Section 6.4.2 Staff

Section 6.4.2 Staff

Section 6.4.2 Staff

As touched upon in Section 5.3 potentially the most damaging consequence of SET is the affective impact this may have on an academic, particularly at an early stage in their career. Moore and Kuol (2005) report two such common affective reactions:

1. Lecturers whose performance was evaluated negatively could experience ‘dismay, dejection and withdrawal from a commitment to teaching effectiveness’


2. Lecturers whose overall performance was evaluated positively could become ‘fixated’ on relatively minor issues criticised by students

The other staff-related concerns, mentioned in Section 3, arise from the lack of clarity of the purpose of the evaluation, and to what use the data could be put. Suspicion can foster cynicism, and this can be exacerbated if the stated reason for gathering or using feedback gathered is different from the real one (Nichols, Glass, & Berliner, 2006; Watanabe, & Curtis, 2004)

In many cases academics regard evaluation, particularly summative evaluation, in the same way that students do (as a bureaucratic process with very little beneficial impact) but with the added concern of its potential for control (Newton, 2000; Harvey, 2002). Kember, Leung, and Kwan (2002) suggest that there are several reasons for the lack of commitment to changing teaching practices following SET, including:

  • Faculty perception that there’s little incentive to improve teaching
  • Emphasis on audit is at odds with the developmental aspect of evaluation
  • Reliance on questionnaires that focus on the act of teaching of the teacher him/herself


Activity 6.4.2

What are your personal concerns/perceived negative consequences about SET?

Based on the issues listed above, which would be classified as summative and which as formative?

Formative Issues:


Summative Issues:

Submit your answers


Back to 6.4.1 Continue to Section 6.4.3 Back To Section 6

Page tools