Student ratings and various instructional variables from a within-instructor perspective

The relationship between class size, instructional method, course level, reason for enrollment, and student ratings of instruction was assessed from a within-instructor perspective. Two hundred fifty-four pairs of courses taught by the same instructor were correspondingly identified and subjected to a stepwise multiple regression procedure. Only class size was found to be a significant predictor of ratings once individual differences between instructors were controlled, hence underlining the importance of (1) taking cognizance of the size of the course when using student ratings of instructors as a measure of teaching effectiveness, and (2) controlling for systematic variation due to instructor idiosyncracies in instructional research.     

A path analysis of factors often found to be related to student ratings of teaching effectiveness

The relationships among several variables outside of the instructor's classroom control and student ratings of teaching effectiveness are investigated in a causal network. Student ratings are relatively independent of external variables. Students may be able to take into account more factors than generally assumed when they rate their instructors.     

Identification of skills for the problem-based tutor: Student and faculty perspectives

Student ratings of problem-based tutors at Harvard Medical School in 1987–1988 indicated that tutors were seen by first year students as most helpful in encouraging critical appraisal of information, questioning and probing the reasoning process, and balancing basic science and clinical discussions. Narrative comments about the best tutors further indicated that such tutors were most helpful in balancing student-directedness with guidance and sharing professional expertise without lecturing. A concurrent survey of faculty tutors indicated that tutors rated these same skills as important. Comparing students' ratings of helpfulness with tutors' ratings of importance, two discrepancies emerged. Tutors rated student direction as more important than students rated its helpfulness. On the other hand, tutors rated the ability to balance clinical and basic science discussion as the least important skill while students' ratings indicated that it was extremely helpful. These disparities suggest points of discussion and skill building for faculty development programming.     

The significance of circumstances for college students' ratings of their teachers and courses

Although firm generalizations and conclusions cannot yet be drawn from the extant research on the effects on teacher and course ratings of the circumstances surrounding these evaluations, at least some studies have shown that college students' ratings of their teachers and courses are somewhat higher when students remain anonymous rather than identifying themselves, when the purported use of the ratings is an official or administrative one for use in salary, promotion, or tenure considerations rather than otherwise, and when the instructor is present rather than absent during the rating session. (The differences between each of these contrasted circumstances are usually rather small and do not inevitably appear across studies.) Certain variations in rating format have been found to make a difference in the ratings obtained, whereas other have not. From limited evidence, the exact timing (or occasion) of evaluation appears not to be important to ratings. Variability in sampling procedures, as it affects the composition of students available to complete rating forms, may or may not turn out to be a generally important element in ratings (as directly relevant data are collected). The analysis concludes with a discussion of (1) the presumed bias in ratings produced in certain of the rating conditions and (2) the more general issue of the comparability of ratings made in different circumstances of evaluation.     

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.     

Investigating substantive and consequential validity of student ratings of instruction

This study aimed at exploring faculty and student perspectives on student evaluations, as well as identifying their perceptions of the usefulness and appropriateness of the ratings for evaluating teaching effectiveness. More specifically, the study aimed at identifying the consequences, both intended and unintended, of using the evaluations, in addition to better understanding the process students used in responding to evaluations and what use faculty members made of them. Two surveys were developed and placed on the website of the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. Emails were sent to all students and faculty participating in evaluations soliciting their cooperation and requesting their input. Faculty and student perceptions were compared qualitatively and statistically. Results revealed that students and faculty believe in the effectiveness and usefulness of the system with the need to overcome some negative consequences and biases inherent in its application at the University. Recommendations for system improvement are provided.     

Student ratings of instruction: Validity and normative interpretations

Using 3,355 class section means, the relationship between six predictor variables and student ratings of instruction (CEQ) was investigated by computing the intercorrelation matrix among all variables and by performing several regression analyses. Results of the study indicated that all linear interactions were negligible and that more than one-fourth of the criterion variance was shared with all the predictor variables. Two predictor variables, expected grade and required-elective, provided extremely large contributions to the prediction of the criterion measure, however. Implications of the validity results with respect to normative data and thus to the administrative use of the ratings were illustrated.     

