No abstract

The crucial variable seems to be not so much the size as the effectiveness of the instructor in the class.

This study used a 2 X 2 X 2 factorial experiment to examine student satisfaction with eight processes of collecting student ratings of instruction by varying (a) method (group interviews vs. individual standardized rating forms), (b) timing (midterm vs. end of course), and (c) amount of instructor reaction to student ratings (restricted vs. extended). Consistent with predictions drawn from reactance and social comparison theories, students were more satisfied with interview methods at midterm followed by extended instructor reaction than with traditional approaches for collecting student opinions about instruction (i.e., standardized rating forms administered at the end of a course).Recently, attention has focused on broadening ways of evaluating teaching effectiveness. Researchers and practitioners have advocated a variety of measures (Seldin, 1984) including colleague evaluation, faculty self-evaluation processes, videotape critiques, examination of course documents, and even qualitative case studies of instructor and classroom environments (Wulff & Nyquist, 1986). Most instructional development specialists, most university administrators, and many instructors remain committed, however, to including student opinion as an important aspect of such evaluation. Numerous studies support the use of students as sources of data about teaching effectiveness (Braskamp, Brandenburg, & Ory, 1984;Marsh, 1984), and student opinion (collected primarily by the use of end-of-course, standardized studentrating forms) continues to be a major source of evaluation of faculty effectiveness in institutions of higher education (Seldin, 1984).The emphasis by these institutions on the use of standardized student ratings sometimes requires that students fill out the same form on every instructor at the end of every course. This practice results in numerous complaints from students about the frequency with which the assessments are requested, the method of evaluation, and the degree to which students perceive that faculty make changes in their courses on the basis of student opinion.

More research on training strategies is needed to inform the practices of TA training.