75

Higher Education 6 (1977) 75-92 © Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in the Netherlands

E V A L U A T I O N OF U N I V E R S I T Y I N S T R U C T O R S IN TH E UNITED STATES: T H E C O N T E X T

ARIE ROTEM

Center for Medical Education, Teacher Training Center for Health Personnel, The University of New South Wales,

Kensington, Australia

and

NAFTALY S. GLASMAN*

Graduate School of Education; University of California, Santa Barbara, Ca., U.S.A.

ABSTRACT

This paper provides an overview of the context within which the teaching function in U.S. universities is carried out. It includes a conceptual scheme for the evaluation of instruction and suggests ways of analyzing evaluation in terms of (a) those components of the scheme which pertain to the instructor and his institutional context, and of (b) those which pertain to the institution and its societal context. The paper ends with advice for university administrators wishing to devise and implement evaluation for instructional improvement.

Evaluat ion o f ins t ruc t ion has r ecen t ly b eco m e an issue for Amer ican universities (see, for example , Pi Lambda Theta , 1967; Eble, 1972; Hender- son and Henderson 1974, ch. 9). Increased demands for evaluat ion have accen tua t ed the impor t ance o f the in ter re la t ionship be tween the univers i ty and its milieu, and have indicated the need for a more cur ren t def in i t ion o f the mission and func t ions o f the university. Behind the demands for evaluat ion lies an alleged desire for ins t ruct ional improvement . Few quarrel with the n o t i o n that i m p r o v e m e n t is a good idea. However , the increased desire o f various publics to be provided wi th evidence for educa t iona l accountab i l i ty , plus a t ight e c o n o m y and a d rop in s tudent en ro l lmen t are equal ly no tab le factors in the demand for i m p r o v e m e n t (Glasman and

Nicholson, 1 9 7 3 ; Glasman and Killait, 1974; Mort imer , 1972). Since

* Currently on leave as Visiting Senior Researcher, Ministry of Education, Jerusalem, Israel.

76

evaluation is a fact of life and will probably continue to be so, as long as evidence of accountability is desired, it has become essential for university decision makers in the United States to analyze the context of instructional evaluation. Careful analysis and deliberate action are needed if decision makers wish to shape the interrelationships between the university and its milieu in times of increased demands. A well-conceived framework is essen- tial for the preparation of tools that will evaluate teaching appropriately and accurately.

This paper is not a review of the literature pertaining to what might be called context of evaluation of instruction in American higher education. It is rather an attempt to describe a perspective of the field of forces which impinge upon the American university and its faculty members. We are concerned here with the milieu in which the teaching function is performed. The first section provides a brief background on the university's teaching function and its improvement. The second section offers the con- ceptual scheme for the context of evaluation of instruction. The third section offers ways of analyzing evaluation in terms of those components of the scheme which pertain to the instructor and his institutional context. The fourth section offers ways of analyzing evaluation in terms of these com- ponents of the scheme which pertain to the institution and its societal context. The fifth section offers broad guidelines for university administra- tors in terms of how to devise and implement evaluation for instructional improvement.

The University's Teaching Function and Its Improvement

Social institutions and organizations derive legitimacy by attaining goals and performing activities which are functional for society. The nature of these activities and goals dictates to a large extent the structure of the institution, its functions and its unique characteristics (Parsons, 1956). The concept of organizational goals is highly problematic and has limited utility for understanding the behavior of organizations (Etzioni, 1964; Weick, 1969; Drabek and Chapman, 1973). Questions which have been raised in this connection are: what should be labeled a goal, where it comes from, how it changes, and what impact it has? (Perrow, 1968). The insight which led organizational theorists to raise these questions has ample relevancy for the university setting.

The university is an institution which advances and diffuses conscious- ness for the entire society. Its outputs are critical factors for the mainte- nance and adaptive structures of the social order (Katz and Kahn, 1966). Some call it a "knowledge factory" (Kerr, 1963), since within its domains knowledge is being produced, applied, preserved and communicated. The

77

university's social responsibilities include socialization of the young; training and certification of professional manpower; transmission of ideas, values and cultural heritage; and provision of hospitable environment in which scholars can produce and apply knowledge (Mortimer, 1972). Public service is another function in which universities are increasingly engaged. This service can be considered as a by-product of research and instruction (Millett, 1962).