Regular Feedback from Student Ratings of Instruction: Do College Teachers Improve their Ratings in the Long Run?

The authors examined whether feedback from student ratings of instruction not augmented with consultation helps college teachers to improve their student ratings on a long-term basis. The study reported was conducted in an institution where no previous teaching-effectiveness evaluations had taken place. At the end of each of four consecutive semesters, student ratings were assessed and teachers were provided with feedback. Data from 3122 questionnaires evaluating 12 teachers were analyzed using polynomial and piecewise random coefficient models. Results revealed that student ratings increased from the no-feedback baseline semester to the second semester and then gradually decreased from the second to the fourth semester, although feedback was provided after each semester. The findings suggest that student ratings not augmented with consultation are far less effective than typically assumed when considered from a long-term perspective.     

Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related

Student evaluation of teaching (SET) ratings are used to evaluate faculty's teaching effectiveness based on a widespread belief that students learn more from highly rated professors. The key evidence cited in support of this belief are meta-analyses of multisection studies showing small-to-moderate correlations between SET ratings and student achievement (e.g., Cohen, 1980, Cohen, 1981; Feldman, 1989). We re-analyzed previously published meta-analyses of the multisection studies and found that their findings were an artifact of small sample sized studies and publication bias. Whereas the small sample sized studies showed large and moderate correlation, the large sample sized studies showed no or only minimal correlation between SET ratings and learning. Our up-to-date meta-analysis of all multisection studies revealed no significant correlations between the SET ratings and learning. These findings suggest that institutions focused on student learning and career success may want to abandon SET ratings as a measure of faculty's teaching effectiveness.     

“学生评教”意欲何为

学生评教本应体现学校民主、以学生为本,促进教师专业成长。但在学校普遍实施的“学生评教”实践中,却并没有体现以学生为本、教师为本,而是以管理为本。管理主义单独以效率为中心的价值取向不仅影响教育组织目标的实现,而且管理主义中的人性假设与教育中的人性假设存在着很大的矛盾。“学生评教”应走出这种管理主义的误区,充分体现出高校管理的本质是为教育服务。     

A study of the validity of four types of student ratings of college teaching assessed on a criterion of student achievement gains

The purpose of the study was to investigate relationships between student ratings of college teaching using four types of student rating instruments and pre- vs. post-student achievement gains in 36 sections of an undergraduate analytic geometry and calculus course. Student rating instruments used varied according to type of items (high vs. low inference) and focus (students rating their own perceived growth vs. rating the instructor). Data were collected on 799 students (66% freshmen; 16% sophomore; and 15% juniors) at the University of Florida, and relationships were analyzed using the Pearson product-moment correlation technique. Significant relationships were not found between student ratings and student achievement.     

Good teaching: what matters to university students

Institutions assess teaching effectiveness in various ways, such as classroom observation, peer evaluation and self-assessment. In higher education, student feedback continues to be the main teaching evaluation tool. However, most of such forms include characteristics of good teaching that the institutions deem important and may not adequately reflect what students perceive to be good teaching. This study explored students' understandings of good teaching via a survey with students from two faculties at a Singapore university. Students were asked what characteristics they thought constituted the following categories of teaching: preparation and organization, knowledge, learning and thinking, enthusiasm and delivery. It was found that while distinct characteristics were highlighted for the first four categories, the last saw recurring characteristics of teacher attributes and teaching strategies. These two aspects weigh in significantly in the way students perceive whether the teacher is effective. The study has implications for teacher development programmes and the design of student evaluation forms for more accurate assessments of teacher ability and foci on areas of improvement. This study is potentially useful to teachers, as knowing the characteristics of teaching that matter to students could help teachers determine for themselves how to maintain or improve their performance in the classroom.     

