In contrast to the large volume of research that examines university teaching quality, there is a considerable shortage of studies, both theoretical and empirical, on the setting in which faculty members carry out their teaching and research duties. The present investigation attempts to partially fill this vacuum by providing an analysis of the reliability, dimensionality, and transituational in-variance of the Academic Setting Evaluation Questionnaire (ASEQ). This instrument was administered to two representative samples of Madrid Complutense University faculty members. Three dimensions emerged: (a) Satisfaction with Working Conditions, (b) Social Climate, and (c) Relationship with Students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrami, P. C. , D'Apollonia, S., and Cohen, P. A. (1990). Validity of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 219-231.
2.
Baldwin, R. G. (1990). Faculty vitality beyond the research university. Extending a contextual concept. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 160-180.
3.
Bentley, R. and Blackburn, R. (1990). Changes in academic research performance over time: A study of institutional accumulative advantage. Research in Higher Education, 31, 327-353.
4.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum Press.
5.
Clark, S. M. and Lewis, D. R. (Eds.). (1985). Faculty vitality and institutional productivity: Critical perspectives for higher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
6.
Elton, L. (1986). Research and teaching: Symbiosis or conflict. Higher Education, 15, 299-304.
7.
Fairweather, J. S. (1989). Academic research and instruction. Journal of Higher Education, 60, 388-407.
8.
Fraser, B. J. and Treagust, D. F. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15, 37-57.
9.
Halpin, H. W. and Croft, D. B. (1963). Organizational climate of schools. Chicago: University of Chicago.
10.
Hill, M. D. (1987). A theoretical analysis of faculty job satisfaction/ dissatisfaction. Educational Research Quarterly, 10, 36-44.
11.
Jöreskog, K. J. and Sörbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI. Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least square methods. Mooresville, ID.: Scientific Software.
12.
Kremer, J. F. (1990). Construct validity of multiple measures in teaching, research, and service and reliability of peer ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 213-218.
13.
Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253-388.
14.
Miller, R. I. (1988). Merit pay in United States postsecondary institutions. Higher Education, 17, 219-232.
15.
Millman, J. (Ed.). (1981). Handbook of teacher evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA.: SAGE.
16.
Moses, I. (1986). Promotion of academic staff. Reward and incentive. Higher Education, 15, 135-149.
17.
Moses, I. (1990). Teaching, research and scholarship in different disciplines. Higher Education, 19, 351-375.
18.
Nussell, E. J. , Wiersma, W., and Rusche, P. J. (1988). Work satisfaction of education professors. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 45-50.
19.
Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies. Personnel Research Section Report No. 984. Washing- ton, DC: Department of the Army.
20.
Wrigley, C. S. and Neuhaus, J. 0. (1955). The matching of two sets of factors. American Psychologist, 10, 418.
