Student evaluations of teaching: perceptions of faculty based on gender,position, and rank

The current study explores the feelings and thoughts that faculty have about their student evaluations of teaching (SET). To assess the perceptions of SETs, all teaching faculty in one college at a western Land Grant University were asked to complete an anonymous online survey. The survey included demographic questions (i.e. gender; rank such as assistant, associate, and full professor; and positions like non-tenure track, tenure track, and tenured) as well as questions related to faculty's feelings while reading their SETs. While minimal differences were found in responses based on rank or position, several differences were found based on faculty gender. Overall, female faculty appear to be more negatively impacted by student evaluations than male faculty. These gender differences support previous research that suggests males and females receive and react differently to personal evaluation. Resultant suggestions include modifying surveys from anonymous to confidential and offering professional development training for faculty.     

College Students' Evaluations of Teaching and Grade Inflation

Research in Higher Education - This study investigated the question: Has the use of student evaluations of teaching effectiveness been a contributing factor to a trend of grade inflation in a...     

Translating Comments on Student Evaluations into the Language of Learning

Written comments on student evaluations often seem idiosyncratic, lacking the power of numerical statistical data. These statements, however, may sometimes reveal intellectual challenges common to novice learners in our disciplines. Instructors can use these insights as part of a scholarly approach to teaching, making meaningful adjustments to future classes and informing curricular choices in productive ways. In this article we examine common student complaints in three particular situations: quantitative classes, writing-intensive courses, and classes taught using student-active formats. We discuss implications of these comments for faculty as they seek to promote students’ intellectual development. Linda C. Hodges is Director of the Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Center for Teaching and Learning at Princeton University. She received her B.S. in Chemistry from Centre College of Kentucky and her Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Kentucky. Her special interests include the scholarship of teaching and learning and faculty beliefs about teaching. Katherine Stanton, Assistant Director of the McGraw Center, received her B.A. from Swarthmore College and her M.A. and Ph.D. in English Literature from Rutgers University. Her pedagogical interests include course design and teaching the interpretative process.     

The Relationship Between Instructor Use of Different Types of Humor and Student Interest in Course Material

The goal of this study was to research the frequency of the use of diverse types of humor in the college classroom for a possible association with student interest in course material. This relationship was studied using quantitative methods. Participants answered questions about their interest in course material and the type of humor that their instructor used in the classroom. The study involved 195 undergraduate students ranging in age from 18 to 25. A factor analysis recognized two separate types of humor (relevant/appropriate and non-relevant). The study found that both relevant/appropriate humor and non-relevant humor predicted student interest. The more relevant/appropriate humor used the more student had interest in course materials. As well, the more non-relevant humor used the less students reported interest in course materials. No differences were found between the gender of students in the classroom when examining this question of humor and interest.     

Honesty on student evaluations of teaching: effectiveness,purpose, and timing matter!

Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are an important point of assessment for faculty in curriculum development, tenure and promotion decisions, and merit raises. Faculty members utilise SETs to gain feedback on their classes and, hopefully, improve them. The question of the validity of student responses on SETs is a continuing debate in higher education. The current study uses data from two universities (n = 596) to determine whether and under what conditions students are honest on in-class and online SETs, while also assessing their knowledge and attitudes about SETs. Findings reveal that, while students report a high level of honesty on SETs, they are more likely to be honest when they believe that evaluations effectively measure the quality of the course, the results improve teaching and benefit students rather than the administration, and when they are given at the end of the term. Honesty on evaluations is not associated with socio-demographic characteristics.     

Improving higher education practice through student evaluation systems: is the student voice being heard?

Many higher education institutions use student evaluation systems as a way of highlighting course and lecturer strengths and areas for improvement. Globally, the student voice has been increasing in volume, and capitalising on student feedback has been proposed as a means to benefit teacher professional development. This paper examines the student evaluations at a university in Trinidad and Tobago in an effort to determine whether the student voice is being heard. The research focused on students’ responses to the question, ‘How do you think this course could be improved?’ Student evaluations were gathered from five purposefully selected courses taught at the university during 2011–2012 and then again one year later, in 2012–2013. This allowed for an analysis of the selected courses. Whilst the literature suggested that student evaluation systems are a valuable aid to lecturer improvement, this research found little evidence that these evaluations actually led to any real significant changes in lecturers’ practice.     