Though consensus is sufficient to regard teaching, research and service to the community as the major functions of the university (Barr, 1959, Millett, 1962; Hungate, 1964), there is a great deal of controversy with regard to their relative importance and thus, also, to the allocation of resources and efforts to fulfill them. By virtue of its pluralistic nature, the university is an inconsistent institution; it is not one community but several; and its "edges are fuzzy" (Kerr, 1963). The university is the locus of confrontation of ideas, values and expectations, held by its internal com- munities (students, faculty and administrators) as well as by numerous segments of society (alumni, legislatures and taxpayers).

Pluralism has its obvious virtues. The university is a city of "infinite variety" offering a "vast range of choices" for students and faculty, and numerous services to society (Kerr, 1963). Yet, when decisions must be made as to "whose goals" or "what interests" should be given primacy, the magnitude of complexity is immense.

Organizational roles in the university, as in other institutions, are performed by people with personalities of their own, who act at least in part to realize values and attain goals which are important to them (Getzels, 1970; Greenfield, 1973). The diversity of expectations and interests inevita- bly creates conflict and tension and calls for a process of negotiation and compromise for its resolution. It receives inputs which have the potency to act either as constraints or as opportunities for a given set of responses. The output constitutes a statement of priorities in terms of relative importance and as an action-oriented guide of what comes first in a sequence of events (Stake and Gooler, 1971). What prevails is what is considered most worthy, most critically needed and most feasible to achieve.

In the university, teaching, research and learning exist in a dynamic equilibrium. This equilibrium defines the parameters of the university and more specifically it may define most of the important parameters of the university's teaching function (Saltman, 1973). Professors and students are both engaged in learning. The research endeavor is the learning context for the professor; the teaching endeavor is the learning context for the student. Professors learn through conducting research, for one cannot be expected to teach about "frontiers of knowledge" without being involved in exploring these frontiers. Professors also learn by teaching. By exposing their ideas to students, they receive feedback on their ideas. Students learn as a result of

78

being exposed to professors. This is an efficient way of learning facts and how to examine them as well as learning how to think. Students also learn irrespective of their professors. Although there are different ways to learn both for the professors and for the students, the teaching function is a most significant intervention in the learning process of both.

A teacher can be understood to be a person who is "engaged in interactive behavior with one or more students for the purpose of effecting a change in them" (McNeil and Popham, 1973). To effect changes, a university teacher must deliver information to the learner, and motivate him. He must also demonstrate what is expected of the student in the way of new understanding, behavior, and reactions, provide extensive and meaningful material upon which the student can practice, and promote the student's satisfaction by indicating progress. Besides organizing::the student's work in a sequential and cumulative fashion, the teacher must also provide him with standards and means for self-evaluation.

Two key assumptions can be made about the role of teaching in a university. The first is that the primary purpose of higher education is learning. The second is that teaching in higher education is vital to formal modes of learning. Four implications emerge from these assumptions. First, university deliberations should be understood with respect to their contri- bution to learning. Second, providing instructional services is the main rationale and justification for the enormous investment that goes into universities. Third, the quality of instruction provided to students in a university should be regarded as a crucial factor in the assessment of the overall quality of the university enterprise. Fourth, a university is the best formal arrangement of bringing together scholars as sources of information and students as subjects for learning.

Not much is known at present about how good or bad university teaching is. Neither is there an abundance of knowledge about what constitutes an effective teaching behavior. The argument which follows with respect to the need for improvement of instruction in higher education is based on perceptions and awareness of conditions and not on exact evidence (Eble, 1971 ).

We view improvement as a process of becoming better, that is an advance upon what existed before. Improvement is evolutionary just like development. But while development implies a change toward an end state in the form of a developed product, improvement has no final goal or state, and the need for it is never completely satisfied. Improvement is a process of becoming (Kirk, 1973), and thus, both approachable in the "here and now" and continuing in the future. Fom this point of view improving teaching is a continuing concern, an on-going, "never-ending enterprise" on every college campus (Lee, 1967).

To view improvement in these terms is to realize that regardless of the

79

quality of performance or product at present, be it high or low, instruction in higher education can always be improved further. Of course, not every- thing that can or even should be improved is at tended to in practice [ 1 ]. Rea- lity imposes on individuals and institutions limitations and constraints on the one hand, and offers opportunit ies on the other. In order to estimate the possible targets for improvement it is necessary to become familiar with the constellation in which people live and perform. Both individual faculty members and institutions of higher learning clearly respond to what they perceive as more critically needed; energies move where demands are more intense and pressures stronger, and where opportunit ies are present and easy to capitalize.