The effects of feedback from students to university instructors: An experimental study

This article reports the results of an experimental study of the effects of students' evaluative feedback to university instructors. Data obtained indicated that feedback from students did not have any significant effects on the instructors' teaching performance and their perception of teaching. Some limitations of the study are discussed with suggestions for further exploration of the problem.     

The influence of students' values and educational attitudes on their evaluation of faculty

The study determined the influence of students' values and educational attitudes on their evaluation of faculty. Sixty-five graduate students completed an evaluation form, a value survey, and an attitude scale at the end of an adult learning theory course. Multiple regression and path analysis showed that (a) educational attitudes and selected values accounted for 27% of the variance in student evaluation of faculty, (b) educational attitudes were responsible for 8% of the variance in student evaluation of faculty, and (c) values per se were not significantly related to student evaluation of faculty. A path model suggested that values influenced student evaluation of faculty through educational attitudes. The findings suggested that students' values and attitudes play a major role in their evaluation of faculty and should be recognized by teachers when interpreting the results of such ratings.     

The (mis)interpretation of teaching evaluations by college faculty and administrators

Student evaluations of teaching are ubiquitous and impactful on the careers of college teachers. However, there is limited empirical research documenting the accuracy of people’s efforts in interpreting teaching evaluations. The current research consisted of three studies documenting the effect of small mean differences in teaching evaluations on judgements about teachers. Differences in means small enough to be within the margin of error significantly impacted faculty members’ assignment of merit-based rewards (Study 1), department heads’ evaluation of teaching techniques (Study 2) and faculty members’ evaluation of specific teaching skills (Study 3). The results suggest that faculty and administrators do not apply appropriate statistical principles when evaluating teaching evaluations and instead use a general heuristic that higher evaluations are better.     

Student perception of teaching effectiveness: development and validation of the Evaluation of Teaching Competencies Scale (ETCS)

A major criticism of student evaluations of teaching is that they do not reflect student perspectives. Using critical incidents job analysis, students identified nine teaching effectiveness competencies: communication, availability, creativity, individual consideration, social awareness, feedback, professionalism, conscientiousness and problem‐solving. The behaviourally anchored Evaluation of Teaching Competencies Scale is a highly reliable (alpha = .94), unidimensional measure that correlated strongly with an instructor‐related composite of the Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ, r = .72), but not to a SEEQ composite related to instructor assigned work (r = .04, N = 195). The results are discussed in the context of other measures of teaching effectiveness and transformational leadership theory.     

Student evaluations of teaching effectiveness: a Nigerian investigation

An investigation is reported which tests the applicability of two American instruments designed to assess tertiary students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness with 158 Nigerian undergraduates. The scales were found to have generally high internal consistency reliability coefficients, most of the items were seen to be appropriate, and every item was considered of importance by at least some of the students. In addition, all but the Workload/Difficulty items clearly differentiated between good and poor lecturers. Factor analysis found a strong main factor of teaching effectiveness plus a minor factor referring to course workload and difficulty. Further analysis generally supported the convergent and discriminant validity of those scales hypothesized to measure similar or dissimilar components of effective teaching. However, this analysis supported the factor analytic results as more overlap between aspects of teaching skill and enthusiasm was found than has been evident in Western studies. Thus there must be doubt about the cross-cultural validity of a multidimensional model of teaching effectiveness.     

熵值距离的离群点检测及其在学生评教中的应用

离群数据检测是找出与正常数据不一致的数据。学生评教中由于某种原因,会出现一些评教噪声数据。针对学生评教中噪声数据的特征,提出了一个基于熵值距离的离群点检测算法,该算法通过比较每个数据点所对应的熵值和整个数据集的熵值,来判断数据点的离群程度。仿真结果表明该算法对学生评教中出现的噪声数据具有较好的过滤效果。     

高校学生评教探析

学生评教在实际的教学过程中发挥着积极的作用。本文论述了学生评教的内涵、作用与功能、学生评教应遵循的原则及应注意的事项。