Underlearning and Overlearning

Instructors often struggle to find the right balance of sternness and leniency with their students, especially in the beginning stages of their careers. An instructor who is too casual risks being overrun by students who do not take him or her seriously. The professor who is too strict might inadvertently thwart students’ creativity and stifle their potential success. The following commentary reflects my own journey to a balanced rapport with students in a university classroom setting. Over several years, my interactions with students have gone from overly formal to embarrassingly casual before finally settling somewhere in between. My experiences serve to help both novice as well as experienced educators hone their rapport with students to create an enriching classroom environment. Various studies have shown gains in student learning due to quality instructor/student relationships and the present commentary aims to aid instructors in finding a balanced and meaningful rapport with their students. In my endeavors, I have found a balance by showing students I can be an effective teacher while also showing them that I am human with a life outside of the classroom, just as they are.     

Are they paying attention? Students’ lack of motivation and attention potentially threaten the utility of course evaluations

Student evaluations are a common source of information used by instructors and administrators, but their utility depends on students’ motivation and attention. This paper presents evidence from two studies indicating that insufficient effort responding and lack of motivation may be problems in course evaluations. In the first study, approximately one in four students responded in an improbable way to ‘catch items’ embedded in actual course evaluation instruments, suggesting a lack of attention. In the second study, students’ responses to an online survey indicated that they doubted that their responses to course evaluations would be used by instructors or administrators. The majority of students admitted to only occasionally putting sufficient effort into their responses. Potential means for identifying insufficient effort responding and mechanisms for increasing student attention and motivation during the course evaluation process are discussed.     

Student evaluations of teaching: combining the meta-analyses and demonstrating further evidence for effective use

There is a plethora of research on student evaluations of teaching (SETs) regarding their validity, susceptibility to bias, practical use and effective implementation. Given that there is not one study summarising all these domains of research, a comprehensive overview of SETs was conducted by combining all prior meta-analyses related to SETs. Eleven meta-analyses were identified, and nine meta-analyses covering 193 studies were included in the analysis, which yielded a small-to-medium overall weighted mean effect size (r = .26) between SETs and the variables studied. Findings suggest that SETs appear to be valid, have practical use that is largely free from gender bias and are most effective when implemented with consultation strategies. Research, teaching and policy implications are discussed.     

The Distinguished Teacher

Five characteristics of distinguished teachers are discussed in the following article, which treats the subject in a fresh way. One thing distinguished teachers always achieve is the stimulation of intellectual curiosity among their students, according to the dean of liberal arts, Idaho State University (A.B., Alma College; M.A., Northwestern; Ph.D., Michigan State) whose specialty is English.     

“Top of the Mark”

The present study investigated differences in the effectiveness of instructors from a variety of departments who taught the same course in both intensive and traditional formats within the same year, while controlling for many confounding variables. Results indicated that intensive courses did not significantly differ from traditional courses in overall instructor ratings on student evaluations of teaching effectiveness when confounding variables were taken into account. Conversely, intensive courses received significantly higher overall course ratings on student evaluations than did traditional courses, even after controlling for class size and probable grade in course. These findings provide further evidence that negative beliefs concerning intensive courses may be unjustified, and intensive courses may be as or more effective than those presented in traditional formats.     

Correlations,trends and potential biases among publicly accessible web-based student evaluations of teaching: a large-scale study of RateMyProfessors.com data

Student evaluations of teaching are widely adopted across academic institutions, but there are many underlying trends and biases that can influence their interpretation. Publicly accessible web-based student evaluations of teaching are of particular relevance, due to their widespread use by students in the course selection process and the quantity of data available for analysis. In this study, data from the most popular of these websites, RateMyProfessors.com, is analysed for correlations between measures of instruction quality, easiness, physical attractiveness, discipline and gender. This study of 7,882,980 RateMyProfessors ratings (from 190,006 US professors with at least 20 student ratings) provides further insight into student perceptions of academic instruction and possible variables in student evaluations. Positive correlations were observed between ratings of instruction quality and easiness, as well as between instruction quality and attractiveness. On average, professors in science and engineering disciplines have lower ratings than in the humanities and arts. When looking at RateMyProfessors as a whole, the effect of a professor’s gender on rating criteria is small but statistically significant. When analysing the data as a function of discipline, however, the effects of gender are significantly more pronounced, albeit more complex. The potential implications are discussed.     

Electronic in-class course evaluations and future directions

This study sought to determine whether an evaluator conducting electronic course evaluations in person in a classroom increased response rates. At a large public university in the United States, course evaluations were being conducted electronically, attaining a response rate of <50% over several semesters. At the end of the Spring 2015 at this university, an evaluator entered several classrooms having a total enrollment of 273 students and guided students through the process of completing course evaluations using their mobile devices. A response rate of 78.4% was achieved. The process described in this study provides evidence that response rates can be increased in similar circumstances. In addition, several ways the technology described could be used in the future for course evaluation are discussed.     