A Conceptual Scheme

We assume that people who perform tasks have some notion of what they want or expect to achieve and what they actually obtain. When an individual perceives a gap between his intentions and outcomes he is said to perceive a discrepancy. When he perceives a discrepancy which he deems important to eliminate he is said to experience a need [2]. The degree of importance attached to the elimination of the discrepancy is a function of the extent to which it violates his internalized standards, aspirations and self-interest. The gap can be reduced or eliminated in two ways. One can either lower his level of expectations or at tempt to improve upon the outcomes he obtains. When the domain in which the discrepancy appears is not of great interest to the person or when it is of less interest than other matters, its priority order will be low. Indeed, as far as the person is concerned there may be no need for action. The gap can be removed, then, by adoption of a lower profile in that domain, i.e., lower level of expecta- tions. If the domain in which the discrepancy appears is important for the person, he is likely to a t tempt to improve upon the outcomes. To do so he must become aware of opportunities. Opportunities are situations and/or resources which can be capitalized on for the purpose of satisfying specific needs. The probability of responding to a given discrepancy is, therefore, function of a need to do so and of an awareness of opportunities.

Since the individual does not deliberate in a vacuum, however, he is affected by external influences. Gaps he might have overlooked could be pointed out to him by others. When such gaps create needs for others, they may associate a higher degree of importance to their elimination than the individual at tr ibuted himself. In this way others can create for the individual needs he did not experience originally. Others can also provide or put limitations on the opportunities for the satisfaction of the needs. Thus, a person who performs tasks is pulled by various forces. On the one hand he is

80

affected by his own standards and by expectations of "significant others". On the other hand he is affected by opportunities created by himself or provided by others. A major tension can appear when these forces pull in different directions. Such tension can be intensified considerably if the demands upon him are transformed into pressures. This will happen when the demands are backed by influence (Dahl, 1963). The more capable the source of the demand is, the stronger is the pressure it applies towards curing consequences which are associated with the individual's basic needs.

On balance, needs are a function of discrepancies which are important to bridge. The importance is determined by one's own standards and by expectations and pressures that impinge from the environment. The overall probability of action upon a discrepancy is a function of the need to act and of an availability and awareness of opportunities. A graphic illustration of the conceptual scheme appears in Fig. 1.

Gap between in- tentions and outcomes

Environ ment (significant others)]

D}screpancy] Degree of importance

T High probabil~ty of

satisfymg need

Fig. 1.

High

/ Availability and awareness of opportunities

Low I

of satisfying need

The University Teacher and the Institutional Context

University teachers are typically more oriented toward scholarly work and publication than to teaching. Research activities are closely linked to the university professor's personal motives and qualifications. Teaching is less related to the professor's professional and intellectual interests. In addition, research activities undoubtedly maintain a higher advantage of a cost-benefit ratio than teaching activities. We will further elaborate these contentions, and attempt to draw implications for the status of teaching, its evaluation and its improvement. In line with the conceptual scheme suggested earlier, we advance the proposition that university professors attribute little impor- tance to the removal of discrepancies in the teaching domain. We also suggest

81

that due to this condition faculty view evaluation of their teaching per- formance as a threat to their professional au tonomy rather than as an opportuni ty for improvement.

Organizations do not represent a random sample of people but rather a collective of individuals who were selected with care and who have joined with some a priori notion of the rules of the game. The selection procedure is based on attracting individuals who possess qualifications which are conducive to the attainment of organizational goals and functions. Policies for the recruitment, retention and promotion of personnel are designed to maximize the match between the needs of the organization and the motives and skills of its members. Individuals join organizations also in a highly selective manner. In joining an organization they hope to achieve personal goals in a disciplined manner. They base their decision to join on their notions of what the organization attempts to achieve and what their prospec- tive position and role will be within it.

The collectivity principle holds and is reinforced in a university setting because a prospective faculty member has been trained and certified by an organization which is identical to his prospective place of employment , a university. As a student he has had ample opportunities to learn what the university does and what faculty members do. A decision to join the ranks of a university's faculty reflects commitment to its responsibilities as well as a belief that one's motives and qualifications are suitable.

