Kenneth A. Feldman

Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teachers as related to their instructional effectiveness: A review and exploration

This analysis reviews the research that has been done on the connection between research productivity or scholarly accomplishment of faculty members and their teaching effectiveness (as assessed by their students). On average, there is a very small positive association between the two variables. To understand this relationship better, extant research was explored for factors that might mediate either positive or inverse associations between research productivity and teaching effectiveness and those that possibly could be common causes of them. Pedagogical practices and dispositions of faculty members, as well as certain course or class characteristics (size of class, electivity of course), were examined as potential mediating factors. Potential common causes investigated were academic rank and age of faculty members, their general ability, their personality characteristics, and the amount of time or effort they spend on research activities. The association between research productivity and teaching effectiveness was explored further by considering whether its size and direction varies by career stage of faculty members, their academic discipline, and the type of college or university in which they teach.

Course characteristics and college students' ratings of their teachers: What we know and what we don't

From showing in a general way that there is “room” for course context to influence class (average) ratings of instruction, this review proceeds to a search for specific course characteristics that are associated with these ratings. Extant research has centered around five such characteristics: class size, course level, the “electivity” of the course, the particular subject matter of the course, and the time of day that the course is held. Although statistically significant zero-order relationships do not appear in every piece of research located for review, such relationships are more likely to be found than not for the first four of these characteristics. The associations may not be particularly strong, but rather clear-cut patterns do emerge. Of the studies reporting an association between size of class and class ratings, most find it to be inverse, although several studies show a curvilinear (U-shaped) relationship. Teacher (and course) ratings tend to be somewhat higher for upper division courses and elective courses. Compared to other instructors, those teaching humanities, fine arts, and languages tend to receive somewhat higher ratings. The possible reasons for these relationships are many and complex. A precise understanding of the contribution of course characteristics to the ratings of teachers (and the courses themselves) is hampered by two circumstances. Studies in which relevant variables are controlled are far fewer in number than are the studies in which only the zero-order relationships between course characteristics and ratings are considered. More importantly, existing multivariate studies tend to underplay or ignore the exact place of course characteristics in a causal network of variables.

College Students' Views of Male and Female College Teachers: Part II--Evidence from Students' Evaluations of Their Classroom Teachers.

Although a majority of studies have found that male and female college teachers do not differ in the global ratings they receive from their students, when statistically significant differences are found, more of them favor women than men. Across studies, the average association between gender and overall evaluation, while favoring women (averager=+.02), is so small as to be insignificant in practical terms. Considering specific instructional dimensions of evaluations, female teachers receive very slightly higher ratings on their sensitivity to and concern with class level and progress than do men (averager=+.12). On other specific dimensions, men and women either do not differ or the differences are trivial in size (or, for two dimensions, while nontrivial, based on too few studies to be generalizable with any degree of certainty). Students tend to rate same-gendered teachers a little higher than opposite-gendered teachers. Although interaction effects on evaluations have also been found between gender of teacher and other factors (academic rank of the teacher, academic area, class level of the course, difficulty of the teacher or course, and the teachers pedagogical orientation or personality characteristics), they are inconsistent across studies. Moreover, ratings of teachers are sometimes enhanced by gender-typical, and sometimes by gender-atypical, attributes, behaviors, and positions. The findings are discussed in terms of the expectations or demands of students and whether or not student ratings are biased by the gender of the teacher.

Identifying Exemplary Teachers and Teaching: Evidence from Student Ratings1

In the original chapter (1997), Feldman explores how student ratings can be used to identify those teachers who are seen by students as exemplary, while noting certain precautions (which involve myths, half-truths and bias) in doing so. He also analyzes how exemplary teaching itself can be identified in terms of specific pedagogical dispositions, behaviors and practices of teachers. While the essential findings of this earlier analysis remain valid, there have been changes in the nature and focus of research on college teaching and its evaluation. As well, new challenges and developments are forcing higher education to rethink its paradigms and practices in such areas as teaching, the evaluation of faculty performance, and the kinds of support faculty need to meet the increasingly complex professional demands placed on the professoriate. The co-authors of the commentary and update (Theall and Feldman) review the principal findings of the original chapter, discuss the literature of the past decade, and offer suggestions for ways in which higher education and the professoriate can survive and flourish in the future

What Do College Students Have To Lose? Exploring the Outcomes of Differences in Person-Environment Fits

Although students entering academic majors incongruent with their dominant personality type remain the same or decline in their initially prominent characteristics, they gain in the abilities and interests promoted by their chosen major. They do not differ from their congruent counterparts in either their academic and social involvements and satisfactions or various personal costs and discontents.

Measuring College Environments: Some Uses of Path Analysis

Colleges are not alike. Just As Rose (1964) is perfectly correct in labeling as a myth any reference to the American student, so the American college or university does not exist. Institutions of higher education differ in their institutional characteristics, their culture and social structures, their objectives, and the attributes of their members, to list only a few variables. To capture this variation—in order to describe and classify colleges and universities—a number of approaches have been proposed. Researchers do not agree as to the one best way of categorizing colleges and measuring their environments. There may in fact not be a best way; different methods suit different purposes. The following list of approaches is not meant to be exhaustive nor are the entries necessarily mutually exclusive:

Some Methods for Assessing College Impacts.

A number of methods exist for assessing the impacts of colleges on students. The distinguishing characteristics of the following procedures are reviewed and compared: two-stage input-output model; path analysis; different ways of partitioning explained variance; stochastic models. Some of the conditions under which an investigator might want to use one rather than another of these methods are discussed.

Using Holland's Theory to Study Patterns of College Student Success: The Impact of Major Fields on Students *

For the past ten years or so we have explored the use of the person-environment fit theory of John Holland (1966, 1973, 1985a, 1997) to study the change and stability of abilities, interests and values of college students within their academic disciplines (Smart & Feldman, 1998; Smart et al., 2000, 2006; Feldman et al., 2001; Feldman et al., 1999, 2004). In doing so, we have become increasingly cognizant of the following two properties of Holland’s theory: (1) its usefulness in tracking alternative kinds of student success; and (2) the strength of the sociological potentials and implications embedded within it. The present chapter presents a systematic exposition and articulation of these two domains of interest. After presenting a brief overview of Holland’s theory, we use the theory to consider new directions for research on college student success. The ensuing discussion focuses on alternative patterns of student success (within major fields), which we illustrate with longitudinal data. We then consider the practical, programmatic and policy implications of our analysis, followed by a comparison of Holland’s theory with other contemporary efforts to understand student success.

A Memoir of My Professional Life: What I Can Remember and What I Can Tell

In this memoir of my professional life, I focus on my research and scholarly writings. I not only present the substance of this work but also relate just how it came about. To round out the picture, I describe some of my teaching and service activities; in addition, I give some limited information about my family and personal life.