Exit cards: creating a dialogue for continuous evaluation

This study explored the use of Exit Cards, which are formative evaluations of student knowledge and instruction undertaken at every class meeting. Its results are based on Exit Card data from two undergraduate research methods courses. Thematic analysis indicated that students used Exit Cards to communicate (1) what they learned, (2) challenges with course material, (3) experiences with peers, (4) requests for help, (5) challenges with coping, and (6) successes. While the present study is an initial exploration of the use of Exit Cards, it contributes to knowledge on the utilization of informal formative assessments.     

The Relative Merits of Different Types of Overall Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness

An unresolved issue in student evaluations of teaching effectiveness (SETE) literature is what type of overall evaluation of teaching effectiveness should be used in personnel decisions. The objective of this study is to compare the merits of: (a) an overall evaluation made by students, (b) a weighted average overall evaluation with the weights determined by students, (c) a weighted average overall evaluation with the weights being determined by the individual instructors teaching their respective classes, (d) an unweighted average overall evaluation, and (e) a second-order factor that proxies for an overall evaluation. Our results indicate that: (a) all of these overall evaluations were very highly intercorrelated, (b) the unweighted and weighted average overall evaluations measured virtually the same thing, and (c) the second-order factor that served as an overall evaluation was most highly correlated with the other overall evaluations and had the advantage of being most understandable to the faculty.     

PowerPoint slide provision and student performance: the moderating roles of self-efficacy and gender

Research on the pedagogical value of providing students with PowerPoint (PPT) slide handouts has produced mixed results. One reason for the inconsistent findings may be that most studies in this stream of research have neglected to examine individual differences. In the current study, we aimed to advance research on the pedagogical value of providing students with access to PPT slide handouts by examining whether self-efficacy and gender influence the effect of PPT slide provision on academic performance. We found no evidence to suggest that the provision of slide handouts has broad, unconditional pedagogical value. Instead, we found that both self-efficacy and gender moderated the extent to which the availability of the handouts enhanced or hindered students’ performance. As predicted, both students high on self-efficacy and males performed significantly better when they were provided with handouts. Conversely, students low on self-efficacy performed significantly worse when the handouts were provided. Female students also trended toward lower performance when the handouts were provided. Additionally, we found that students who were provided with PPT handouts perceived their instructor as more effective, and that this relation was mediated by students’ feeling of preparation. Finally, students also considered the provision of PPT handouts more valuable to their learning and course performance than one-to-one interactions with the professor. Implications for research and practice are discussed.     

Expectancy violation and student rating of instruction

This study examined whether violations that are incongruent with student expectations are significantly different than congruent violations of expectancy in relation to student ratings of instruction. Analysis using the Scheffe' post ANOVA test revealed that college students having high expectations/high experiences evaluated teachers more favorably than students with low expectations/high experiences, low expectations/low experiences and high expectations/low experiences. Reasons why these findings did not coincide with the expectancy violation model are offered.     

How do we rate? An evaluation of online student evaluations

This paper analyses the popular RateMyProfessors (RMP) website where students evaluate instructors in higher education. A study was designed to measure (1) the awareness and utilisation of the RMP website, (2) the internal and external validity of the RMP ratings in measuring teaching effectiveness, and (3) variation in the above across disciplines. It is concluded that the category of ratings, created by the website, establishes an anti‐intellectual tone that manifests itself in comments about instructors’ personality, easiness of workload and entertainment value rather than knowledge attained.     

Student ratings of college teaching: a comparison of faculty and their students

Based on the review of student ratings myths by Aleamoni (1987, 1999), a survey research design was used to analyse differences between college students' (n = 968) and faculty's (n = 34) perceptions. Generally, students held stronger beliefs in these myths, in that they believed faculty with excellent publication records were better qualified to evaluate teaching and that student ratings on single general items are accurate measures of teaching effectiveness. On the other hand, faculty believed that student ratings were invalid and unreliable. Further examination of student characteristics revealed that male students held stronger beliefs in these myths. Finally, students' beliefs in these myths were correlated with their actual ratings of nine dimensions of the Student Evaluation of Educational Quality. A discussion as well as suggestions for using student ratings is provided.     

RateMyProfessors.com offers biased evaluations

RateMyProfessors.com (RMP) is becoming an increasingly popular tool among students, faculty and school administrators. The validity of RMP is a point of debate; many would argue that self‐selection bias obscures the usefulness of RMP evaluations. In order to test this possibility, we collected three types of evaluations: RMP evaluations that existed at the beginning of our study, traditional in‐class evaluations and RMP evaluations that were prompted after we collected in‐class evaluations. We found differences in the types of evaluations students provide for their professors for both perceptions of professor clarity and ratings of professor easiness. Based on these results, conclusions drawn from RMP are suspect and indeed may offer a biased view of professors.