With this by way of background, two conditions should be stressed. The university teacher is inclined toward research because it is more related to his personal motives and because he is more qualified in that domain than in teaching. Those who are primarily interested in teaching are less likely to join a university staff. They no doubt realize that pre-occupation with teaching rather than with scholarly work will not provide them with job security and advancement under the conditions which prevail in the univer- sity at present. With regard to qualifications a similar situation exists. The university selects and promotes individuals who have the capacity to conduct research. The capacity to teach is not seriously considered by the institution. Moreover, the certification of the university teacher, i.e., the doctoral degree, does not reflect one's ability to teach and thus does not automatical- ly qualify one as a good teacher (e.g. Barzun, 1954; Wise, 1967). Graduate school does not provide much training in teaching. It appears as true today as it was in the past that:

The American college teacher is the only high level professional man in the American scene who enters upon a career with neither the prerequisite trial of competence nor experience in the use of the tools of his profession (Blegen and Cooper, 1950, p. 123).

82

The university teacher is typically not trained to develop a stimulating teaching style, to realize differences among students (level of preparedness, abilities and range of motivations) nor to select appropriate materials for classwork (Wise, 1967). Most universities probably do not seek to interest students in the teaching profession nor to develop long-term plans for faculty recruitment based on teaching needs; they neither envisage their faculty teaching needs in different teaching situations, nor make explicit the underlying philosophy they espouse and the nature of their curricula (Tompkins, 1967). In short, it is suggested here that university professors are more inclined to research than to teaching because of their prior training and the influence of the training institution.

In a university, a professor probably sees that his self-interest lies in efforts toward research rather than toward teaching [3]. It is a simple economic proposition that people seek involvement in activities which carry high utility (Downs, 1967). Each activity has a cost in terms of effort required as well as benefits in terms of satisfaction, material rewards and prestige. Given the choice, people will normally perform activities which carry low cost in relation to potential benefits. If a particular level of cost cannot be changed, the people will perform activities which maximize the benefits.

It is difficult to compare costs which are associated with a professor's research activities and those which are associated with his teaching. Teaching which facilitates student learning calls for a large investment of effort and intelligence. Research which supposedly facilitates the creation of new knowledge calls for similar investments. It could be argued that less efforts and intelligence are needed to get by in teaching than to get by in research because research universities generally utilize more carefully established criteria for adequate research than for adequate teaching. The abundance of non-referenced publications which professors produce makes this argument less convincing. Nonetheless, adequate teaching is regarded by many profes- sors as an activity which requires less skill, less study and less expenditure of intelligence and energy. It is obvious that until it ceases to be regarded as such it cannot maintain equal status with research (Eble, 1971).

Differences in costs can also be viewed in relation to uncertainties about accrued benefits. Here the comparison between teaching and research is easier. In teaching, the professor is dependent on the cooperation of his students since he cannot perform this activity irrespective of them. Moreover, their willingness to study can be related to factors which are independent of his effort. A good teacher can conceivably modify conditions which would promote learning, but his control over such conditions is limited. In research, the professor has more control over the variables which affect the quality of his activities since the dependent variables are most closely aligned with those which represent his abilities and efforts. Another

83

dimension of the uncertainties inherent in teaching is the proposition that assessing the results of teaching may be more difficult than assessing those of research. Thus, having less control over the teaching process than over the research process, and knowing less about its results than about those of research, produces higher risks in teaching than in research. These higher risks produce higher costs.

The benefits of teaching efforts also seem to be lower than the benefits which accrue from research. A professor can derive more material rewards, recognition and prestige from involvement in research than from involve- ment in teaching. His promotion is more related to the quality of his scholarly work and visibility off the campus than it is to the quality of his teaching (Lee, 1967) and visibility on the campus. A research-oriented professor is more likely than his teaching colleague to receive grants from which he, and the institution as a whole, benefit. He becomes an asset to the institution since his own reputation contributes to the prestige of the institution. This eventually affects students' choice of institution and advisers within them. The research-oriented professor can more easily move from one institution to another and choose among competing offers. Overall, he becomes less vulnerable to the administration of the institution than his teaching-oriented colleague.

Benefits associated with teaching appear to be less appealing. Since teaching may require less specialization than research, the teaching-oriented professor finds himself in a situation where more people than he cares to see have something to say about his teaching (Eble, 1971). Teaching as a professional vocation lacks recognition and prestige. Benefit-conscious professors prefer, if they can, to be known as scholars, researchers or scientists rather than as teachers. The notion that teaching stimulates research is not necessarily true for teaching undergraduates. The high specialization in the academic disciplines reduces the likelihood that students could stimulate the professors' scholarly inquiry interests. Indeed, for some professors teaching is avocational at best and disruptive at worst.

In summary, we are suggesting that though teaching is a major activity in the university it is not of major concern for the faculty member. Thus, we propose that university professors are unlikely to perceive discrepancies in their teaching performance or to attribute importance to those discrepancies they do perceive. With a low level of expectations one's standards are less likely to be violated under normal circumstances. University professors are typically satisfied with their teaching performance and, therefore, do not experience a need to improve upon it. When the results of their efforts in this domain prove to be less than satisfactory, they are likely to lower even further their level o f expectations rather than improve. Their reference for excellence and competence is research, and it is in this domain that they legitimize their membership in the organization.

84

Since they are not trained for the teaching function, university profes- sors typically lack awareness of opportunities for improvement. Further, opportunities for improvement of the teaching function are not typically available in the university setting, since most universities do not envisage their faculty teaching needs in different teaching situations. We must, there- fore, conclude that the probability of the improvement of teaching is low. Nowhere is this conclusion more crucial than in a discussion of the evalua- tion of teacher performance. Evaluation, the assessment of the extent to which specific goals are achieved and/or progress is made, is essential for any rational improvement. However, its judgmental nature and the consequences it may have for its subjects make evaluation a sensitive political issue. In the university where academic freedom and professional autonomy are sustained and encouraged, evaluation of teachers constitutes a threat to the professor. It is not in the least surprising that the university professor is less than enthusiastic to give up some of the degrees of freedom he has at present. Moreover, one is not likely to wish to be evaluated in an area in which he has little interest and in which he lacks skills and competence. This is especially true when one has reasons to believe that the information gathered on his performance can be used against him when promotion in rank or tenure is considered. Under such circumstances, evaluation is not viewed as a useful tool for improvement. Instead, it is perceived as interference by the univer- sity administration and by the public representatives in the professor's professional autonomy.

The intervention of the university administration and the public which is expressed by the demand for teacher's evaluation creates considerable pressure on the university professor, since it is backed by influence. He is forced to realize gaps in his performance and to attribute importance to their elimination. However, if improvement is to occur, the university as an institution must provide the professor with opportunities in the teaching domain. It appears that at present the forces which affect the university professor are pulling in different directions. There is an increasingly strong pressure to improve the teaching function. At the same time, opportunities for the individual professor exist in research rather than in teaching. Unless both pressures and opportunities are channeled in the same direction the university professor will continue to be torn between his teaching and research responsibilities. It is crucial that the organization reward and encourage in reality what it claims to value, if goal displacement is to be avoided.

The University Teaching Function and the Societal Context

The university perceives that evaluation of its faculty's teaching with its

85

long-standing emphasis on research and scholarly activities creates a discrep- ancy between what it has always expected to achieve and what it now actually does achieve. The university's expected achievements, as the expected achievements of individual faculty members, have always been shaped both internally and externally. Internally, the university's expected achievements have been shaped by the way the institution has related to its faculty. Externally it has been shaped by the way it has related to the society.

The university expects its faculty members to contribute to the attain- ments of its goals and the fulfillment of its functions. It also expects its faculty members to be loyal to the institution and to its goals. These expectations by and large have been met, since most university employees have been trained and certified by the same or a similar university. They see their involvement in the university teaching and research functions to be much the same as the involvement of their former professors.

Until recently, the university's expectations of the society have also been consistently met. The situation changed when the American society created demands on the university which reflected the society's own changing needs.

In at least three domains which have immediate relevance to teaching in higher education, the American university has realized recently that it does not achieve what it expects from society. It expects societal financial support, but it has to struggle in order to attain it. It expects to be able to select students from a large number of interested applicants, but it finds itself engaged in extensive recruiting activities because of enrollment drops. It expects to maintain its academic freedom, but it finds itself constantly engaged in warding off outside interference.

The post-industrial society is characterized by complexity and rapid change (Toffler, 1970). To maintain its integrity and continue its growth, society needs highly specialized role incumbents and humanists who can capitalize on the "explosion of knowledge" and who can untangle moral issues that stem from the multiplicity of value systems. At the same time, if progress is to continue, this society needs scientists, philosophers and artists to advance its knowledge and culture and to provide essential services. The university, as the primary institution for research and instruction in society, has major responsibilities with respect to these needs.

The specific commitment of the American society to provide "social justice" to all its citizens constitutes another challenge to the American university. The struggle of the minorities and other economically and educationally disadvantaged sectors is reflected vividly in all educational institutions. Education is seen as the most efficient and possibly the only way for social mobility and the "better life."

As society grows in complexity, its educational system assumes an

86

increasingly central role in its maintenance and adaptation. The public and its representatives, in realizing the importance of the educational system, becomes more interested in its transactions and outputs, holds higher expectations of it, invests more resources in its operation and feels stronger urges to control it. Consequently, the system becomes more visible to the public and, hence, under heavier scrutiny.

When real or presumed deficiencies are perceived by the public between what it expects and what it achieves, the public demands corrective measures. It has been hypothesized (Anderson and Ertell, 1962) that the American public's concern with higher education is focused on three major factors: the quality, the quan t i ty and the cost of services. The university is expected to hold itself accountable in these three areas to the public and its representatives. To demonstrate its effectiveness and efficiency, the public expects the university to evaluate its operations on an on-going basis and provide relevant information to external agents who represent the public interest.

Under present economic conditions in America the public is especially concerned with the costs of the university. The taxpayer would like to see the university reducing rather than increasing its expenditures. Since this objective is almost impossible to attain unless painful surgery is made, the public intensifies its demand for an account of the way its tax money is spent. With a tight economy, investment in education is perceived as dearer, since it is more painful for the taxpayer to bear the expense.

The American public university and to a lesser extent the private university are dependent on legislative appropriations for survival. Though student fees have been increased in recent years in most institutions, expenditures grow much faster. The university becomes increasingly sensitive to stimuli from state and federal aid. To receive funds, the university is forced to make some changes in its recruitment and retention of faculty and students.

With regard to its teaching function the university perceives strong demands from the society to evaluate instruction. These demands have been backed by influence through reduction in financial appropriations in general, through making increases in financial appropriations conditional on student enrollment figures, and through allocations of new financial appropriations for evaluation of instruction. University administrations understand these demands as pressures for accountability but so far they choose to translate them to their faculties as demands for instructional improvement. It is the only way the university can continue as a knowledge-oriented institution which is relatively free of outside interference with its academic freedom. It is the only way the university can continue to train specialized manpower as it sees fit or to endure as the best model for learning. In short, it is the best way the university can respond to societal pressures without upsetting the

87

balance between what it expects, and has always expected of its faculty, and what it now must actually obtain from the faculty. University administrators have taken the lead in establishing the machinery for evaluation of instruc- tion, but they have left in the hands of its faculties the tasks of defining the substance and of deciding how the results of evaluation are to be integrated with results of evaluation of other faculty functions such as research.

This, of course, does not mean that public scrutiny and demands for accountability will not continue to be on the minds of university administra- tors. Neither does it mean that faculty members are not concerned with the accountability origins of their administrations' demand for evaluation of instruction for improvement. On the contrary, these issues probably guide the administrators and faculty in their strategies to both satisfy and combat demands for accountability. The degrees of freedom which universities have in designing and implementing such strategies are still many. Virtues of academic freedom and tenure are still part of academic life. There is still no evidence to show that societal pressures have caused the university to basically alter its order of priorities which has been established and main- tained according to the university's own culture and traditions. If society will be satisfied with progress which is presently associated with evaluation of instruction for improvement, the university can continue to survive as it has in the past. For continued survival the university must bridge the gap between its emphasis on scholarship and its need for evaluation of instruc- tion.

Evaluation for Instructional Improvement: Two Broad Guidelines

We have argued the following: the discrepancy between the university's traditional emphasis on autonomous scholarship and expertise and the demand for evaluation leading to instructional improvement lies only marginally in the institutional context in which the professor works. In this context the discrepancy is visible only to the extent that the teaching- oriented professor strives for excellence in teaching. The discrepancy lies predominantly in the societal context in which the university operates. A key assumption to the understanding of these propositions is that the alleged reason for evaluation of instruction, the improvement objective, is not only a legitimate reason at all times, but is also the only sane reason which the university can substitute for the real reason for evaluation of instruction, that is, the accountability objective in times of public scrutiny. The alleged reason is, in a way, simultaneously a viable cover-up and a productive open secret. Being an open system, the university must act in this way in times when the needs,~ demands, and challenges which originate outside of it (Lee, 1967) conflict with those which originate inside (House Report No. 1158, 1965; Nisbet, 1967; Peterson, 1974).

