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

Meredith DeCosta, Emily Bergquist, Rick Holbeck,  and Scott Greenberger 1
  • 1 Courtney McGinnis, Kevin Reidhead, Grand Canyon University, United States of America


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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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:10.1080/01587919.2011.610293

  • 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).

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

  • 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.

  • 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).

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

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

  • 15. Boyer, E.L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. In Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1, (pp. 11-20).

  • 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.

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

  • 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).

  • 19. Carney, T.F. (1972). Content analysis. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

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

  • 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

  • 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.d

  • 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).

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

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

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

  • 27. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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).

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

  • 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 Final.pdf

  • 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.

  • 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).

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

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

  • 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).

  • 36. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • 37. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. New York: Routledge.

  • 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).

  • 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).

  • 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 for Assessing Student Satisfaction with Online Courses.pdf

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

  • 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:

  • 43. Smith, M. K. (2003, 2009). Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger and communities of practice. In the encyclopedia of informal education. Available online at

  • 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).

  • 45. Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.

  • 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:10.3102/00346543076001093

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

  • 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).

  • 49. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • 50. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. In Organization, 7(2), (pp. 225-246).

  • 51. Wenger, E. (2012). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from

  • 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 Wenger_Trayner_DeLaat_Value_creation.pdf


Journal + Issues