Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Using the margin of error statistic to examine the effects of aggregating student evaluations of teaching

We proposed an extended form of the Govindarajulu and Barnett margin of error (MOE) equation and used it with an analysis of variance experimental design to examine the effects of aggregating student evaluations of teaching (SET) ratings on the MOE statistic. The interpretative validity of SET ratings can be questioned when the number of students enrolled in a course is low or when the response rate is low. A possible method of improving interpretative validity is to aggregate SET ratings data from two or more courses taught by the same instructor. Based on non-parametric comparisons of the generated MOE, we found that aggregating course evaluation data from two courses reduced the MOE in most cases. However, significant improvement was only achieved when combining course evaluation data for the same instructor for the same course. Significance did not hold when combining data from different courses. We discuss the implications of our findings and provide recommendations for practice.     

Expectancy theory outcomes and student evaluations of teaching

As student evaluation of teaching (SET) instruments are increasingly administered online, research has found that the response rates have dropped significantly. Validity concerns have necessitated research that explores student motivation for completing SETs. This study uses Vroom's [(1964). Work and motivation (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons] expectancy theory to frame student focus group responses regarding their motivations for completing and not completing paper and online SETs. Results show that students consider the following outcomes when deciding whether to complete SETs: (a) course improvement, (b) appropriate instructor tenure and promotion, (c) accurate instructor ratings are available to students, (d) spending reasonable amount of time on SETs, (e) retaining anonymity, (f) avoiding social scrutiny, (g) earning points and releasing grades, and (h) being a good university citizen. Results show that the lower online response rate is largely due to students’ differing feelings of obligation in the 2 formats. Students also noted that in certain situations, students often answer SETs insincerely.     

Predicting student evaluations of teaching using decision tree analysis

Abstract

This study uses decision tree analysis to determine the most important variables that predict high overall teaching and course scores on a student evaluation of teaching (SET) instrument at a large public research university in the United States. Decision tree analysis is a more robust and intuitive approach for analysing and interpreting SET scores compared to more common parametric statistical approaches. Variables in this analysis included individual items on the SET instrument, self-reported student characteristics, course characteristics and instructor characteristics. The results show that items on the SET instrument that most directly address fundamental issues of teaching and learning, such as helping the student to better understand the course material, are most predictive of high overall teaching and course scores. SET items less directly related to student learning, such as those related to course grading policies, have little importance in predicting high overall teaching and course scores. Variables irrelevant to the construct, such as an instructor’s gender and race/ethnicity, were not predictive of high overall teaching and course scores. These findings provide evidence of criterion and discriminant validity, and show that high SET scores do not reflect student biases against an instructor’s gender or race/ethnicity.     

An empirical test of the validity of student evaluations of teaching made on RateMyProfessors.com

The present article examined the validity of public web‐based teaching evaluations by comparing the ratings on RateMyProfessors.com for 126 professors at Lander University to the institutionally administered student evaluations of teaching and actual average assigned GPAs for these same professors. Easiness website ratings were significantly positively correlated with actual assigned grades. Further, clarity and helpfulness website ratings were significantly positively correlated with student ratings of overall instructor excellence and overall course excellence on the institutionally administered IDEA forms. The results of this study offer preliminary support for the validity of the evaluations on RateMyProfessors.com.     

Academics' resistance to summative peer review of teaching: questionable rewards and the importance of student evaluations

This study draws from 30 semi-structured interviews with tenure-track faculty members in a research-intensive university to examine their lack of engagement in the summative peer review of teaching. Findings indicate that most academics in the study do not think peer review outcomes contribute meaningfully to decisions about career advancement and believe that, in comparison, student evaluation of teaching scores matter more. The findings suggest that faculty member resistance to summative peer reviews will persist unless academics are confident that the results will be seriously considered in decisions about tenure and promotion. This article also contends that senior administrators should provide further clarity about the purpose and use of peer review outcomes in high-stakes career decisions.     