88

Two major questions exist for the American university as it at tempts to bridge the gap between its emphasis on research and the demands imposed on it for evaluation of instruction. The first is how to convince the American

society that evaluation of instruction for improvement will lead to increased accountability. The second is how to convince the American professors that evaluation of instruction for improvement can live side by side with an emphasis on research. The first question should be handled in a volume of governance and politics of American higher education. An a t tempt is made to answer the second question in a recent volume (Glasman et al., 1974).

The model described earlier in this paper is helpful for offering broad guidelines for action. The guides which are offered here are for the institu- tion as a whole and, thus, can be seen as guides for evaluation of faculty as an administrative function. The first general guideline: the American higher education institution should apply pressure on its faculty to engage in evaluation of instruction for purposes other than instructional improvement only to the extent that it satisfies societal pressures which the university was unable to ward off. The second guideline: the institution should utilize societal pressures for accountabil i ty as an impetus to faculty to engage in evaluation of instruction for improvement purposes for as long as possible. The former will protect the university's commitment to freedom of inquiry and, thus, will not create a major discrepancy between what the university expects of both its faculty and its society, and what it actually achieves. The latter will facilitate the university's commitment to excellence of inquiry because teaching does include a scholarly component (Glasman et al., 1974, Ch. 3, 12 and 14).

In summary, a predominant feature of the context o f evaluation of instructors in American universities and colleges is that it includes a dual set of foci, the improvement focus and the accountabil i ty focus. In the institu- tional subcontext within which the professor works, a reasonable balance between the two foci has been maintained, largely because the account- ability focus has not by itself created' a significant discrepancy between the professor's scholarly au tonomy and the trend for evaluating instructors for improvement. The balance in the societal context in which the university a~ a whole operates has recently become a difficult objective to attain, because the accountabil i ty focus has intensified the above discrepancy. To assure the attainment of the second balance without upsetting the first balance, the university administration should intensify its own demands for evaluation for instructional improvement, and be able to advance and defend the argument to the society that increased instructional improvement serves the accountabili ty objective in the most effective manner. To the extent that the administrator can utilize societal demands for accountabili ty as stimuli for heightening the priority of teaching and its improvement within the univer- sity, he will satisfy societal demands and simultaneously facilitate the achievement of professional standards of faculty.

89

Notes

1 This realization is congruent with Simon's notion of "satisfying" (Simon, 1955). 2 Popham and Skager (1968) and Got tman and Clasen (1972) equate need (in need

assessment) with discrepancy. However, as Stake and Gooler (1971) point out, it is erroneous to regard the magnitude or size of the discrepancy as an indication of urgency (i.e., extent of need). What may be important for one person at one time may not be important for him at another time. It may be altogether of marginal importance for others. When a person perceives a discrepancy and yet does not have the urge to act upon it, there is no need to do so as far as he is concerned or, there are other needs that must be met first. The notion of "significance" is discussed by Maslow in his conceptualization of the needs hierarchy.

3 Although discussion here is restricted to universities which emphasize scholarly inquiry, the self-interest of professors in universities which emphasize teaching has not been proven to be in acquiring a respectable teaching profile either.

References

Anderson, Lester and Ertell, Merlon. (1962). "Extra-Inst i tut ional Forces Affecting Professional Education". In: Education for the Professions. 61st Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Barr, A .S . (1959). "The Appraisal of Teaching in Large Universities: A Summary of Remarks." In: The Appraisal of Teaching in Large Universities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Barzum, Jacques. (1954). Teacher in America. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. Chapter 14.

Blegen, Theodore and Cooper, Russell. (1950). The Preparation of Teachers. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education. p. 123.

Brown, James and Thornton, James. (1971). College Teaching: A Systematic Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dahl, Robert, (1963). Modern Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.

