation of teaching (SET) in web-based classes: Preliminary findings and a call for further research. In The Journal of Educators Online, 4(2), (pp. 1-18). Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/Volume4Number2/Loveland Final.pdf10.9743/JEO.2007.2.4Search in Google Scholar

31. MacMillan, M.; Mitchell, M. and Manarin, K. (2010). Evaluating teaching as the first step to SoTL. Paper presented at SoTL Commons Conference, Statesboro, GA, 2010, March 1. Search in Google Scholar

32. Mandernach, J.B.; Donnelli, E.; Dailey, A.; Schulte, M. (2005). A faculty evaluation model for online instructors: Mentoring and evaluation in the online classroom. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(3).Search in Google Scholar

33. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

34. Moore, M. and Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth CENGAGE.Search in Google Scholar

35. Mueller, B.; Mandernach, B.J.; Sanderson, K. (2013). Adjunct versus full-time faculty: Comparison of student outcomes in the online classroom. In Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 9(3), (pp. 341-352).Search in Google Scholar

36. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

37. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203507711Search in Google Scholar

38. Roblyer, M.D. and Ekhaml, L.E. (2000). How interactive are YOUR distance courses? A rubric for assessing interaction in distance learning. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(2).Search in Google Scholar

39. Rockwell, K.; Furgason, J.; Marx, D.B. (2000). Research and evaluation needs for distance education: A Delphi study. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(3).Search in Google Scholar

40. Rothman, T.; Romeo, L.; Brennan, M.; Mitchell, D. (2011). Criteria for assessing student satisfaction with online courses. In International Journal for e-Learning Security, 1(1-2), (pp. 27-32). Retrieved from http://www.infonomics-society.org/IJeLS/Criteria for Assessing Student Satisfaction with Online Courses.pdf10.20533/ijels.2046.4568.2011.0004Search in Google Scholar

41. Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

42. Schulte, M. (2014). Faculty Perceptions on the Benefits of Instructor Evaluation for Improved Online Facilitation. In the Proceedings of TCC Online Conference, 2014, (pp. 98-110). Retrieved from: http://etec.hawaii.edu/proceedings/2014/Schulte.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

43. Smith, M. K. (2003, 2009). Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger and communities of practice. In the encyclopedia of informal education. Available online at http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htmSearch in Google Scholar

44. Sunal, D.W.; Sunal, C.S.; Odell, M.R. and Sundberg, C.A. (2003). Research-supported best practices for developing online learning. In The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2(1).Search in Google Scholar

45. Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

46. Tallent-Runnels, M.K.; Thomas, J.A.; Lan, W.Y.; Cooper, S.; Ahern, T.C.; Shaw, S.M.; Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. In Review of Educational Research, 76(1), (pp. 93-135). doi:10.3102/0034654307600109310.3102/00346543076001093Search in Google Scholar

47. Tobin, T.J. (2004). Best practices for administrative evaluation of online faculty. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2).Search in Google Scholar

48. Wellein, M.G.; Ragucci, K.R. and Lapointe, M. (2009). A peer review process for classroom teaching. In American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(5), (pp. 1-7).10.5688/aj730579Search in Google Scholar

49. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803932Search in Google Scholar

50. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. In Organization, 7(2), (pp. 225-246). 10.1177/135050840072002Search in Google Scholar

51. Wenger, E. (2012). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from http://wenger-trayner.com/theory/Search in Google Scholar

52. Wenger, E.; Trayner, B. and de Laat, M. (2011) Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Raport 18, Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open Universiteit. Retrieved from http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/11-04- Wenger_Trayner_DeLaat_Value_creation.pdf Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo