ERIC Number: ED233638
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1981-Jun
Reference Count: 0
Educational Seduction: Implications for the Evaluation and Improvement of Teaching. Report #7.
Perry, Raymond P.
Issues pertaining to the validity of student ratings of teacher effectiveness, research on "educational seduction," and implications of the research for the evaluation and improvement of teaching are reviewed. Criteria that have been used to validate student ratings include student achievement, faculty ratings, self-ratings, research productivity, and teacher's educational background. The concept of educational seduction, also called the "Dr. Fox Effect," comes from the claim that an entertaining, charismatic instructor can receive favorable student ratings, while offering insufficient lecture content. To test this hypothesis, an experimental design is needed involving two independent variables (instructor expressiveness and lecture content) and two dependent variables (student ratings and achievement). Different research approaches are described, including those employed by Williams and Ware and by Perry, Abrami, and Leventhal. William and Ware argue that their research supports educational seduction, and that the effect can be generalized to classrooms in the field setting. Perry, Abrami, and Leventhal claim that the educational seduction effect is not supported by their empirical results. (SW)
Descriptors: Educational Research, Evaluation Criteria, Faculty Evaluation, Higher Education, Instructional Improvement, Research Design, Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance, Teacher Behavior, Teacher Effectiveness, Teaching Styles
Centre for the Improvement of Teaching and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Education, Vancouver, British Columbia ($2.00 Canadian).
Publication Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers; Information Analyses
Education Level: N/A
Audience: Researchers; Practitioners
Authoring Institution: British Columbia Univ., Vancouver. Centre for the Improvement of Teaching and Evaluation.
Note: Paper presented at a colloquium sponsored by the Standing Committee on Teaching and the Center for the Improvement of Teaching and Evaluation, University of British Columbia (Vancouver, British Columbia, March 1981).