Downs, Anthony. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Brown, Little and Co. Drabek, Thomas and Chapman, Judith. (1973). "On Assessing Organizational Priorities:

Concept and Method," The Sociological Quarterly. Summer. pp. 359-375 . Eble, Kenneth, E. (1971). The Recognition and Evaluation of Teaching. Washington

D.C.: American Association of University Professors. Eble, Kenneth, E. (1972). Professors as Teachers. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Etzioni, Amitai. (1964). Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice-

Hall. Getzels, Jacob W. (1970). "Creative Administrat ion and Organizational Change: An Essay

in Theory." In: Rubin, L. (ed.). Frontiers in School Leadership. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 6 9 - 8 5 .

Glasman, Naftaly, S. and Nicholson, Stanley J. (eds.). (1973). First UCSB Conference on Effective Teaching. Santa Barbara, California: Regents of the University of California.

Glasman, Naftaly, S. and Killait, Berthold R. (eds.). (1974). Second UCSB Conference on Effective Teaching. Santa Barbara, California: Regents of the University of California.

90

Glasman, Naftaly S., and others. (1974). Evaluation o f Instructors in Higher Education: Concepts, Research and Development. Santa Barbara, California: Regents of the University of California.

Gottman, Mordecai and Clasen, Robert. (1972). Evaluation in Education. Itasca, Illinois: Peacock Pub.

Greenfield, T.B. (1973). "Organizations as Social Invention, Rethinking Assumptions About Change," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Vol. 9 No. 5.

Henderson, Algo D., and Henderson Jean Glidden. (1974). Higher Education in America. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Ch. 9.

House Report No. 1158. (1965). Conflicts Between the Federal Research Programs and the National Goals for Higher Education. October.

Hungate, T. L. (1964). Management in Higher Education. New York: McGraw Hill. Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert. (1966). The Social Psychology o f Organizations. New

York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Kerr, Clark. (1963). "The Uses of the University." The University Crisis Reader, Vol. 1.

New York: Random House. pp. 80-86. Kirk, Henry P. (1973). "Excellence in Bite Size Chunks." Improving College and Univer-

sity Teaching. Vol. 21, No. 1. Winter. p. 14. Lee, Calvin, B. (ed.). (1967). Improving College Teaching. Washington D.C.: The

American Council on Education. p. 1. Light, D.W., Jr., Marsden, L.R. and Corl, T.C. (1973). The Impact o f Academic

Revolution on Faculty Careers. Washington D.C.: American Association of Higher Education.

McNeil, James D. and Popham, James W. (1973). "The Assessment of Teacher Compe- tency." In: Second Handbook on Research on Teaching. Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Millett, J. D. (1962). The Academic Community. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mortimer, Kenneth, P. (1972). Accountability in Higher Education. Washington D.C.:

American Association for Higher Education. Nisbet, Robert A. (1967). "Conflicting Academic Loyalties." Improving College

Teaching. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education. pp. 21-34. Parsons, Talcott. (1956). "Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of

Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 1. June. pp. 63-85. Perrow, C. (1968). "Organizational Goals." In: Sills, David (ed.). International Encyclo-

pedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 2. pp. 305-311. New York: The MacMillan Co. and the Free Press.

Peterson, Marvin A. (1974). "Organization and Administration of Higher E.ducation: Sociological and Social-Psychological Perspectives." In: Review of Research in Educa- tion. Vol. 2. Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock Pub. pp. 296-347.

Pi Lambda Theta. (1967). The Evaluation o f Teaching. A report of the Second Pi Lambda Theta Catena. Washington D.C.: Pi Lambda Theta.

Popham, James and Skager, Rodney. (1968). "Instructional Objectives Measurement Systems." Progress in Evaluation Study. Los Angeles: University of California.

Saltman, Paul. (1973). "The Interrelationship Between Teaching and Research." In: The University in the Seventies: The Impacts o f Changing Circumstances. 27th All Univer- sity Faculty Conference. Berkeley, California: Regents of the University of California.

Simon, Herbert A. (1955). "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," Quarterly Journal o f Economics. Vol. 69. pp. 129 138.

Stake, R. and Gooler, D. (1971). "Measuring Educational Priorities," Educational Tech- nology. Vol. 11, No. 9. pp. 44-48.

91

Toffler, Alvin. (1970). Future Shock. New York: Random House. Tompkins, Pauline. (1967). "National Needs and Legitimate Institutional Aspirations,"

Improving College Teaching. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education. Weick, Karl (1969). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, Massachusetts:

Addison-Wesley Press. Wise, Max. (1967). "Who Teaches the Teachers?" Improving College Teaching.

Washington, D.C. : American Council on Education.