Bias hypotheses under scrutiny: investigating the validity of student assessment of university teaching by means of external observer ratings

To advance the discussion on the validity of student evaluations of university teaching, student ratings of two teaching dimensions – student involvement and rapport – were compared with corresponding observer ratings. Seven potential bias variables were tested with regard to their impact on the students’ teaching assessment: three teacher characteristics (first impression, enthusiasm, humour) and four student characteristics (prior interest, expected grades, study experience, class attendance). Bias was defined as an impediment of the students’ assessment of teaching on course level. By means of bivariate correlations with course averages and two-level latent moderated structural equations, data of 1,716 students in 80 courses were analysed. Results showed that all three teacher characteristics were genuinely connected to rapport, and even explained variance of the student-rated variable when controlling for observer-rated rapport. The assessment of student involvement was not modified by the teacher characteristics except for teacher enthusiasm, which affected the student evaluation when controlling for observed involvement and, moreover, moderated the relation between the observed and the student-rated variable. For the examined student characteristics, no biasing effects were found – neither on rapport nor on student involvement.     

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.     

Acquiescence,instructor’s gender bias and validity of student evaluation of teaching

Abstract

The validity of student evaluation of teaching (SET) scores depends on minimum effect of extraneous response processes or biases. A bias may increase or decrease scores and change the relationship with other variables. In contrast, SET literature defines bias as an irrelevant variable correlated with SET scores, and among many, a relevant biasing factor in literature is the instructor’s gender. The study examines the extent to which acquiescence, the tendency to endorse the highest response option across items and bias in the first sense affects students’ responses to a SET rating scale. The study also explores how acquiescence affects the difference in teaching quality (TQ) by instructor’s gender, a bias in the latter sense. SET data collected at a faculty of education in Ontario, Canada were analysed using the Rasch rating scale model. Findings provide empirical support for acquiescence affecting students’ responses. Latent regression analyses show how acquiescence reduces the difference in TQ by instructor’s gender. Findings encourage greater attention to the response process quality as a way to better defend the utility of SET and prevent potentially misleading conclusions from the analysis of SET data.     

Maximising resource allocation in the teaching laboratory: understanding student evaluations of teaching assistants in a team-based teaching format

Minimal research papers have investigated the use of student evaluations on the laboratory, a learning medium usually run by teaching assistants with little control of the content, delivery and equipment. Finding the right mix of teaching assistants for the laboratory can be an onerous task due to the many skills required including theoretical and practical know-how, troubleshooting, safety and class management. Using larger classes with multiple teaching assistants, a team-based teaching (TBT) format may be advantageous. A rigorous three-year study across twenty-five courses over repetitive laboratory classes is analysed using a multi-level statistical model considering students, laboratory classes and courses. The study is used to investigate the effectiveness of the TBT format, and quantify the influence each demonstrator has on the laboratory experience. The study found that TBT is effective and the lead demonstrator most influential, influencing up to 55% of the laboratory experience evaluation.     

Framing student evaluations of university learning and teaching: discursive strategies and textual outcomes

Evaluation in higher education is an evolving social practice; that is, it involves what people, institutions and broader systems do and say, how they do and say it, what they value, the effects of these practices and values, and how meanings are ascribed. The textual products (verbal, written, visual and gestural) that inform and are produced by, for and through evaluative practices are important, as they promulgate particular kinds of meanings and values in specific contexts. This paper reports on an exploratory study that sought to investigate, using discourse analysis, the types of evaluative practices that were ascribed value, and the student responses that ensued, in different evaluative instruments. Findings indicate that when a reflective approach is taken to evaluation, students’ responses are more considered, they interrogate their own engagement in the learning context and they are more likely to demonstrate reconstructive thought. These findings have implications for reframing evaluation as reflective learning.     

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.     

Relationship of changes in student motivation to student evaluations of instruction

Research has demonstrated that student evaluations of instruction are influenced by variables extraneous to the instructional procedures being evaluated. One of the most important of these is the student's motivation to take the course. The Instructional Development and Effectiveness Assessment (IDEA) system controls this variable by comparing a course evaluation to a norm group of courses having students with similar motivation. The present study examined the possibility that the IDEA procedure of having students rate their precourse motivation at theend of a course might be unacceptable, because the rating would be influenced by experiences within the course itself. The data indicated that postcourse ratings of precourse motivation do deviate somewhat from actual precourse ratings, but the deviation is not of an order of magnitude which would seriously distort the interpretation of the ratings.     

Stability and correlates of student evaluations of teaching at a Chinese university

This paper examines the stability and validity of a student evaluations of teaching (SET) instrument used by the administration at a university in the PR China. The SET scores for two semesters of courses taught by 435 teachers were collected. Total 388 teachers (170 males and 218 females) were also invited to fill out the 60‐item NEO Five‐Factor Inventory together with a demographic information questionnaire. The SET responses were found to have very high internal consistency and confirmatory factor analysis supported a one‐factor solution. The SET re‐test correlations were .62 for both the teachers who taught the same course (n = 234) and those who taught a different course in the second semester (n = 201). Linguistics teachers received higher SET scores than either social science or humanities or science and technology teachers. Student ratings were significantly related to Neuroticism and Extraversion. Regression results showed that the Big‐Five personality traits as a group explained only 2.6% of the total variance of student ratings and academic discipline explained 12.7% of the total variance of student ratings. Overall the stability and validity of SET was supported and future uses of SET scores in the PR China are discussed.     

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.     

Student evaluation of teaching and matters of reliability

The student evaluation of teaching process is generally thought to produce reliable results. The consistency is found within class and instructor averages, while a considerable amount of inconsistency exists with individual student responses. This paper reviews these issues along with a detailed examination of common measures of reliability that are utilised with the instruments. While inter-item consistency of the evaluations has been shown to be high, the agreement between students was shown to be no better than what would be expected by chance, indicating that students do not agree on what they are being asked to evaluate. The reliability measures generated by the student evaluations of teaching are an insufficient foundation for establishing validity. Further, the pattern of reliability indicates that the instruments are generally providing information about students, not instructors.     

Assessing the reliability of student evaluations of teaching: choosing the right coefficient

Many of the studies used to support the claim that student evaluations of teaching are reliable measures of teaching effectiveness have frequently calculated inappropriate reliability coefficients. This paper points to three coefficients that would be appropriate depending on if student evaluations were used for formative or summative purposes. Results from the present study indicated that students had very low absolute inter-rater reliability, but somewhat higher consistency inter-rater reliability.     

Exploring the impact of faculty reflection on weekly student evaluations of teaching

This exploratory study considered Larrivee’s assessment of teachers’ reflective practice levels by using a formative, weekly, online student evaluation of teaching (SET) tool through a virtual learning environment (VLE) as a means to encourage reflective practice. In‐depth interviews were conducted with six faculty members in three departments at a university college in the UK. The study found that: (a) faculty who experienced surface‐level reflection were more likely to have a reactive reflection style; and (b) faculty who experienced higher levels of reflection were more likely to have a proactive reflection style. Overall, the tool was found to be an efficient means of encouraging reflection by all participants and demonstrated that reflective practice could come about as a result of these weekly formative SETs. The study concludes with suggestions for academic development and future research on reflection that could be conducted using SETs via a VLE.     

Understanding student evaluations of teaching in online learning

In this paper, we have developed a classification model for online learning environments that relates the Instructors Overall Performance (IOP) rating (according to students’ perceptions) with the course characteristics, students’ demographics and the effectiveness of the instructor in his/her teaching roles. To that end, a comprehensive Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) instrument is proposed, which includes not only conventional teaching elements, but also items that encourage twenty-first century skills. The goal of the study is twofold: (i) to quantify the extent to which the selected variables explain the IOP rating, and (ii) determine which teaching and non-teaching variables most affect the IOP rating. The best performing classifier achieved a competitive accuracy, highlighting that the selected variables mainly determine the IOP values. Other important findings include: (i) the IOP value is mainly influenced by the effectiveness of the instructor in his/her teaching roles; (ii) teaching strategies that involve the cooperation between the technical and pedagogical roles should be promoted; (iii) the pedagogical role has the highest impact on the final IOP value; and (iv) the most influential demographic variable is the student’s status (working commitments and family responsibilities).     

The performance of a student evaluation of teaching system

Student evaluation of teaching (SET) is now commonplace in many universities internationally. While much effort has been devoted to examining the statistical validity of SET instruments, there has been limited examination of the methodological and consequential validity (together referred to as ‘utility’) of the ways in which SET data are used. This paper examines the SET system at Deakin University from the perspective of utility. It draws on publicly available SET results for an entire annual cycle of unit offerings. Consideration is given to the representativeness of the data produced, and to the utility of the data reported, by the system. While this investigation focuses on the SET system currently employed at Deakin University, it offers both an analysis methodology and conclusions that can be applied more generally.